Search

INTRODUCTION: Atopic dermatitis (AD) is a chronic inflammatory skin disease for which signs and symptoms have a negative impact on a patients quality of life (QoL) and mental health. Here, we assess the impact of lebrikizumab on QoL and mental health after 16 weeks of treatment in patients with moderate-to-severe AD. METHODS: Data were analyzed over 16 weeks from two separate phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled, monotherapy trials (ADvocate1 and ADvocate2). Patient-reported outcomes were assessed using the following measures: Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), EQ-5D-5L visual analogue scale (VAS), EQ-5D-5L index scores (UK and US), Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Anxiety, and PROMIS Depression. RESULTS: Treatment with lebrikizumab 250 mg every 2 weeks in two studies led to statistically significant improvements (based on nominal p values) versus placebo in DLQI since week 4 (the first timepoint assessed) for the following measures: change from baseline in DLQI total score (ADvocate1 - 7.8 vs - 2.8; ADvocate2 - 7.3 vs - 3.9), proportion of patients with DLQI ≥ 4-point improvement (ADvocate1 69.5% vs 36.2%; ADvocate2 60.5% vs 42.6%), DLQI total score ≤ 5 (ADvocate1 36.7% vs 8.8%; ADvocate2 29.6% vs 10.8%), and DLQI (0, 1) (ADvocate1 12.3% vs 1.7%; ADvocate2 9.2% vs 1.7%). Improvements in DLQI measures, EQ-5D-5L index scores (UK and US), and EQ-5D-5L VAS were sustained through week 16. Additionally, lebrikizumab improved PROMIS Anxiety and PROMIS Depression scores, and improvements were higher in patients with at least a mild score (≥ 55) versus placebo for PROMIS Anxiety (ADvocate1 - 7.43 vs - 1.51; ADvocate2 - 4.95 vs - 0.82) and PROMIS Depression (ADvocate1 - 7.42 vs - 2.46; ADvocate2 - 4.28 vs - 2.00). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with monotherapy 250 mg lebrikizumab for 16 weeks provided clinically meaningful improvements in outcomes related to QoL and mental health for patients with moderate-to-severe AD. Lebrikizumab-treated patients reported improvements in DLQI as early as week 4, the first measure since baseline. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Registration NCT04146363 (ADvocate1) and NCT04178967 (ADvocate2).

Objective To determine the effects of a psychological training program based on problem-solving therapy on the problem-solving ability and psychological resilience of naval personnel in a certain unit, and to evaluate the effectiveness and applicability of the psychological training program. Methods A total of 92 military personnel from a surface fleet were randomly sampled and divided into a training group (n=46) and a control group (n=46). The training group received a 6-week psychological training program based on problem-solving therapy once a week, while the control group received no such psychological intervention. Results A significant interaction effect was observed in the results of the problem-solving questionnaire (F=4.366, P < 0.05) and the psychological resilience scale (F=6.017, P < 0.05) before (T1) and after (T2) the training between the training and control group. Compared to the scores at T1, the problem-solving ability and psychological resilience were significantly improved in the training group at T2. Conclusion The psychological training based on problem-solving therapy could effectively improve the problem-solving ability and the psychological resilience of military personnel in the studied fleet.

BackgroundThe validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (vIGA-AD™) is a standardized severity assessment for use in clinical trials and registries for atopic dermatitis (AD).ObjectivesTo investigate the reliability, validity, responsiveness and within-patient meaningful change of the vIGA-AD.MethodsData were analysed from adult patients with moderate-to-severe AD in the BREEZE-AD1 (N = 624 patients; NCT03334396), BREEZE-AD2 (N = 615; NCT03334422) and BREEZE-AD5 (N = 440; NCT03435081) phase III baricitinib clinical studies.ResultsAcross studies, test-retest reliability for stable patients showed moderate-to-good agreement [range of Kappa values for Patient Global Impression of Severity-Atopic Dermatitis (PGI-S-AD), 0·516-0·639; for Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), 0·658-0·778]. Moderate-to-large correlations between vIGA-AD and EASI or body surface area (range at baseline, 0·497-0·736; Week 16, 0·716-0·893) supported convergent validity. Known-groups validity was demonstrated vs. EASI and PGI-S-AD (vIGA-AD for severe vs. moderate EASI categories at baseline, P

BackgroundThe Itch Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), Skin Pain NRS, and Atopic Dermatitis Sleep Scale (ADSS) are self-administered patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments developed to assess symptoms in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD). The objective of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties (reliability, validity, and responsiveness) and interpretability thresholds of these PROs using data from three pivotal Phase 3 studies in adults.MethodsBREEZE-AD1, BREEZE-AD2, and BREEZE-AD5 evaluated the safety and efficacy of baricitinib in adults with moderate-to-severe AD. Clinician-reported outcomes and other PROs commonly assessed in patients with AD were used to estimate meaningful changes and evaluate test-retest reliability, convergent and divergent validity, known-groups validity, responsiveness, and meaningful change thresholds (MCTs) of the Itch NRS, Skin Pain NRS, and ADSS.ResultsThe test-retest reliability of the Itch NRS, Skin Pain NRS, and ADSS was evidenced by generally large intraclass correlation coefficients (> 0.7) in stable groups of patients between baseline and Week 1 and Weeks 4 and 8. Moderate-to-large correlations (r > 0.4) at baseline and Week 16 were generally observed between each measure and other PROs measuring the same concept, supporting convergent validity. Small-to-moderate correlations with clinician-reported outcomes demonstrated divergent validity. Each instrument was able to distinguish between known groups of disease severity as assessed using other indicators of AD severity. The responsiveness of the Itch NRS, Skin Pain NRS, and ADSS scales was demonstrated through significant differences in their change scores from baseline to Week 16 between categories of change in another PRO also from baseline to Week 16. Thresholds for interpreting meaningful change were estimated as - 4.0 for the 0-10 Itch and Skin Pain NRS items; - 1.25 for the 0-4 ADSS Items 1 and 3 and; - 1.50 for the 0-29 ADSS Item 2, these equivalent to moderate degrees of change.ConclusionsResults of this study demonstrate that the psychometric properties of the Itch NRS, Skin Pain NRS, and ADSS are good to excellent. These findings support the use of these instruments in daily assessment of AD symptoms in adults with moderate-to-severe AD. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov numbers: NCT03334396, NCT03334422, and NCT03435081.

OBJECTIVE:Studies have supported the validity of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Pain Interference (PI) scale in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Here, we characterize minimally important differences (MIDs) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) values. METHODS:PROMIS PI scores were collected in four periods at 6-month intervals from patients with RA (n > 3200 per period). Both anchor- and distribution-based methods estimated MIDs. Anchors were pain comparisons, pain interference, and general health. Time responses for each anchor-response group (four administrations, each with three change periods) were averaged. The mean changes of the "somewhat worse" and "somewhat better" groups were used as estimates for MID for worsening and improvement, respectively. Distribution-based MID analyses used standardized error of measurement (SEM) and SD. PASS was estimated with the question "If your health was to remain for the rest of your life as it has been in the past 48 hours, would this be acceptable?" MIDs and PASS values were also estimated by baseline pain levels. RESULTS:Anchor-based methods yielded estimates of 1.65 to 1.84 for worsening and -1.29 to -1.73 for improvement. The SEM estimate was 1.84. The PASS estimate for the entire group was 41.6. Substantial differences in MIDs and PASS were noted among baseline pain groups. CONCLUSION:The best estimate of a group-level MID was approximately 2 points, similar to MIDs suggested in other conditions. The PASS value for the entire group was almost an SD better than the population mean. Results should enhance use of PROMIS PI in RA by facilitating interpretation of scores and changes.