AD is associated with a substantial humanistic burden that is similar in magnitude to that of psoriasis, which is also recognized for its debilitating symptoms, indicating the need for more effective treatments for AD.
Background: Chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP) negatively affects health-related quality of life (HRQoL). In a previously reported randomized clinical trial (NCT01920893), addition of dupilumab to mometasone furoate in patients with CRSwNP refractory to intranasal corticosteroids (INCS) significantly improved endoscopic, radiographic, and clinical endpoints and patient-reported outcomes. The objective of this analysis was to examine the impact of dupilumab treatment on HRQoL and productivity using secondary outcome data from this trial. Methods: Following a 4-week mometasone furoate nasal spray run-in, patients were randomized to commence subcutaneous dupilumab (600 mg loading dose, then 300 mg once weekly for 15 weeks [n = 30], or matched placebo [n = 30]). Outcomes included scores on the CRS disease severity visual analog scale (VAS), 22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22), 5-dimension EuroQoL (EQ-5D) general health status VAS, and 36-item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) for HRQoL and nasal polyp-related healthcare resource use questionnaires. Results: Following 16 weeks of treatment, the proportion of patients with moderate-to-severe CRSwNP (VAS > 3-10) decreased from 86.2% to 21.4% with dupilumab and 88.0% to 84.2% with placebo. Dupilumab (vs placebo) resulted in significantly greater improvement in HRQoL, based on SNOT-22, SF-36, and EQ-5D VAS scores. The dupilumab group had a significantly lower adjusted annualized mean number of sick leave days (0.09, vs 4.18 with placebo, P = .015) and significantly greater improvement (vs placebo) in the SNOT-22 item "reduced productivity." Conclusions: In adults with CRSwNP refractory to treatment with INCS alone, the addition of dupilumab reduced disease severity, significantly improved HRQoL, and improved productivity.
Objectives: The Atopic Dermatitis Control Tool (ADCT) was designed to evaluate patient-perceived AD control and facilitate patient-physician discussion on long-term disease control. Methods: The study was performed in adult patients with AD. Development of the ADCT followed US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Qualitative research, including targeted literature review, interviews with clinical experts, and combined concept elicitation/cognitive debriefing with patients with AD, was conducted to provide a list of comprehensive concepts capturing AD control per physician and patient perspectives. Quantitative methods assessed psychometric properties of the instrument and defined the threshold for AD control. Results: The resulting pilot six-item ADCT, reflecting key concepts related to AD control, had 7-day recall and assessed symptoms and impacts on patients' everyday lives by severity and/or frequency. The ADCT showed good content validity (well understood by adult patients with AD), and quick completion time (<2 min). Psychometric analysis indicated no floor/ceiling effects for response distributions, particularly strong (r ! 0.80) inter-item correlations for the six ADCT items, robust construct validity (r > 0.50), and item-level discriminating ability (p < .03); this supported the derivation of a total score based on responses to all items. ADCT total score showed evidence of strong internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha >0.80). A score !7 points was identified as an optimum threshold to identify patients whose AD is "not in control." Conclusions: No single validated instrument has been available to holistically evaluate patient-perceived AD control. The newly developed ADCT displays good-to-excellent content validity, construct validity, internal consistency, reliability, and discriminating ability.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.