Jean Paty’s research while affiliated with IQVIA and other places

Purpose The Myelofibrosis Symptom Assessment Form version 4.0 (MFSAF v4.0) comprises 7 common MF symptom items (fatigue, night sweats, pruritus, abdominal discomfort, pain under the left ribs, early satiety, bone pain) and is the first patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument designed to assess MF symptom burden. Given that information on the psychometric properties of this instrument has been limited, we sought to evaluate its measurement properties and validate its use in the phase 3 MOMENTUM trial. Methods Data were pooled to assess MFSAF item distribution, structural validity, reliability (test-retest and internal consistency), construct validity (convergent, divergent, and known-groups), and sensitivity to change. Other PRO measures included Patient Global Impression of Severity/Change (PGIS/PGIC), EORTC QLQ-C30, PROMIS Physical Function Short Form 10b, and ECOG performance status. Results Participants (N = 195) showed high completion rates (> 93%) across 24 weeks. Moderate to strong Spearman correlation coefficients among items were mostly observed at baseline (range, 0.289–0.772) and week 24 (range, 0.391–0.829), which supported combining items into a multi-item scale and total score. Internal consistency (Cronbach’s α, 0.877 at baseline and 0.903 at week 24) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient, > 0.829) were satisfactory across selected time intervals. Reliability was also supported by McDonald’s omega (ω) coefficient (> 0.875). MFSAF moderately correlated with PRO measures of similar content, differentiated between PGIS and ECOG groups (P < .001), and was able to detect change over time. Conclusions The MFSAF v4.0 is a valid tool to assess MF symptom burden, supporting its use in future trials in similar populations.

Background and objective: Patients experience a wide range of signs, symptoms, and impacts related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). A patient-reported outcome (PRO) item bank that measures the most relevant patient experiences is needed to fully evaluate treatment benefit in COVID-19 clinical trials. Methods: A review of the literature and social media informed a novel PRO item bank of COVID-19 signs, symptoms, and impacts and general pandemic impacts. Twenty 1:1 concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing interviews were conducted with adults in the US who had symptomatic COVID-19. A conceptual model was developed and the PRO item bank refined following interviews. Results: A heterogenous set of signs, symptoms, and impacts of COVID-19, as well as impacts associated with the pandemic overall, was identified. Fifty-five short-term and long-term signs and symptom items, 26 items assessing disease-related impacts, and seven items evaluating pandemic-related impacts are included in the item bank. Conclusions: The novel and preliminarily content-valid IQVIA COVID-19 Daily Diary Item Bank© and the IQVIA COVID-19 Weekly Diary Item Bank© were developed to measure signs and symptoms, their associated severity, and disease-related and pandemic-related impacts. The items are arranged in seven groups and can be individually selected based on research needs.

Background: Late-onset Pompe Disease (LOPD) is a rare, heterogeneous disease manifested by a range of symptoms varying in severity. Research establishing the frequency of these symptoms and their impact on patients' daily lives is limited. The objective of this study was to develop a conceptual model that captures the most relevant symptoms and functional limitations experienced by patients with LOPD, to inform the development of new patient-reported outcome (PRO) tools. Methods: A preliminary conceptual model was constructed following a literature review and revised through interviews with expert clinicians to identify important and relevant concepts regarding symptoms and impacts of LOPD. This preliminary model informed the development of a qualitative patient interview guide, which was used to gather the patient perspective on symptoms and impacts relating to LOPD or its treatment (including symptom/impact frequency and levels of disturbance). Patient interviews aided further refinement of the conceptual model. The findings from the patient interviews were triangulated with the literature review and clinician interviews to identify the most relevant and significant effects of LOPD from the patient perspective. Results: Muscle weakness, fatigue, pain, and breathing difficulties (especially while lying down) were the most common and highly disturbing symptoms experienced by patients. Limitations associated with mobility (e.g., difficulty rising from a sitting position, getting up after bending) and activities of daily living, (e.g., reduced ability to participate in social/family activities or work/study) were the most frequently reported impacts with the highest levels of disturbance on the patient's daily life. These identified symptoms and impacts were included in the new conceptual model of disease. Conclusions: This qualitative patient interview study, also informed by a literature review and clinician interviews, identified the most frequent and relevant symptoms and the functional impact of LOPD on patients. The study interviews also captured the patient-preferred language to describe symptoms and impacts of LOPD. The results from this study can be used to develop future PRO instruments that are tailored to the specific symptoms and impacts experienced by patients with LOPD.

IntroductionThere is a need to understand how patients assess perceived benefits and risks of treatments.Objectives The study aimed to (i) elucidate how patients evaluate treatment experiences and (ii) develop a brief patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument for use across disease areas for perceived benefit–risk evaluation of a new medicine in a clinical trial setting.Methods Concepts relating to patient-perceived benefit–risk were identified from literature reviews and qualitative concept elicitation interviews with patients across a variety of primary medical conditions. Draft instrument items were developed from identified concepts and evaluated for clarity, relevance and appropriateness of response options in cognitive interviews. Items were iteratively revised to address patient feedback.ResultsQualitative interviews were conducted with 47 patients (primary condition: 20 oncological, 12 respiratory, 10 metabolic, 5 cardiovascular), of whom 32 contributed to concept elicitation and 42 to cognitive debriefing. Elicited concepts could be grouped into four medication-related categories: effectiveness of treatment, burden of side effects, convenience of use and overall acceptance/satisfaction. Cost, trial experience and altruism were additional concept categories unrelated to medication. The final instrument contained one item each on the medication’s effectiveness, side effects and convenience, and an overall item capturing patient benefit–risk assessment. An upfront question was included to separate out non-medication aspects of patients’ experiences.Conclusion We developed a brief PRO instrument, the Patient Global Impression of Benefit–Risk (PGI-BR), which can be applied across disease areas to assess patient views of benefit–risk of a new medicine in the clinical trial setting.

Aim: Patient-reported symptoms, functioning and overall quality of life (QoL) were compared between dacomitinib and gefitinib in ARCHER 1050. Patients & methods: Patients (n = 448) with advanced EGFR mutation-positive non-small-cell lung cancer completed the EORTC-QLQ-C30 questionnaire and its lung-specific module, LC-13. Mean scores over time were analyzed using a mixed model for repeated measures. Results: Both treatments showed early improvement in disease-related symptoms that was maintained during treatment. Treatment-related diarrhea and sore mouth decreased following dose reduction with dacomitinib. There were no clinically meaningful changes in functioning and overall QoL in either treatment group. Conclusion: Longer treatment duration, enabled by dose reduction, allowed patients on dacomitinib to improve treatment-related symptoms and maintain functioning and overall QoL for longer than gefitinib. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01774721