BackgroundTo develop content validity of a comprehensive patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure following current best scientific methodology to standardize assessment of influenza (flu) symptoms in clinical research.MethodsStage I (Concept Elicitation): 1:1 telephone interviews with influenza-positive adults (≥18 years) in the US and Mexico within 7 days of diagnosis. Participants described symptom type, character, severity, and duration. Content analysis identified themes and developed the draft Flu-PRO instrument. Stage II (Cognitive Interviewing): The Flu-PRO was administered to a unique set of influenza-positive adults within 14 days of diagnosis; telephone interviews addressed completeness, respondent interpretation of items and ease of use.ResultsSamples: Stage I: N = 46 adults (16 US, 30 Mexico); mean (SD) age: 38 (19), 39 (14) years; % female: 56 %, 73 %; race: 69 % White, 97 % Mestizo. Stage II: N = 34 adults (12 US, 22 Mexico); age: 37 (14), 39 (11) years; % female: 50 %, 50 %; race: 58 % White, 100 % Mestizo. Symptoms: Symptoms identified by >50 %: coughing, weak or tired, throat symptoms, congestion, headache, weakness, sweating, chills, general discomfort, runny nose, chest (trouble breathing), difficulty sleeping, and body aches or pains. No new content was uncovered during Stage II; participants easily understood the instrument.ConclusionsResults show the 37-item Flu-PRO is a content valid measure of influenza symptoms in adults with a confirmed diagnosis of influenza. Research is underway to evaluate the suitability of the instrument for children and adolescents. This work can form the basis for future quantitative tests of reliability, validity, and responsiveness to evaluate the measurement properties of Flu-PRO for use in clinical trials and epidemiology studies.

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).

ObjectiveThe 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.MethodsIn 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.ResultsThe 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).ConclusionThis 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.

Objective Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) is a major cause of morbidity and mortality, yet research suggests this disease is greatly underdiagnosed. This literature review sought to summarize the most common and significant variables associated with case-finding or missed cases of COPD to inform more effective and efficient detection of high-risk COPD patients in primary care. Methods PubMed and EMBASE were searched for articles describing case-finding and epidemiologic research to detect or characterize new cases of COPD. International studies in primary and non-primary care settings, published in English from 2002–2014, were eligible for inclusion. Studies related to risk factors for development of COPD were excluded. Results Of the 33 studies identified and reviewed, 21 were case-finding or screening and 12 were epidemiological, including cross-sectional, longitudinal, and retrospective designs. A range of variables were identified within and across studies. Variables common to both screening and epidemiological studies included age, smoking status, and respiratory symptoms. Seven significant predictors from epidemiologic studies did not appear in screening tools. No studies targeted discovery of higher risk patients such as those with reduced lung function or risks for exacerbations. Conclusion Variables used to identify new cases of COPD or differentiate COPD cases and non-cases are wide- ranging, (from sociodemographic to self-reported health or health history variables), providing insight into important factors for case identification. Further research is underway to develop and test the best, smallest variable set that can be used as a screening tool to identify people with undiagnosed, high-risk COPD in primary care.

Results suggest that FLU-PRO scores are reliable, valid, and responsive to change in influenza-positive adults.