Anna Rydén

Purpose: Immunotherapy is an evolving therapeutic approach for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). This study explored factors involved in patients’ perceptions about reporting or not reporting treatment-related symptoms experienced while undergoing immunotherapy. Methods: Patients receiving immunotherapy for NSCLC were recruited in the USA and Europe. Qualitative interviews were conducted to elicit treatment-related symptoms and explore patients’ reasons and motivations for either reporting or not reporting these to their medical teams. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and coded for qualitative analysis. Results: Sixty-six patients were interviewed (mean age: 62 years; 55% male; 91% with stage IV NSCLC). The most frequent symptoms that patients experienced but did not report were gastrointestinal (23% of patients), respiratory (17%), and energy related (12%). The most common reasons for not reporting symptoms included a perception that they were not severe enough, being unsure whether the experiences were side effects, and deciding that the experiences were expected and could be managed without assistance. Fear of having treatment discontinued was also mentioned but was not a prominent reason. The most common reasons for reporting symptoms were to ascertain if these were normal and expected, and to let the medical team know. Patients emphasized the importance of survival over treatment burden when balancing symptoms with treatment benefits. Conclusion: Patients have a range of reasons for not reporting their treatment-related symptoms when undergoing immunotherapy for NSCLC. Reasons are more strongly related to determination of the severity versus manageability of patients’ experiences of symptoms than they are to the fear of having treatment discontinued.

Purpose: To describe symptoms and side effects experienced by patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), assess how patients allocate sensations (i.e. symptoms or side effects) to either the disease or its treatment, and evaluate how patients balance side effects with treatment benefits. Methods: Qualitative sub-studies were conducted as part of two clinical trials in patients treated for advanced NSCLC (AURA [NCT01802632]; ARCTIC [NCT02352948]). Results: Interviews were conducted with 23 patients and 19 patients in the AURA and ARCTIC sub-studies, respectively. The most commonly experienced symptoms/side effects were respiratory (81% of patients), digestive (76%), pain and discomfort (76%), energy-related (71%), and sensory (62%). Patients identified a sensation as a treatment side effect if they had not experienced it before, if there was a temporal link between the sensation and receipt of treatment, and/or if their doctors consistently told or asked them about it in relation to side effects. Themes that emerged when patients talked about their cancer treatment and its side effects related to the serious nature of their advanced disease and their treatment expectations. Patients focused on treatment benefits, wanting a better quality of life, being hopeful, not really having a choice, and not thinking about side effects. Conclusions: In these two qualitative sub-studies, patients with advanced NSCLC valued the benefits of their treatment regardless of side effects that they experienced. Patients weighed their options against the seriousness of their disease and expressed their willingness to tolerate their side effects in return for receiving continued treatment benefits.

Despite the importance of response option selection for patient-reported outcome measures, there seems to be little empirical evidence for the selected scale type. This article provides an overview of the published research on response scale types and empirical support within pediatric populations. A comprehensive review of the scientific literature was conducted to identify response scale option types appropriate for use in pediatric populations and to review and summarize the available empirical evidence for each scale type. Eleven review/consensus guideline/expert opinion articles and 20 empirical articles that provided guidance or evidence regarding pediatric response scale selection were identified. There was general consensus that 5-point verbal rating scales, including Likert scales, were appropriate for children aged 7 or 8 and older, while graphical or faces scales are often used in pediatric studies with children of younger ages. In general, the verbal rating scale, numeric rating scale, visual analogue scale, and graphical scales have each demonstrated to be reliable and valid response option formats in specific contexts among pediatric populations; however, their appropriateness is dependent upon sample age. When selecting response scales, it is important to consider target population and context of use during the development of patient-reported outcome measures, especially with respect to tense, recall period, attribution, number of options, etc. In addition to age, cognitive development is an important aspect to consider for optimizing pediatric self-reported measures. More research is needed to determine clinically relevant changes and differences within pediatric research, which includes different response scale options.

Introduction Capturing the patient experience during treatment is important to both regulatory authorities and to patients starting treatment. We identified the symptoms and side effects experienced by patients with advanced non-small-cell lung cancer during osimertinib treatment, to understand treatment expectations, satisfaction, and the level of difficulty coping with the side effects experienced during treatment. Methods Qualitative interviews (approximately 4–6 weeks after treatment initiation and again after approximately 4 months of treatment) were conducted during the phase I/II AURA clinical trial of osimertinib, a tyrosine kinase inhibitor of epidermal growth factor receptor-sensitizing and T790M resistance mutations. Results During the first interview (23 patients), the most commonly reported symptoms/side effects were coughing, itching, tiredness (each reported by 56.5% of patients), and rash (43.5%). During the second interview (21 patients), compared with the first interview, shortness of breath and diarrhea were reported by more patients (57.1 and 38.1%, respectively; both increased from 34.8%); tiredness remained predominant (42.9%); and itching (38.1%), coughing (38.1%), and rash (14.3%) were reported by fewer patients. At both interviews, the most frequently reported symptoms/side effects were also those most often rated by patients for bothersomeness and severity, and generally received mean scores in the low-to-moderate range. However, several rarely expressed symptoms/side effects (e.g., abdominal pain, frequent day time urination) received high bothersomeness ratings. At the second interview, patients were highly satisfied with osimertinib and had a low level of difficulty in coping with side effects during treatment. Conclusions These data enhance our understanding of patients’ experiences of symptoms/side effects, which could increase the accuracy of the osimertinib benefit–risk assessment, guide management of adverse events, and improve the information given to patients receiving the drug.

Methods for discrete choice experiment (DCE) attribute and attribute-level selection have not yet been firmly established and are rarely reported in detail. This paper describes a qualitative study designed to inform the development of a DCE survey designed to examine preferences for glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonist (GLP-1RA) treatments among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

Diagnoses of Type 1 Diabetes Mellitus (T1DM) in Europe appear to be on the rise. Therefore it is imperative that researchers understand the potential impact that increases in prevalence could have on the affected individuals as well as on society as a whole. Accordingly this study examined the humanistic and economic burden of T1DM in patients relative to those without the condition across a number of health outcomes including health status, work productivity loss, activity impairment, and healthcare resource use. Survey data from a large, representative sample of EU adults (The EU National Health and Wellness Survey) were examined. Results suggest that overall burden is higher for those diagnosed with T1DM than respondents without diabetes and that burden increases as complications associated with T1DM increase. Taken together, these results suggest that treatment strategies for T1DM should balance clinical, humanistic, and economic burden and patients should be educated on the role of complications in disease outcomes.

End-stage renal disease treated with hemodialysis (ESRD-HD) is associated with poor outcomes for patients and can substantially reduce health-related quality of life (HRQL). Alongside drug development for this patient group, there is a need for a better understanding of patients’ perceptions of their condition, their symptoms and the impact ESRD-HD has on their lives