Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute

Introduction/Background: Understanding the relationship between neighborhood socioeconomic environment and cardiovascular outcomes is important to implement effective quality strategies to ensure health equity. Goals/Aims: To determine the association of neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation with 30-day mortality and readmission for patients admitted with common cardiovascular conditions. Methods/Approach: We examined claims data from fee-for-service Medicare beneficiaries aged >=65 with 1 year of preceding fee-for-service eligibility between 2017-2019 admitted for heart failure, valvular heart disease, ischemic heart disease, or cardiac arrhythmias. The primary exposure was the Area Deprivation Index, and outcomes were 30-day all-cause mortality and unplanned readmission. We used logistic regression models and adjusted for demographics, medical comorbidity burden, access to healthcare resources, and characteristics of admitting hospitals. Results/Data: A total of 2,064,426 admissions were included. Patients from socioeconomically deprived neighborhoods generally had higher observed mortality and readmission (Table 1). After full adjustment, neighborhood socioeconomic status was associated with increased 30-day mortality and readmission for all cardiovascular conditions studied. Unadjusted and sequentially adjusted models for 30-day mortality are shown in Table 2. Figure 1 visualizes the adjusted association between neighborhood deprivation and 30-day mortality and readmission. Conclusions: Neighborhood socioeconomic deprivation was independently associated with increased 30-day mortality and readmission for several common cardiovascular conditions.

Context Older adults with multimorbidity are underrepresented in clinical trials, with enrollment of Asians particularly low. Objective Understand perspectives of US Chinese older adults regarding clinical trial participation. Study Design and Analysis Focus group interviews analyzed using thematic analysis. Setting Community/senior centers, academic health systems in Northern and Southern California, and a nationwide registry of Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders. Population Studied Mandarin- and English-speaking Chinese adults aged ≥ 65 years with multimorbidity. Outcome Measures Themes related to barriers and facilitators of enrollment in clinical trials of medications. Results We conducted 12 focus groups: 7 with non-US-born and 5 with US-born Chinese older adults ( n = 83 total). Mean age was 74 years (SD = 5.9), 43 (51.8%) were female, and 47 (56.6%) Mandarin-speaking. US-born participants had greater educational attainment than non-US-born participants. Participants took a mean of 6.1 prescriptions (SD = 1.5). Barriers to participation in clinical trials of medications included lack of awareness of/exposure for patients and community-based Chinese physicians, preference for natural/traditional medicine, risk aversion and safety concerns, desire for privacy, and inconvenience. Trusted influences included physicians, hospitals/health systems, Asian/Chinese community centers, and family (for non-US-born participants). Suggestions to enhance participation included using language and culturally concordant materials/personnel, educating community-based Chinese physicians about clinical trials, involving patient-trusted physicians in recruitment, promoting trials on conditions common in Chinese people or for an existing condition, and financial incentives. US-born participants expressed greater understanding and willingness to join trials. All groups attributed low clinical trial enrollment to non-US-born Chinese adults. Conclusions Chinese older adults perceived obstacles to clinical trial participation that could be mitigated by involving trusted physicians in recruitment, using language and culturally concordant materials/staff, and educating patients and community-based physicians. Recognition of differences in attitudes among US- and non-US-born Chinese people may be important to tailoring recruitment strategies.

Inhaler therapy and physical activity (PA) are important methods of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) management. This study aimed to investigate the additional benefit of moderate-to-vigorous PA (MVPA) in patients with COPD using a long-acting beta-agonists (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonist (LAMA) combination. We emulated a target trial to estimate the benefit of MVPA in patients with COPD using a dual ultra-long-acting bronchodilators. We enrolled patients aged ≥ 40 who were diagnosed with COPD between 2014 and 2018, initiated a LABA/LAMA combination, and had not undergone regular MVPA. The main exposure was the initiation of MVPA, defined as vigorous aerobic exercise > 20 min per day on ≥ 3 days/week or moderate aerobic exercise > 30 min per day on ≥ 5 days/week. The main outcomes were the future usage of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and severe exacerbation. We identified 1,526 patients who initiated MVPA and 4,516 who did not. The median follow-up period was 3.0 years. The hazard ratio (HR) for future ICS usage in the MVPA initiation group was 0.83 (95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.72, 0.97) compared to the control group. The HR for severe exacerbation in the MVPA initiation group was 0.81 (95% CI: 0.68, 0.96) compared to the control group. Subgroup analyses by age, sex, body mass index, residence area, smoking and drinking status showed consistent benefits in these outcomes. Initiation of MVPA may offer an additional benefit for even COPD patients who use a dual ultra-long-acting bronchodilators.

Efficient evidence generation to assess the clinical and economic impact of medical therapies is critical amid rising healthcare costs and aging populations. However, drug development and clinical trials remain far too expensive and inefficient for all stakeholders. On October 25–26, 2023, the Duke Clinical Research Institute brought together leaders from academia, industry, government agencies, patient advocacy, and nonprofit organizations to explore how different entities and influencers in drug development and healthcare can realign incentive structures to efficiently accelerate evidence generation that addresses the highest public health needs. Prominent themes surfaced, including competing research priorities and incentives, inadequate representation of patient population in clinical trials, opportunities to better leverage existing technology and infrastructure in trial design, and a need for heightened transparency and accountability in research practices. The group determined that together these elements contribute to an inefficient and costly clinical research enterprise, amplifying disparities in population health and sustaining gaps in evidence that impede advancements in equitable healthcare delivery and outcomes. The goal of addressing the identified challenges is to ultimately make clinical trials faster, more inclusive, and more efficient across diverse communities and settings.

Background: As the available treatments for moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD) expand, understanding patient and physician preferences becomes crucial for informed decision-making. Objective: To quantify patient and physician preferences for biologics and oral systemic AD treatment attributes. Materials and methods: We conducted a cross-sectional, online discrete choice experiment (DCE) involving 306 AD patients and 206 physicians throughout the United Kingdom and Germany. Qualitative interviews identified the key attributes for inclusion in the DCE. Each choice task comprised two hypothetical patient profiles. Data were analyzed using a random-parameters logit model. Results: Results indicated a significant emphasis on efficacy, with reducing sleep disturbance and itch ranking first and second among patients, and the reverse for physicians. Time to itch relief was the third most important efficacy attribute for both groups, but relatively more important for patients than for physicians. For both groups, the risk of eye problems was the most important safety concern of those included. Mode of administration was not of great importance compared to efficacy and safety attributes. Conclusions: Our findings suggest patients prioritize sleep disturbance, an attribute not captured in prior preference studies in AD, time to itch relief and itch. These findings emphasize the importance of addressing sleep-related issues, whilst also targeting fast itch control, to enhance patients’ well-being.

Background Despite strong evidence supporting COVID-19 vaccine efficacy and safety, a proportion of the population remains hesitant to receive immunization. Discrete choice experiments (DCEs) can help assess preferences and decision-making drivers. Objective We aim to (1) elicit preferences for COVID-19 vaccines in Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom, and the United States; (2) understand which vaccine attributes people there value; and (3) gain insight into the choices that different population subgroups make regarding COVID-19 vaccines. Methods Participants in the 2019nCoV-408 study were aged ≥18 years; self-reported antivaccinationists were excluded. A DCE with a series of 2 hypothetical vaccine options was embedded into a survey to determine participant treatment preferences (primary objective). Survey questions covered vaccine preference, previous COVID-19 experiences, and demographics, which were summarized using descriptive statistics to understand the study participants’ backgrounds. In the DCE, participants were provided choice pairs: 1 set with and 1 without an “opt-out” option. Each participant viewed 11 unique vaccine profiles. Vaccine attributes consisted of type (messenger RNA or protein), level of protection against any or severe COVID-19, risk of side effects (common and serious), and potential coadministration of COVID-19 and influenza vaccines. Attribute level selections were included for protection and safety (degree of effectiveness and side effect risk, respectively). Participants were stratified by vaccination status (unvaccinated, or partially or fully vaccinated) and disease risk group (high-risk or non–high-risk). A conditional logit model was used to analyze DCE data to estimate preferences of vaccine attributes, with the percentage relative importance calculated to allow for its ranking. Each model was run twice to account for sets with and without the opt-out options. Results The mean age of participants (N=2000) was 48 (SD 18.8) years, and 51.25% (1025/2000) were male. The DCE revealed that the most important COVID-19 vaccine attributes were protection against severe COVID-19 or any severity of COVID-19 and common side effects. Protection against severe COVID-19 was the most important attribute for fully vaccinated participants, which significantly differed from the unvaccinated or partially vaccinated subgroup (relative importance 34.8% vs 30.6%; P=.049). Avoiding serious vaccine side effects was a significantly higher priority for the unvaccinated or partially versus fully vaccinated subgroup (relative importance 10.7% vs 8.2%; P=.044). Attributes with significant differences in the relative importance between the high-risk versus non–high-risk subgroups were protection against severe COVID-19 (38.2% vs 31.5%; P<.000), avoiding common vaccine side effects (12% vs 20.5%; P<.000), and avoiding serious vaccine side effects (9.7% vs 7.5%; P=.002). Conclusions This DCE identified COVID-19 vaccine attributes, such as protection against severe COVID-19, that may influence preference and drive choice and can inform vaccine strategies. The high ranking of common and serious vaccine side effects suggests that, when the efficacy of 2 vaccines is comparable, safety is a key decision-making factor.

Background The uptake of research findings into clinical practice is critical to providing health care that improves health outcomes for patients. This study explored how Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) awardees perceive the relationship between engagement of patients and other partners in research and three uses, or applications, of patient-centered comparative clinical effectiveness research (CER) study findings, which may lead to uptake in clinical practice: (1) Integration into clinical practice guidelines, recognized point-of-care decision tools, or documents that may inform policy; (2) Implementation beyond the study, including at sites outside of the study setting or patient populations; and (3) Active dissemination of findings to specific audiences by parties external to the study team. Methods This exploratory qualitative study examined awardee and partner perceptions of what led to each use of study findings and how engaged partners contributed. We purposively selected PCORI-funded research projects with documentation of each use and conducted virtual interviews with 42 individuals (15 PIs or project leads, 2 research team members, and 25 partners) from 17 projects. We conducted thematic analysis of individual projects or project sets, across projects within each use case, and across the three uses. Results Participants described three primary activities in which engaged partners made contributions before, during and after CER studies that facilitated the use of study findings: (1) generating relevant study findings, (2) distributing study findings strategically, and (3) making connections to people or organizations outside the study team. In addition, engagement continued to facilitate the use of study findings during subsequent PCORI-funded implementation and dissemination-specific projects, with partners adapting interventions and creating and tailoring dissemination messages and products. Finally, participants described attributes of teams’ engagement approaches that may have supported partner contributions, including early and ongoing engagement, leveraging partners’ connections and understanding of community needs, and using multiple engagement approaches. Conclusion This study identified examples of how engagement can help facilitate the use of CER study findings, especially when engagement contributions occur in meaningful ways. Findings from this study suggest a framework for future research on the relationship between engagement in research and uptake of study findings into clinical practice.

Background The Hand Eczema Severity Index (HECSI) is a Clinician‐Reported Outcome measure of the severity of hand eczema (HE). Objectives This study aimed to evaluate the validity, reliability and ability to detect change of the HECSI, and the HECSI‐75 and HECSI‐90 as responder definitions. Methods Analyses were performed using data from a sample of n = 258 patients with Chronic Hand Eczema (CHE) from a Phase 2b, randomised, double‐blind, vehicle‐controlled trial of delgocitinib cream, pooled across treatment groups. The measurement properties of the HECSI were assessed and the adequacy of the HECSI‐75 and HECSI‐90 as responder definitions was explored through cross‐tabulation. Results Inter‐item correlations provided support for the scoring, whereby items are grouped by areas of the hand. HECSI demonstrated good test–retest reliability with intra‐class correlations >0.70. Construct validity was supported by a logical pattern of correlations with concurrent measures and significant differences in HECSI scores across severity groups ( p < 0.001). HECSI was responsive with statistically significant improvements over time and with significant differences ( p < 0.001) between improved and stable groups. Data provided support for both HECSI‐75 and HECSI‐90 as within‐patient responder definitions. Conclusions HECSI has strong validity, reliability and ability to detect change as a measure of CHE severity. HECSI‐75 and HECSI‐90 are appropriate responder definitions.

Background Patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) often relapse or become refractory to treatment (R/R). While the R/R FL treatment landscape evolves, little is known about the priorities of patients and physicians. This discrete‐choice experiment (DCE) study assessed patients' and physicians' treatment preferences, and the trade‐offs they would be willing to make between efficacy, tolerability, and administration. Methods An online survey was conducted in US‐based patients (≥18 years) with R/R FL and FL‐treating physicians. The DCE was informed by a targeted literature review, clinical data, expert oncologist input, and pilot interviews. Participants completed eight experimental choice tasks where they chose between two hypothetical treatment profiles defined by six attributes: progression‐free survival (PFS), administration/monitoring, risks of laboratory abnormalities requiring intervention, severe infections, diarrhea, and cytokine release syndrome (CRS). Relative attribute importance (RAI) and willingness to trade‐off between PFS and other attributes were estimated. Results Two‐hundred patients (mean age 63.5 years; median three prior lines of therapy) and 151 FL‐treating physicians participated. Increasing PFS was most important for both groups, although it was relatively less important to patients than physicians (RAI 35.2% vs. 45.7%). Administration/monitoring was three times more important to patients than physicians (RAI 28.8% vs. 9.5%); patients preferred oral treatment and would be willing to tolerate a significant reduction in PFS for oral administration over weekly intravenous infusions. Avoiding CRS was less important to patients than to physicians (RAI 7.7% vs. 15.8%). Both groups would accept shorter PFS for reduced risks of side effects (especially of laboratory abnormalities for patients and of CRS for physicians). Conclusion Although PFS was the most important attribute to patients and physicians, both would tolerate lower PFS for reduced side effects. Patients would also accept a substantial reduction in PFS for oral administration. Differences between the preferences/priorities of patients and physicians highlight the importance of shared decision‐making.

Introduction The Child Hemophilia Treatment Experience Measure (Child Hemo‐TEM) was developed to capture the treatment burden experience of children with haemophilia (CwH). Aim Describe the development of this novel haemophilia‐specific measure. Methods Interviews were conducted with clinical experts, CwH and CwH's caregivers. Interviews were analysed according to adapted grounded theory principles. Based on the analysis, a preliminary measure was developed and debriefed. Psychometric analyses were performed according to an a priori analysis plan using data collected in a cross‐sectional web survey and a final measure was generated. Results Interviews with four clinical experts, 25 CwH ages 8 to <12 years, and 25 caregivers of CwH <12 years were conducted. Concepts endorsed by ≥10% of CwH and caregivers were: adherence, ease of use, emotional impacts, physical impacts, treatment concerns, and interference with daily life. Cognitive debriefing assessments were conducted to ensure participant understanding and item relevance. Caregivers found the measure to be understandable, comprehensive, and relevant. However, several issues with CwH completing the measure were identified and it was decided to only develop an observer‐reported outcome version. Data for psychometric validation was collected in a web survey ( N = 187). Item reduction dropped 12 items. Factor analysis generated a single, 7‐item, internally consistent ( α = .855) factor, which consisted of items covering all relevant a priori concepts. The majority of a priori convergent and all known groups validity hypotheses were confirmed. Conclusions The study findings provide evidence that the Child Hemo‐TEM is a brief, well‐designed, and valid and reliable measure of haemophilia treatment burden.

Several clinical outcome assessment (COA) instruments assess Sjögren’s disease (Sjögren’s) symptoms, but do not provide comprehensive assessment of the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) impact of Sjögren’s. This study aimed to develop a patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument for the assessment of HRQoL, intended for use in clinical trials and clinical practice in the assessment of treatment benefit. Review of study sponsor proprietary data and qualitative interviews informed the development of a conceptual model, the Sjögren’s Related Quality of Life (SRQoL) and patient global impression of severity (PGI-S) and change (PGI-C) items. Combined concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing interviews with patients with Sjögren’s explored their HRQoL impact experience and content validity of the SRQoL and PGI items. Twenty participants were interviewed about their Sjögren’s experience. Following inductive analysis of interviews, concepts were categorized into eight domains: emotional well-being (e.g., worry and stress; n = 20/20; 100%), sleep (e.g., daytime sleepiness and waking up during the night; n = 20/20; 100%), activities of daily living (e.g., difficulty looking at screens and difficulty driving; n = 20/20; 100%), cognition (e.g., concentration difficulties and word finding difficulties; n = 19/20; 95.0%), physical functioning (e.g., difficulty walking and difficulty exercising; n = 19/20; 95.0%), social and family functioning (e.g., dependent on others and relationship difficulties; n = 17/20; 85.0%), work (n = 15/20; 75.0%), and sexual functioning (n = 12/20; 60.0%). SRQoL and PGI items, instructions, response options, and recall period were well understood and relevant to participants. The SRQoL is a new PRO instrument to assess Sjögren’s impact on HRQoL, developed in accordance with regulatory guidance. This study provides considerable insight into the patient experience of Sjögren’s and evidence to support the content validity of the SRQoL. Future research should evaluate the psychometric properties of the SRQoL to support its use in clinical trials and clinical practice and further validate its use as an assessment of treatment benefit.

Purpose Quantifying patient-perceived benefits and disadvantages of treatments in a real-world setting is increasingly important in healthcare decision-making. The Patient’s Qualitative Assessment of Treatment (PQAT) assesses patient-perceived benefits and disadvantages of treatment, and associated trade-offs potentially influencing patients’ willingness to continue treatment. It has then been modified to capture patients’ perceived magnitude of benefits and disadvantages of treatment quantitatively, as well as qualitatively (PQATv2). However, the PQAT and the PQATv2 were designed for use and validated in a clinical trial setting. The objective of this study was to adapt and test the content validity of a version of the PQATv2 for use in real-world settings (PQAT-RW). Patients and Methods The PQATv2 was adapted for use in real-world settings (PQAT-RW), and its content was validated in 16 patients with varied chronic medical conditions and medication regimens via semi-structured qualitative interviews. Results All participants reported that the PQAT-RW was “easy to understand”. The majority (n = 11/16) reported that the items covered all important aspects of their treatment experience, and that no items needed to be removed or added to the instrument. Analysis of free-text responses identified eight global concepts considered by participants when evaluating the benefits and disadvantages of treatment: treatment effectiveness, side effects and method of administration were most frequently considered (as both benefits and disadvantages), followed by frequency of administration, financial considerations, storage, packaging and drug preparation. Conclusion The results of this study support the content validity of the PQAT-RW. They also demonstrate that using qualitative responses to contextualize quantitative responses provides unique insight into diverse and individualized patient-perceived benefits and disadvantages, and their relative importance, in real-world settings.

Early phase clinical trials provide an initial evaluation of therapies’ risks and benefits to patients, including safety and tolerability, which typically relies on reporting outcomes by investigator and laboratory assessments. Use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to inform risks (tolerability) and benefits (improvement in disease symptoms) is more common in later than early phase trials. We convened a two-day expert roundtable covering: (1) the necessity and feasibility of a universal PRO core conceptual model for early phase trials; (2) the practical integration of PROs in early phase trials to inform tolerability assessment, guide dose decisions, or as real-time safety alerts to enhance investigator-reported adverse events. Participants (n = 22) included: patient advocates, regulators, clinicians, statisticians, pharmaceutical representatives, and PRO methodologists working across diverse clinical areas. In this manuscript, we report major recommendations resulting from the roundtable discussions corresponding to each theme. Additionally, we highlight priority areas necessitating further investigation.

240 Background: Implementing co-creation methods in research may provide vital input to improve accrual, retention, and research value. Advocates for Collaborative Education (ACE), a global coalition of patient, community, research, and policy advocates, used co-creation methodology with patients, survivors, and metavivors to Design, Develop , and Deploy a survey to define and quantify QoL impacts across a large sample of individuals with a diagnosis or history of cancer. Methods: With a defined primary objective to “gain insight into challenges faced by individuals with a history or diagnosis of cancer and how these challenges impact their life and quality of life,” a co-creation team of individuals with lived experience in early stage or metastatic cancers was established. In the Design phase, co-creation team members were interviewed and engaged in discussions on side effect measurement and impact. They were asked a variety of questions, including what side effects they believed were most impactful to QoL, what elements they felt were missing in conversations around QoL, and how accurately they felt QoL was measured in the clinical setting. In the Develop phase, survey questions were developed and vetted with the co-creation team. In the Deploy phase, co-creation team members, advocate members of the ACE community, and aligned advocacy groups, were key to recruiting a broad audience via electronic distribution and social media platforms. Results: Efforts resulted in the co-creation of a six-section, 93 question, IRB-exempt survey. The co-creation team identified 17 treatment-related side effects that were incorporated into the survey. Survey questions asked respondents about perceived severity of side effects, how well informed they felt about possibilities of experiencing these side effects, access to supportive care, side effects of supportive care therapies, and personal preferences for receiving cancer-related information. A unique measurement scale was shaped by the co-creation team to be more reflective of side effect impact on QoL. In five weeks, the survey accrued over 500 responses across a variety of cancer types (15+), stages (0 - IV), ages, statuses, and racial groups. Conclusions: Co-creation methods were used in Design to identify side effect experiences in cancer treatment and validate what matters most to individuals with cancer; in Develop to validate a pan-cancer survey examining what mattered to the audience of interest; and in Deploy to rapidly accrue a large and diverse set of responses through advocacy partnerships. Co-creation also identified layers of side effect management challenges that cannot be reflected in current rubrics for QoL measurement. While co-creation may seem daunting, this study provides a template for effective, quality partnerships between study teams, advocates, and advocacy groups for implementing co-creation methods in the cancer setting.

Background Lupus nephritis (LN), a severe organ manifestation of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), significantly impacts health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue) and Lupus Quality of Life (LupusQoL) have been validated to measure HRQoL in SLE, but not specifically in LN. Patient-reported symptoms of LN are not well-reported. We assessed the content validity and relevance of these measures in evaluating patients with LN and their LN-related experiences. Methods This qualitative, interview-based study enrolled patients with LN from three US sites from a larger, retrospective survey study. The interview comprised an open-ended concept elicitation part and a more structured cognitive part. Concept elicitation was used to identify relevant themes describing the patients’ experiences. Patients were asked to describe their LN-related symptoms, the severity and impact of those symptoms and their satisfaction with treatment. A cognitive interview approach evaluated the appropriate understanding of the items, instructions, and response options and asked patients about their understanding of the FACIT-Fatigue or LupusQoL measures, their relevance to the condition, and any aspects of confusion or need for better clarity of the questionnaires. All interviews were recorded and transcribed. The concept elicitation data were coded, while the cognitive interview data were tabulated to present the participants’ responses next to the interview questions to support the evaluation of their understanding of the questionnaire items. Results Overall, 10 patients participated in FACIT-Fatigue and another 10 in LupusQoL interviews; 18 patients were female, 10 were Black (self-reported) and 17 were receiving maintenance treatment for LN with stable disease activity. When patients recalled their symptoms, 670 expressions of varying symptoms were reported. All patients described pain, discomfort, and energy-related symptoms. Urinary frequency and non-joint swelling were most frequently attributed to LN rather than SLE. Patients felt the questions asked in the FACIT-Fatigue and LupusQoL surveys were relevant to their LN experience. Conclusions The symptoms reported by patients with LN were consistent with symptoms reported by the overall SLE population. However, patients indicated that some symptoms of LN were more profound than symptoms of SLE alone, affecting a broad range of areas of daily life activity and resulting in a higher burden on their HRQoL. FACIT-Fatigue and LupusQoL demonstrated content relevance as meaningful tools for patients with LN. However, further quantitative data collection is needed to ensure that these patient-reported outcome tools demonstrate good measurement properties in an LN population.

Background: The impact of mepolizumab on impaired sleep, one of the most bothersome symptoms in patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), is unknown. This study aimed to determine the effect of mepolizumab and impact of comorbid upper and lower airway disease and blood eosinophil count (BEC) on sleep-/fatigue-related outcomes in CRSwNP. Methods: This was an analysis of the Phase III SYNAPSE and MUSCA (NCT03085797/NCT02281318) trials of mepolizumab in patients with severe CRSwNP and severe asthma, respectively. Endpoints included change from baseline in 22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) sleep and fatigue domains (SYNAPSE: Weeks 24 and 52; MUSCA: Week 24) in the overall populations and post hoc subgroups (SYNAPSE: comorbid asthma, comorbid non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug-exacerbated respiratory disease [N-ERD] and BEC [<300/≥300 cells/μL]; MUSCA: comorbid CRSwNP). Results: In SYNAPSE, 289/407 patients with severe CRSwNP had comorbid asthma, 108 had N-ERD, and 278 had BEC ≥300 cells/μL. In MUSCA, 105/551 patients with severe asthma had comorbid CRSwNP. Baseline sleep and fatigue scores were worse in patients with comorbid airway disease and higher BEC. Improvements from baseline in sleep and fatigue scores were greater with mepolizumab versus placebo at Week 52 in SYNAPSE (difference in least squares mean change: -2.7 [sleep], -3.4 [fatigue], and Week 24 in SYNAPSE (-1.6 and -2.2) and MUSCA (-0.8 and -1.2), with consistent results across comorbidity and BEC subgroups. Conclusion: Mepolizumab improves sleep and fatigue in severe CRSwNP, irrespective of comorbid airway disease and BEC, with consistent effects in severe asthma with and without comorbid CRSwNP.