Search

Purpose: Score reproducibility is an important measurement property of fit-for-purpose patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. It is commonly assessed via test-retest reliability, and best evaluated with a stable participant sample, which can be challenging to identify in diseases with highly variable symptoms. To provide empirical evidence comparing the retrospective (patient global impression of change [PGIC]) and current state (patient global impression of severity [PGIS]) approaches to identifying a stable subgroup for test-retest analyses, 3 PRO Consortium working groups collected data using both items as anchor measures., Methods: The PGIS was completed on Day 1 and Day 8 + 3 for the depression and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) studies, and daily for the asthma study and compared between Day 3 and 10. The PGIC was completed on the final day in each study. Scores were compared using an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for participants who reported "no change" between timepoints for each anchor., Results: ICCs using the PGIS "no change" group were higher for depression (0.84 vs. 0.74), nighttime asthma (0.95 vs. 0.53) and daytime asthma (0.86 vs. 0.68) compared to the PGIC "no change" group. ICCs were similar for NSCLC (PGIS: 0.87; PGIC: 0.85)., Conclusion: When considering anchor measures to identify a stable subgroup for test-retest reliability analyses, current state anchors perform better than retrospective anchors. Researchers should carefully consider the type of anchor selected, the time period covered, and should ensure anchor content is consistent with the target measure concept, as well as inclusion of both current and retrospective anchor measures., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

BACKGROUND: Among patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) metastatic breast cancer (MBC), incidence of brain metastases (BMs) is relatively high and increasing. Despite the high unmet need for patients with HER2+ MBC and BMs, real-world data on treatment patterns and outcomes for these patients are limited. OBJECTIVE: To compare treatment patterns and overall survival (OS) among patients with HER2+ MBC with and without BMs in the United States. METHODS: This was a real-world retrospective cohort study in which adults diagnosed with HER2+ MBC between January 1, 2016, and May 31, 2019, were identified in the Flatiron Health electronic health records database. The cohort was stratified by presence of BMs at MBC diagnosis (baseline) and before the initiation of each line of therapy (LOT). Key outcomes were OS and systemic therapy/regimen used within each LOT. An adjusted Cox proportional hazards model was used to evaluate the impact of BMs on OS. RESULTS: Of 1,755 included patients, 173 (9.9%) had BMs at baseline. Trastuzumab+ pertuzumab-based regimens were the most common first- (n = 689, 44.3%) and second-line (n = 316, 35.3%) treatments for all patients. Among patients with BMs, trastuzumab emtansine was the most common third-line regimen (n = 18, 23.4%). Lapatinib-based regimens were used more frequently among patients with BMs but were used by less than 20% of patients with BMs within any LOT. Median OS was 22.3 and 37.3 months for patients with and without BMs at baseline, respectively. Patients with BMs had a higher risk of death compared with patients without BMs (HR, 3.2; 95% CI = 2.6-3.8). CONCLUSIONS: BMs are associated with an increased risk of mortality among patients with HER2+ MBC. Further studies are needed to evaluate the extent to which novel systemic therapies for HER2+ MBC address the unmet need among patients with BMs. DISCLOSURES: This study was funded by Seagen Inc. Andres Forero-Torres is an employee of and owns stock in Seagen Inc. Kendra DeBusk is an employee of Seagen Inc. and owns stock in Seagen Inc. and Roche. Andy Surinach and Yutong Liu are employees of Genesis Research, which received funding from Seagen Inc. in connection with this study. At the time of this study, Chimeka Ike was an employee of Seagen Inc. and owns stock in Seagen Inc. At the time of this study, Nicolas Lindegger was an employee of Seagen Inc., Seagen International GmbH, and owns stock in Seagen Inc. and Roche. At the time of this study, Naomi Schwartz was a paid consultant to Seagen Inc.; she currently is an employee of and owns stock in Seagen Inc.

Aim: To describe real-world treatment patterns/outcomes among patients with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Materials & methods: Real-world treatments and overall survival (OS) were evaluated among adult women diagnosed with HER2+ MBC, with and without brain metastases (BMs), between 1 June 2012 and  31 May 2018 using electronic medical records from the Definitive Oncology Dataset. Results: Among 372 patients, 69% initiated first-line trastuzumab plus pertuzumab-based therapy; many therapy combinations were utilized in the second- to fourth-line. During follow-up (median 24.8 months), 18% of patients died (22% with and 16% without BMs). Mean OS was shortest among patients with BMs at MBC diagnosis in the third- and fourth-line. Conclusion: OS was poor, and no clear standard of care was observed among patients with HER2+ MBC progressing on trastuzumab-based therapies.

Aim: A systematic literature review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in patients receiving therapy for HER2+ unresectable/metastatic breast cancer after ≥1 HER2-directed therapy was conducted to compare progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Methods: Hazard ratios (HRs) and relative differences from fractional polynomials (FPs) for PFS and OS were assessed by Bayesian network meta-analyses. Results: For PFS, surface under the cumulative rankogram (SUCRA) ranked tucatinib plus trastuzumab with capecitabine as highest in both HR and FP analyses, followed by T-DM1 monotherapy and neratinib plus capecitabine. For OS, SUCRA ranked tucatinib plus trastuzumab with capecitabine as highest in both HR and FP analyses, followed by pertuzumab plus trastuzumab with capecitabine and T-DM1 monotherapy, with similar scores. Conclusion: Tucatinib plus trastuzumab with capecitabine, and T-DM1 monotherapy, consistently showed improved PFS and OS versus lapatinib/trastuzumab plus capecitabine and non-targeted treatments.

Aim: Compare healthcare resource utilization and costs among patients with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer (MBC) with and without central nervous system (CNS) metastases. Methods: Retrospective matched cohort study using IQVIA's PharMetrics ® Plus claims database. Results: Patients with CNS metastases (n = 753) experienced more outpatient, emergency room and inpatient visits versus controls (n = 753; all p < 0.05). In the post-index year, median total all-cause healthcare costs were significantly higher among patients with CNS metastases versus controls ($112,402 vs $50,835; p < 0.0001); outpatient costs primarily drove the cost differential. Conclusion: More effective therapies are needed that improve clinical outcomes and reduce economic burden associated with CNS metastases in patients with HER2+ MBC.

Aims: In HER2CLIMB, tucatinib significantly improved progression-free and overall survival in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive (HER2+) metastatic breast cancer. We evaluated the impact of tucatinib on health-related quality of life (HR-QoL) in HER2CLIMB., Methods: Patients were randomised 2:1 to tucatinib or placebo combined with trastuzumab and capecitabine. Starting with protocol version 7, the EuroQol 5 Dimensions 5 Levels (EQ-5D-5L) questionnaire and EQ visual analogue scale (VAS) were administered at day 1 of cycle 1, every two cycles during cycles 3-9, every three cycles during cycle 12 and thereafter and at each patient's 30-day follow-up visit., Results: Among 364 patients eligible for HR-QoL assessment, 331 (91%) completed ≥1 assessment. EQ-VAS scores were similar for both arms at baseline and maintained throughout treatment. EQ-5D-5L scores were similar between the treatment arms, stable throughout therapy and worsened after discontinuing treatment. Risk of meaningful deterioration (≥7 points) on EQ-VAS was reduced 19% in the tucatinib vs. placebo arm (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.81; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.55, 1.18); the median (95% CI) time to deterioration was not reached in the tucatinib arm and was 5.8 months (4.3, -) in the placebo arm. Among patients with brain metastases (n = 164), risk of meaningful deterioration on EQ-VAS was reduced 49% in the tucatinib arm (HR: 0.51; 95% CI: 0.28, 0.93); the median (95% CI) time to deterioration was not reached in the tucatinib arm and was 5.5 months (4.2, -) in the placebo arm., Conclusions: HR-QoL was preserved for patients with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer who were treated with tucatinib added to trastuzumab and capecitabine and maintained longer with tucatinib therapy than without it among those with brain metastases., Clinical Trial Registration: NCT02614794., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement V.M. reports consultancy for Amgen, AstraZeneca, ClinSol, Daiichi Sankyo, Eisai, Genomic Health, Hexal, Lilly, MSD Oncology, Novartis, Pierre Fabre, Roche, Seagen, Tesaro and Teva and research funding/grants from Novartis, Roche/Genentech and Seagen. A.W. reports corporate board membership for Andrew Wardley Limited, Manchester Cancer Academy and Outreach Research & Innovation Group Limited; consultancy for Accord Research, AstraZeneca, Athenex, Coleman Expert Network, Coleman Research, Daiichi Sankyo, Gerson Lehrman Group, Guidepoint Global, Lilly, MSD Oncology, NAPP Pharmaceuticals, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche; employment at the Christie NHS Foundation Trust and AstraZeneca (as of 11th January 2021); patents and royalties for Outreach Research & Innovation Group; speaker's bureau participation for AstraZeneca, Eisai, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche; travel expenses from Daiichi Sankyo, MSD and Roche and other nonfinancial relationships with the Strategy Director for the Association of Cancer Physicians, Committee Member UK Breast Cancer Group, Committee Member NHS England and Chemo Clinical Reference Group, ESMO Breast Cancer Faculty and NCRI Breast Research Group Chair. E.P. reports consultancy for Mylan, Novartis, Pfizer and R-Pharm; research funding/grants from AbbVie, Cascadian, Corcept Therapeutics, Genentech, Hoosier Cancer Research Network, Merck, Novartis and Seagen and travel expenses from Amgen, Genentech, Merck, Novartis and Tesaro. E.H. reports consultancy for AstraZeneca, Black Diamond Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi Sankyo, Genentech/Roche, Lilly, Mersana, Novartis, Pfizer, Puma Biotechnology and Silverback Therapeutics; research funding/grants from AbbVie, AceraPharma, Aravive, ArQule, Arvinas, AstraZeneca, BerGenBio, Black Diamond Therapeutics, Boehringer, Clovis Oncology, Compugen, Curis, CytomX Therapeutics, Daiichi Sankyo, Deciphera, eFFECTOR, Eisai, EMD Serono, Fochon Pharmaceuticals, Fosun Orinove, Fujifilm, G1 Therapeutics, Pfizer, Puma Biotechnology, Radius Health, Regeneron, Rgenix, Seagen, Sermonix Pharmaceuticals, Silverback Therapeutics, Stemcentrx, Sutro Biopharma, Syndax, Syros Pharmaceuticals, Taiho Pharmaceutical, Takeda, TapImmune, Tesaro, Torque, Unum Therapeutics, Verastem, Zenith Epigenetics, Zymeworks, Genentech/Roche, H3 Biomedicine, Harpoon, Hutchison MediPharma, Immunogenics, InventisBio, Karyopharm Therapeutics, Leap Therapeutics, Lilly, Lycera, MacroGenics, MedImmune, Medivation, Mersana, Merus, Millennium, Molecular Templates, Novartis, NuCana and OncoMed and travel expenses from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, Clovis, Eisai, EMD Serono, Foundation Medicine, Genentech/Roche, Genentech, Genzyme, Guardant Health, Helsinn Therapeutics, Heron, Lilly, Medivation, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Sysmex and Tesaro. A.Z. reports consultancy for Norvatis and Pfizer and travel expenses from Immunomedics. E.J. reports consultancy for Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche. F.B. reports consultancy and honoraria from Lilly, Novartis, Lilly and Roche and travel expenses from Novartis. E.H.B. reports travel expenses from Pierre Fabre, Pfizer and Roche. A.B. reports corporate board membership for NanoTx Therapeutics; consultancy for AlaMab Therapeutics, NanoTx Therapeutics, Plus Therapeutics and Vascular Biogenics; equity ownership in NanoTx and Plus Therapeutics; honoraria from Vascular Biogenics; patents and royalties related to intellectual property interest in NanoTx Therapeutics; research funding/grants from Boston Biomedical, Immunomedics, Medicenna, Mirna Therapeutics, Threshold Pharmaceuticals, Upsher-Smith and Vascular Biogenics and travel expenses from Vascular Biogenics. L.C. reports speaker's bureau participation for Astellas, Ipsen and Janssen and other fees for Astellas, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ipsen, Novartis and Pfizer. C.F. reports honoraria from Pfizer, Bayer, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Merck, Astellas Pharma and Roche Canada; a consulting or advisory role for Genomic Health, Merck, AstraZeneca, Bayer and Odonate Therapeutics; speaker's bureau for Merck; research funding/grants to self from Bayer; research funding/grant to the institution from Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Lilly, Merck, Novartis, Roche/Genentech, Sanofi, Pfizer, Janssen Oncology, Zymeworks, Seagen, Immunomedics, Bicycle Therapeutics and Sermonix Pharmaceuticals and travel expenses from Novartis and Roche. M.M.-M. reports advisory board membership for Pierre Fabre; grants for conference attendance from Roche, Pfizer and Lilly and expert testimony for Novartis, Roche and Eisai. H.T.A. reports advisory board membership for Bayer, BeiGene, Bicycle, BioNTech, iOnctura, Roche and Servier and employment at HCA Healthcare UK and Sarah Cannon. N.I. reports consultancy for Janssen, Merck, Novartis and Pfizer. S.A. reports speaker's bureau participation for Novartis, Pfizer, Puma, Daiichi/AstraZeneca, Merck and Seagen. M.C. reports consultancy for Sanofi and travel expenses from Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb and Ipsen. T.P. reports research funding/grants from Merck, Pfizer and Seagen. E.S.-R. reports consultancy for Lilly and Mylan, research funding/grants from Susan G. Komen Victory Foundation and speaker's bureau participation for Mylan. D.C. reports consultancy for Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Roche and Synthon; employment at Edinburgh Cancer Research Centre, Edinburgh, United Kingdom and research funding/grants from Daiichi Sankyo, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Roche and Seagen (all funding is to his institution). G.C. reports consultancy from Bristol Myers Squibb, Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen and Daiichi Sankyo; employment at the University of Milano, Istituto Europeo di Oncologia, IRCCS, Milano, Italy and speaker's bureau participation for Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, Seagen and Daiichi Sankyo. K.G. reports consultancy for AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Genentech, Genomic Health, Janssen, Lilly, Merck, Mylan, NanoString, Novartis, Pfizer and Roche and research funding/grants from AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, Pfizer and Roche. M.S. reports employment at Seagen Inc. and equity ownership in Seagen Inc. and Moderna Pharma. K.D. reports employment at Seagen Inc. and equity ownership in Seagen Inc. and Roche. J.R. and W.F. report employment at Seagen Inc. and equity ownership in Seagen Inc. M.B., S.C., M.C., E.C., L.F. and O.H. have declared no conflicts of interest., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: In a phase II North American study (NP28761; NCT01871805), the anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibitor alectinib demonstrated both systemic and central nervous system (CNS) efficacy with good tolerability in patients with ALK -positive non-small cell lung cancer. We describe patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from the NP28761 study., Patients and Methods: PROs and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) benefits were assessed using two self-administered questionnaires (the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer 30-Item Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core (EORTC QLQ-C30), and the 13-item EORTC QLQ-lung cancer-specific module) at enrolment and every 6 weeks until week 66, disease progression or death., Results: Clinically meaningful mean improvements (≥10 point change from baseline) were observed in 10 domains, including global health status (GHS), role and social functioning, fatigue, pain, dyspnoea, and appetite loss. A clinically meaningful improvement was observed in GHS from the first assessment (6 weeks) until week 60. Alectinib demonstrated a rapid effect, with a median time to symptom improvement, using the composite endpoint of cough, dyspnoea and pain in the chest, of 1.4 months (6.1 weeks) (95% CI 1.4 to 1.6) and a median time to symptom deterioration of 5.1 months (22.1 weeks) (95% CI 2.8 to 6.8). Patients with CNS metastases at baseline experienced comparable HRQoL over the duration of the study as patients without CNS metastases. Exploratory analysis showed that the occurrence of an objective response may be associated with a better HRQoL., Conclusions: Patients treated with alectinib in this phase II study achieved clinically meaningful improvements in HRQoL and symptoms and had delayed time to symptom deterioration., Competing Interests: Competing interests: S-HIO has acted in a consulting or advisory role to ARIAD, AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis and Roche, and participated in the speaker bureaus for AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim and Roche/Genentech. MAS has provided corporate-sponsored research support for Genentech and participated in the speaker bureaus for Genentech. SG has participated in the advisory boards for Genentech/Roche, ARIAD, Novartis and Pfizer. LG received consultancy fees from Genentech/Roche, Pfizer, Merck, AbbVie and AstraZeneca, and personal fees from Merck and BMS IION Foundation. HW has participated in the advisory boards for ARIAD, Genentech/Roche and Takeda, and received honoraria for non-branded presentations for ARIAD and Genentech/Roche. AAC has participated in the advisory boards for Novartis, Takeda, BMS and Lilly, provided corporate-sponsored research for Novartis and BMS, and has relationships with Genentech, Merck, Takeda, Boehringer Ingelheim, Pfizer, Celgene and Novartis. VC has participated in the advisory boards for Pfizer Canada. GJR has acted in a consulting role to Novartis, and provided corporate-sponsored research support to Chugai, Roche, Pfizer, Novartis and Millennium. VS, WB, EW, KD and AZ are employees of F Hoffmann-La Roche and hold shares in the company. ATS has participated in the advisory boards for Pfizer, Novartis, Roche/Genentech, ARIAD, Blueprint Medicines, Loxo and EMD Serono, and received honoraria for non-branded presentations for Pfizer, Novartis, Genentech/Roche, Ignyta, Taiho and Foundation Medicine.

Background: Interleukin (IL)-13 plays a key role in type 2 inflammation and is an emerging pathogenic mediator in atopic dermatitis (AD)., Objective: We investigated the efficacy and safety of lebrikizumab, an IL-13 monoclonal antibody, as an add-on to topical corticosteroid (TCS) treatment., Methods: A randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, phase 2 study. Adults with moderate-to-severe AD were required to use TCS twice daily and then randomized (1:1:1:1) to lebrikizumab 125 mg single dose, lebrikizumab 250 mg single dose, lebrikizumab 125 mg every 4 weeks for 12 weeks, or placebo every 4 weeks for 12 weeks, after a 2-week TCS run-in. The primary endpoint was percentage of patients achieving Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI)-50 at week 12., Results: In total, 209 patients received the study drug. At week 12, significantly more patients achieved EASI-50 with lebrikizumab 125 mg every 4 weeks (82.4%; P = .026) than placebo every 4 weeks (62.3%); patients receiving a single dose of lebrikizumab showed no statistically significant improvements in EASI-50 compared with placebo. Adverse events were similar between groups (66.7% all lebrikizumab vs 66.0% placebo) and mostly mild or moderate., Limitations: Protocol-mandated twice daily TCS treatment limits our understanding of the efficacy of lebrikizumab as a monotherapy. The short study duration did not enable long-term efficacy or safety evaluations., Conclusion: When combined with TCS, lebrikizumab 125 mg taken every 4 weeks led to a significant improvement and was well tolerated in patients with moderate-to-severe AD., (Copyright © 2018 American Academy of Dermatology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

While the practice of rainwater harvesting (RWH) can be traced back millennia, the degree of its modern implementation varies greatly across the world, often with systems that do not maximize potential benefits. With a global focus, the pertinent practical, theoretical and social aspects of RWH are reviewed in order to ascertain the state of the art. Avenues for future research are also identified. A major finding is that the degree of RWH systems implementation and the technology selection are strongly influenced by economic constraints and local regulations. Moreover, despite design protocols having been set up in many countries, recommendations are still often organized only with the objective of conserving water without considering other potential benefits associated with the multiple-purpose nature of RWH. It is suggested that future work on RWH addresses three priority challenges. Firstly, more empirical data on system operation is needed to allow improved modelling by taking into account multiple objectives of RWH systems. Secondly, maintenance aspects and how they may impact the quality of collected rainwater should be explored in the future as a way to increase confidence on rainwater use. Finally, research should be devoted to the understanding of how institutional and socio-political support can be best targeted to improve system efficacy and community acceptance., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: The clinical course of Crohn's disease (CD) and the effect of its treatment are monitored through patient-reported signs and symptoms (S&S), and endoscopic evidence of inflammation. The Crohn's Disease Patient-reported Outcomes Signs and Symptoms (CD-PRO/SS) measure was developed to standardize the quantification of gastrointestinal S&S of CD through direct report from patient ratings., Methods: The CD-PRO/SS was developed based on data from concept elicitation (focus groups, interviews; n  = 29), then refined through cognitive interviews of CD patients ( n  = 20). Measurement properties, including item-level statistics, scaling structure, reliability, and validity, were examined using secondary analyses of baseline and two-week clinical trial data of adults with moderate-to-severe CD ( n  = 238)., Results: Findings from qualitative interviews identified nine S&S items covering bowel and abdominal symptoms. The final CD-PRO/SS daily diary includes two scales: Bowel S&S (three items) and Abdominal Symptoms (three items), each scored separately. Each scale showed evidence of adequate reliability (α = 0.74 and 0.67, respectively); reproducibility (intraclass correlation coefficient > 0.80), and validity, with the last including moderate correlations with the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire bowel symptom score and select items (ranging from r  = 0.43-0.54). Scores distinguished patients categorized by patient global ratings of disease severity ( p  < 0.0001)., Conclusions: Results suggest the CD-PRO/SS is a reliable and valid measure of gastrointestinal symptom severity in CD patients. Additional longitudinal data are needed to evaluate the ability of the CD-PRO/SS scores to detect responsiveness and inform the selection of responder definitions., Competing Interests: This study was a secondary analysis of clinical trial data. Written informed consent was obtained from all study subjects who participated in the clinical trial, and the study protocol was approved by the Institutional Review Board at each study site.Corresponding author Peter D.R. Higgins is the Director of the IBD Program at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor, MI. Authors Marcoli Cyrille, Brian G. Ortmeier, and Gary Globe are salaried employees and shareholders of Amgen Inc. (Thousand Oaks, CA). Author Hema N. Viswanathan was a salaried employee and shareholder of Amgen Inc. of Thousand Oaks, CA at the time this work was completed, and is currently with Allergan Inc. of Irvine, CA. Author Donald L. Patrick is employed by the University of Washington (Seattle, WA). Authors Kendra DeBusk, Kristina Fitzgerald, and Sarah M. Donelson are salaried employees and shareholders of Genentech Inc. (South San Francisco, CA). Authors Gale Harding, Nancy Leidy, Hilary Wilson, and Dennis Revicki are salaried employees of Evidera in Bethesda, MD, and are not allowed to accept remuneration from any clients for their services. Evidera received funding from Amgen Inc. (Thousand Oaks, CA) to participate in the study and the development of this manuscript.Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Background: The clinical course of ulcerative colitis (UC) and the effects of treatment are assessed through patient-reported signs and symptoms (S&S), and endoscopic evidence of inflammation. The Ulcerative Colitis Patient-Reported Outcomes Signs and Symptoms (UC-PRO/SS) measure was developed to standardize the quantification of gastrointestinal S&S of UC in clinical trials through direct report from patient ratings., Design: The UC-PRO/SS was developed by collecting data from concept elicitation (focus groups, and individual interviews), then refined through a process of cognitive interviews of 57 UC patients. Measurement properties, including item-level statistics, scaling structure, reliability, and validity, were evaluated in an observational, four-week study of adults with mild to severe UC ( N  = 200)., Results: Findings from qualitative focus groups and interviews identified nine symptom items covering bowel and abdominal symptoms. The final UC-PRO/SS daily diary includes two scales: Bowel S&S (six items) and Abdominal Symptoms (three items), each scored separately. Each scale showed evidence of adequate reliability (α = 80 and 0.66, respectively); reproducibility (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.81, 0.71) and validity, including moderate-to-high correlations with the Partial Mayo Score (0.79; 0.45) and Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ) total score (- 0.70; - 0.61). Scores discriminated by level of disease severity, as defined by the Partial Mayo Score, Patient Global Rating, and Clinician Global Rating ( p  < 0.0001)., Conclusions: Results suggest that the UC-PRO/SS is a reliable and valid measure of gastrointestinal symptom severity in UC patients. Additional longitudinal data are needed to evaluate the ability of the UC-PRO/SS scores to detect responsiveness and inform the selection of responder definitions., Competing Interests: Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Background: Fatigue is a burdensome symptom in iron deficiency anemia (IDA). To capture the severity and impact of fatigue appropriately it must be measured using validated scales. This study evaluated the content validity and psychometric validity of the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy - fatigue scale (FACIT-fatigue) in IDA patients., Methods: Qualitative patient interviews were conducted in the United States to evaluate content validity. The psychometric properties of the FACIT-fatigue scale were investigated using data from a phase 3 clinical trial assessing ferumoxytol in patients with a history of unsatisfactory oral iron therapy or in whom oral iron cannot be used. The statistical analysis assessed the acceptability, reliability, validity and responsiveness of the FACIT-fatigue scale., Results: Qualitative interviews showed that fatigue is a central concern to IDA patients and that the FACIT-fatigue scale sufficiently assessed this construct. Psychometric assessment demonstrated that the FACIT-fatigue scale was stable over time (ICC = 0.87) and internally consistent (α = 0.93). The scale demonstrated convergence with other conceptually relevant scales such as SF-36 Vitality (r = 0.74), and distinguished between known groups [i.e., treatment arms (mean difference (95 % CI) = 3.56 (1.68, 5.43), p <0.001) and high vs. low hemoglobin groups (mean difference (95 % CI) = 5.51 (8.59, 2.44) p <0.001)]. Responsiveness was also demonstrated; significant improvements in FACIT-fatigue scale scores corresponded with significant differences between minimal, moderate, and much improved vitality cohorts (p < 0.05)., Conclusions: This research demonstrated that the FACIT-fatigue scale has sound measurement properties and is an appropriate and interpretable assessment of fatigue among IDA patients with various underlying conditions.