Elizabeth D. Bacci

Evaluating preferences for profiles of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists among injection-naive type 2 diabetes patients in Japan.

Objective The objective of this study was to use a discrete choice experiment (DCE) to estimate patients’ preferences for the treatment features, safety, and efficacy of two specific glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists, dulaglutide and liraglutide, among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) in Japan. Methods In Japan, patients with self-reported T2DM and naive to treatment with self-injectable medications were administered a DCE through an in-person interview. The DCE examined the following six attributes of T2DM treatment, each described by two levels: “dosing frequency”, “hemoglobin A1c change”, “weight change”, “type of delivery system”, “frequency of nausea”, and “frequency of hypoglycemia”. Part-worth utilities were estimated using logit models and were used to calculate the relative importance (RI) of each attribute. A chi-square test was used to determine the differences in preferences for the dulaglutide versus liraglutide profiles. Results The final evaluable sample consisted of 182 participants (mean age: 58.9 [standard deviation =10.0] years; 64.3% male; mean body mass index: 26.1 [standard deviation =5.0] kg/m2). The RI values for the attributes in rank order were dosing frequency (44.1%), type of delivery system (26.3%), frequency of nausea (15.1%), frequency of hypoglycemia (7.4%), weight change (6.2%), and hemoglobin A1c change (1.0%). Significantly more participants preferred the dulaglutide profile (94.5%) compared to the liraglutide profile (5.5%; P<0.0001). Conclusion This study elicited the preferences of Japanese T2DM patients for attributes and levels representing the actual characteristics of two existing glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists. In this comparison, dosing frequency and type of delivery system were the two most important characteristics, accounting for >70% of the RI. These findings are similar to those of a previous UK study, providing information about patients’ preferences that may be informative for patient–clinician treatment discussions.

A New Approach for Identifying Patients with Undiagnosed Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Rationale: Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is often unrecognized and untreated. Objectives: To develop a method for identifying undiagnosed COPD requiring treatment with currently available therapies (FEV1 <60% predicted and/or exacerbation risk). Methods: We conducted a multisite, cross‐sectional, case‐control study in U.S. pulmonary and primary care clinics that recruited subjects from primary care settings. Cases were patients with COPD and at least one exacerbation in the past year or FEV1 less than 60% of predicted without exacerbation in the past year. Control subjects were persons with no COPD or with mild COPD (FEV1 ≥60% predicted, no exacerbation in the past year). In random forests analyses, we identified the smallest set of questions plus peak expiratory flow (PEF) with optimal sensitivity (SN) and specificity (SP). Measurements and Main Results: PEF and spirometry were recorded in 186 cases and 160 control subjects. The mean (SD) age of the sample population was 62.7 (10.1) years; 55% were female; 86% were white; and 16% had never smoked. The mean FEV1 percent predicted for cases was 42.5% (14.2%); for control subjects, it was 82.5% (15.7%). A five‐item questionnaire, CAPTURE (COPD Assessment in Primary Care to Identify Undiagnosed Respiratory Disease and Exacerbation Risk), was used to assess exposure, breathing problems, tiring easily, and acute respiratory illnesses. CAPTURE exhibited an SN of 95.7% and an SP of 44.4% for differentiating cases from all control subjects, and an SN of 95.7% and an SP of 67.8% for differentiating cases from no‐COPD control subjects. The PEF (males, <350 L/min; females, <250 L/min) SN and SP were 88.0% and 77.5%, respectively, for differentiating cases from all control subjects, and they were 88.0% and 90.8%, respectively, for distinguishing cases from no‐COPD control subjects. The CAPTURE plus PEF exhibited improved SN and SP for all cases versus all control subjects (89.7% and 78.1%, respectively) and for all cases versus no‐COPD control subjects (89.7% and 93.1%, respectively). Conclusions: CAPTURE with PEF can identify patients with COPD who would benefit from currently available therapy and require further diagnostic evaluation. Clinical trial registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01880177).

Identifying cases of undiagnosed, clinically significant COPD in primary care: Qualitative insight from patients in the target population

Background:Many cases of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) are diagnosed only after significant loss of lung function or during exacerbations.Aims:This study is part of a multi-method approach to develop a new screening instrument for identifying undiagnosed, clinically significant COPD in primary care.Methods:Subjects with varied histories of COPD diagnosis, risk factors and history of exacerbations were recruited through five US clinics (four pulmonary, one primary care). Phase I: Eight focus groups and six telephone interviews were conducted to elicit descriptions of risk factors for COPD, recent or historical acute respiratory events, and symptoms to inform the development of candidate items for the new questionnaire. Phase II: A new cohort of subjects participated in cognitive interviews to assess and modify candidate items. Two peak expiratory flow (PEF) devices (electronic, manual) were assessed for use in screening.Results:Of 77 subjects, 50 participated in Phase I and 27 in Phase II. Six themes informed item development: exposure (smoking, second-hand smoke); health history (family history of lung problems, recurrent chest infections); recent history of respiratory events (clinic visits, hospitalisations); symptoms (respiratory, non-respiratory); impact (activity limitations); and attribution (age, obesity). PEF devices were rated easy to use; electronic values were significantly higher than manual (P<0.0001). Revisions were made to the draft items on the basis of cognitive interviews.Conclusions:Forty-eight candidate items are ready for quantitative testing to select the best, smallest set of questions that, together with PEF, can efficiently identify patients in need of diagnostic evaluation for clinically significant COPD.

Performance of the inFLUenza Patient-Reported Outcome (FLU-PRO) diary in patients with influenza-like illness (ILI)

Background The inFLUenza Patient Reported Outcome (FLU-PRO) measure is a daily diary assessing signs/symptoms of influenza across six body systems: Nose, Throat, Eyes, Chest/Respiratory, Gastrointestinal, Body/Systemic, developed and tested in adults with influenza. Objectives This study tested the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of FLU-PRO scores in adults with influenza-like illness (ILI). Methods Data from the prospective, observational study used to develop and test the FLU-PRO in influenza virus positive patients were analyzed. Adults (≥18 years) presenting with influenza symptoms in outpatient settings in the US, UK, Mexico, and South America were enrolled, tested for influenza virus, and asked to complete the 37-item draft FLU-PRO daily for up to 14-days. Analyses were performed on data from patients testing negative. Reliability of the final, 32-item FLU-PRO was estimated using Cronbach’s alpha (α; Day 1) and intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC; 2-day reproducibility). Convergent and known-groups validity were assessed using patient global assessments of influenza severity (PGA). Patient report of return to usual health was used to assess responsiveness (Day 1–7). Results The analytical sample included 220 ILI patients (mean age = 39.3, 64.1% female, 88.6% white). Sixty-one (28%) were hospitalized at some point in their illness. Internal consistency reliability (α) of FLU-PRO Total score was 0.90 and ranged from 0.72–0.86 for domain scores. Reproducibility (Day 1–2) was 0.64 for Total, ranging from 0.46–0.78 for domain scores. Day 1 FLU-PRO scores correlated (≥0.30) with the PGA (except Gastrointestinal) and were significantly different across PGA severity groups (Total: F = 81.7, p<0.001; subscales: F = 6.9–62.2; p<0.01). Mean score improvements Day 1–7 were significantly greater in patients reporting return to usual health compared with those who did not (p<0.05, Total and subscales, except Gastrointestinal and Eyes). Conclusions Results suggest FLU-PRO scores are reliable, valid, and responsive in adults with influenza-like illness.

Reliability, Validity, and Responsiveness of InFLUenza Patient-Reported Outcome (FLU-PRO©) Scores in Influenza-Positive Patients

OBJECTIVES To assess the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of InFLUenza Patient-Reported Outcome (FLU-PRO©) scores for quantifying the presence and severity of influenza symptoms. METHODS An observational prospective cohort study of adults (≥18 years) with influenza-like illness in the United States, the United Kingdom, Mexico, and South America was conducted. Participants completed the 37-item draft FLU-PRO daily for up to 14 days. Item-level and factor analyses were used to remove items and determine factor structure. Reliability of the final tool was estimated using Cronbach α and intraclass correlation coefficients (2-day reliability). Convergent and known-groups validity and responsiveness were assessed using global assessments of influenza severity and return to usual health. RESULTS Of the 536 patients enrolled, 221 influenza-positive subjects comprised the analytical sample. The mean age of the patients was 40.7 years, 60.2% were women, and 59.7% were white. The final 32-item measure has six factors/domains (nose, throat, eyes, chest/respiratory, gastrointestinal, and body/systemic), with a higher order factor representing symptom severity overall (comparative fit index = 0.92; root mean square error of approximation = 0.06). Cronbach α was high (total = 0.92; domain range = 0.71-0.87); test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient, day 1-day 2) was 0.83 for total scores and 0.57 to 0.79 for domains. Day 1 FLU-PRO domain and total scores were moderately to highly correlated (≥0.30) with Patient Global Rating of Flu Severity (except nose and throat). Consistent with known-groups validity, scores differentiated severity groups on the basis of global rating (total: F = 57.2, P < 0.001; domains: F = 8.9-67.5, P < 0.001). Subjects reporting return to usual health showed significantly greater (P < 0.05) FLU-PRO score improvement by day 7 than did those who did not, suggesting score responsiveness. CONCLUSIONS Results suggest that FLU-PRO scores are reliable, valid, and responsive to change in influenza-positive adults.