Objectives Developing disease modifying therapies for Parkinson’s disease (PD) calls for outcome measurement strategies focused on characterizing early stage disease progression. We explored the psychometric evidence for using the Movement Disorder Society Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale (MDS-UPDRS) part II (patient motor experience of daily living) and part III (clinician motor examination) in this context. Methods MDS-UPDRS-II and -III data were collected at screening, month 12, and month 24 from 384 early stage PD patients (diagnosis ≤ 2 years; Hoehn and Yahr stage 1/2) in the Parkinson’s Progression Markers Initiative (PPMI) study. Psychometric analysis, based on Rasch measurement theory (RMT), was performed on both the original MDS UPDRS-II and -III scales and exploratory content-driven scale structures. Results RMT analyses showed neither scale was well targeted to early PD. A marked floor effect appeared for most items and a clear item gap was consistently observed in very mild severity of motor signs and levels of motor impact. The original MDS-UPDRS-II and -III scales also displayed disordered thresholds (9/13 and 20/33 items, respectively), indicating response scales not functioning as expected, and misfit (5/13 and 12/33 items, respectively), flagging areas for potential improvement. Conclusions The MDS-UPDRS-II and -III have psychometric limitations which limits the precision of measurement of motor symptoms and impact in early PD. This can lead to insensitivity in detecting differences and clinical change. Importantly, the diagnostic psychometric evidence provided by the RMT analysis provides a clear starting point for how to improve the quantification of clinically relevant concepts to characterize the course of early PD. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00415-019-09348-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

IMPORTANCEThe benefit of high-dose dexamethasone and oxygenation strategies vs standard of care for patients with severe acute hypoxemic respiratory failure (AHRF) caused by COVID-19 pneumonia is debated.OBJECTIVES To assess the benefit of high-dose dexamethasone compared with standard of care dexamethasone, and to assess the benefit of high-flow nasal oxygen (HFNO 2 ) or continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) compared with oxygen support standard of care (O 2 SC). DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTSThis multicenter, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial was conducted in 19 intensive care units (ICUs) in France from April 2020 to January 2021. Eligible patients were consecutive ICU-admitted adults with COVID-19 AHRF. Randomization used a 2 × 3 factorial design for dexamethasone and oxygenation strategies; patients not eligible for at least 1 oxygenation strategy and/or already receiving invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) were only randomized for dexamethasone. All patients were followed-up for 60 days. Data were analyzed from May 26 to July 31, 2021.INTERVENTIONS Patients received standard dexamethasone (dexamethasone-phosphate 6 mg/d for 10 days [or placebo prior to RECOVERY trial results communication]) or high-dose dexamethasone (dexamethasone-phosphate 20 mg/d on days 1-5 then 10 mg/d on days 6-10). Those not requiring IMV were additionally randomized to O 2 SC, CPAP, or HFNO 2 . MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe main outcomes were time to all-cause mortality, assessed at day 60, for the dexamethasone interventions, and time to IMV requirement, assessed at day 28, for the oxygenation interventions. Differences between intervention groups were calculated using proportional Cox models and expressed as hazard ratios (HRs). RESULTS Among 841 screened patients, 546 patients (median [IQR] age, years; 414 [75.8%] men) were randomized between standard dexamethasone (276 patients, including 37 patients who received placebo) or high-dose dexamethasone (270 patients). Of these, 333 patients were randomized among O 2 SC (109 patients, including 56 receiving standard dexamethasone), CPAP (109 patients, including 57 receiving standard dexamethasone), and HFNO 2 (115 patients, including 56 receiving standard dexamethasone). There was no difference in 60-day mortality between standard and high-dose dexamethasone groups (HR, 0.96 [95% CI, 0.69-1.33]; P = .79). There was no significant difference for the cumulative incidence of IMV criteria at day 28 among O 2 support groups (O 2 SC vs CPAP: HR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.71-1.63]; O 2 SC vs HFNO 2 : HR, 1.04 [95% CI, 0.69-1.55]) or 60-day mortality (O 2 SC vs CPAP: HR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.58-1.61; O 2 SC vs HFNO 2 : HR, 0.89 [95% CI,). Interactions between interventions were not significant. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEIn this randomized clinical trial among ICU patients with COVID-19-related AHRF, high-dose dexamethasone did not significantly improve 60-day survival. The oxygenation strategies in patients who were not initially receiving IMV did not significantly modify 28-day risk of...

These findings demonstrate clinically meaningful, transitory HRQoL decrements with VMP and relatively lower HRQoL vs. MP during early treatment cycles, associated with the expected additional toxicities. However, HRQoL is not compromised in the long term, recovering by the end-of-treatment visit to be comparable vs. MP.

BackgroundThe Living with Pulmonary Hypertension questionnaire (LPH) was adapted from the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire for use in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). Study objectives were to confirm the face and content validity, to assess the structure and psychometric properties, and provide guidance for the interpretation of the LPH.MethodsA qualitative interview study was conducted with PAH patients in the US (n=12), Germany (n=14) and France (n=12) to evaluate the face and content validity of the LPH. Psychometric validation was performed using blinded data from a double blind, Phase III, clinical trial (n=196). Validation analyses were performed on baseline and week 12 (visit 6/last visit) data and included evaluation of: item response distributions, quality of completion, construct validity, reliability, clinical validity and responsiveness. Analyses to provide an estimation of the Minimal Important Difference (MID) for the LPH scores were performed.ResultsCognitive debriefing interviews with 38 PAH patients indicated that the most commonly reported PAH symptoms and impacts are covered by LPH items. Patients found the LPH questionnaire relevant and comprehensive to their experience. Some suggestions were made to enhance the face validity of the LPH. The content validity of the questionnaire was supported. Results of the psychometric validation analyses (n=190) indicated that the LPH Emotional and Physical scores met the criteria for convergent and discriminant validity; for the total score all but two items met the test for item convergent validity. Internal consistency reliability was demonstrated by Cronbach’s alpha values of >0.70 for all LPH scores. The LPH Physical and Total scores discriminated between World Health Organisation (WHO) Functional classes and 6 Minute walk test distances, indicating clinical validity and were also responsive to change in clinical severity, as measured by change in WHO functional class and Borg CR 10 Scale. Further investigation is required to confirm the responsiveness of the Emotional score. Estimation of MID using distribution-based methods indicated a change of 3 points for the sub-scales and 7 for the total score to be clinically meaningful.ConclusionThe LPH is a valid and reliable instrument that meets FDA criteria.

This descriptive, cross‐sectional analysis evaluated the impact of baseline characteristics on health‐related quality of life (HR‐QoL) at different stages of multiple myeloma (MM). The bortezomib clinical‐trial programme evaluated HR‐QoL early and consistently, producing a large multi‐study dataset. Baseline data, captured using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) quality‐of‐life questionnaire (QLQ‐C30), were pooled from six bortezomib randomized trials conducted in different disease‐stage categories: ‘New’ (previously untreated; n = 753), ‘Early’ (1–3 prior therapies; n = 1569) and ‘Late’ (≥4 prior therapies; n = 239) disease. Mean EORTC global health scores were similar across the three stages. Unexpectedly, emotional, physical and role functioning were higher in the later stages, indicating better perceived health. Symptom scores, including pain, were largely similar or lower in the later versus earlier stages, signifying a lower symptom burden/better symptom control with more advanced disease. Notable variation in HR‐QoL was observed by age and clinical parameters within and across stages. Multivariate modelling indicated that opioid use and performance status were key factors driving overall HR‐QoL across stages. Using an age‐restricted analysis, transplant eligibility had little impact on HR‐QoL in New disease patients. Thus, changes in HR‐QoL over the treatment course of MM are complex and impacted by baseline factors. A prospective observational international inception cohort study that captures key clinical, HR‐QoL and demographic characteristics, along with safety and supportive care information, is needed.