Development of questionnaires to measure patient preferences for intranasal corticosteroids in patients with allergic rhinitis

Patient Satisfaction and Sensory Attributes of Nasal Spray Treatments of Olopatadine Hydrochloride/Mometasone Furoate Monohydrate and Azelastine Hydrochloride/Fluticasone Propionate for Allergic Rhinitis in Australia - An Observational Real-World Clinical Study

Purpose

Combination intranasal corticosteroid and antihistamine sprays are a first-line treatment option for allergic rhinitis (AR), of which Azelastine Hydrochloride and Fluticasone Propionate nasal spray (AZE/FLU; Dymista®), and Olopatadine Hydrochloride and Mometasone Furoate Monohydrate nasal spray (OLO/MOM; Ryaltris®) are currently registered in Australia. As it is not known how patients value treatment attributes of current combination nasal sprays, this observational, real-world clinical study aimed to understand patients' satisfaction with, and importance of, treatment attributes of OLO/MOM and AZE/FLU using an Anchored Best-Worst Scaling (ABWS) exercise.

Participants and Methods

Four hundred and twenty-six adults in Australia with moderate to severe AR using either OLO/MOM or AZE/FLU completed an online survey incorporating an ABWS with 11 domains: 7 sensory (immediate taste of medication, aftertaste of medication, smell of medication, irritation to your nose, urge to sneeze, dripping out your nose/down your throat, dryness of your nose/throat) and 4 treatment-related (convenience, fast acting, duration of effect, and AR symptom control). The ABWS involved rescaling individual BWS scores using anchored ratings (0-10) for most and least satisfied/important domains to create a total satisfaction index (TSI) (0-100) to be compared across groups. Statistical comparisons were completed using ANOVA (TSI) and MANOVA (individual domains).

Results

Participants using OLO/MOM (M = 68.26, SE = 1.39) had significantly higher TSI than participants using AZE/FLU (M=62.78, SE = 0.70) (p < 0.001), significantly higher satisfaction on 7 of 11 domains and regarded 8 of 11 domains as significantly more important compared to participants using AZE/FLU (all p < 0.05). Preferred domains were predominantly sensory attributes.

Conclusion

Current findings showed that participants using OLO/MOM were more satisfied with their overall treatment compared to participants using AZE/FLU, particularly with sensory attributes, thus highlighting the suitability of OLO/MOM for people with AR who value sensory attributes. Prescribers of AR treatments are encouraged to discuss treatment attributes with patients to facilitate shared decision-making.

Assessing Preferences for Rare Disease Treatment: Qualitative Development of the Paroxysmal Nocturnal Hemoglobinuria Patient Preference Questionnaire (PNH-PPQ©)

PURPOSE

To develop a patient preference questionnaire (PPQ) assessing eculizumab and ravulizumab treatment for paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The development of the PNH-PPQ© was consistent with Food and Drug Administration guidelines for patient-reported outcome measure development, and included 1) a targeted literature review; 2) PNH expert clinician input on treatment preferences; 3) review of existing qualitative data on the PNH treatment and disease experience; 4) concept elicitation interviews with 8 PNH patients who received eculizumab and/or ravulizumab; 5) translatability review; and 6) cognitive debriefing with 5 patients. Interview participants were recruited through a United Kingdom PNH patient advocacy group and a Canadian clinical site involved in clinical trial ALXN1210-PNH-302.

RESULTS

Six themes were identified as most relevant to the PNH treatment experience from the concept elicitation interviews: disease symptoms (n=8/8); treatment frequency (n=7/8); quality of life impact of treatment/disease (n=7/8); treatment burden (n=7/8); treatment efficacy (n=5/8); and treatment side effects (n=5/8). An initial list of 88 preference questions was reduced to 11 highly relevant and non-redundant questions reflecting the 6 themes. Cognitive interview participants unanimously agreed that the PNH-PPQ instructions were clear; response options were understandable, easy to use, and provided enough choices; and the questions captured the factors that inform treatment preferences.

DISCUSSION

When new drugs have similar efficacy to existing medications, documenting patient preferences is important for confirming patient benefit from the new medication. Understanding what matters most to patients is essential for delivering patient-centered care and may play a particularly significant role in treatment decision making. The availability of such a tool may be especially important as new orphan drugs are developed and patients with rare diseases have more than one treatment option to consider.

CONCLUSION

The PNH-PPQ provides a patient-centered approach for evaluating preferences for the treatment of PNH. The PNH-PPQ has subsequently assessed patient preference in the clinical trial sub-study ALXN1210-PNH-302s.

Comparison of sensory attributes and immediate efficacy of intranasal ciclesonide and fluticasone propionate in allergic rhinitis: a randomized controlled trial

Objectives:

Intranasal corticosteroids (INCs) are the most effective modality for treating allergic rhinitis and their sensory attributes are important in patient compliance. This study aimed to compare the sensory attributes (scent, immediate taste, aftertaste, run down to throat, nose run off, soothing feel, nasal irritation, and urge to sneeze) and immediate response to the new intranasal steroid, ciclesonide (CIC), with fluticasone propionate (FLP) in allergic rhinitis.

Materials and Methods:

A randomized, double blind, single dose, crossover study was done with 74 patients presenting with acute allergic rhinitis. Eligible subjects were randomized in 1:1 ratio to one of the two treatment sequences – CIC followed by FLP or vice versa. Sensory attributes were assessed using a questionnaire to score each item on a seven-point Likert scale, immediately and 2 min after dosing. Total nasal symptom score (TNSS) was calculated to evaluate immediate efficacy 10 min after first drug administration. Overall preference was recorded 10 min after the second drug administration. Patients were queried about treatment emergent adverse events following study drug administration and also 24 h later over the phone.

Results:

Patients (58% males; pooled median age 32 years [Interquartile range, IQR, 25–41]; pooled median symptom duration 24 months [IQR 12–72]) preferred FLP over CIC nasal spray overall (55.41% vs. 25.68%, P = 0.007) and also with respect to attributes of scent, soothing feel, and nasal irritation. There was no statistically significant difference in immediate efficacy. Two patients reported mild headache following CIC first, while three felt mild headache, one dizziness, and one nasal congestion following FLP first administration. There were no delayed adverse events.

Conclusions:

There was no difference in immediate outcome following use of either of the two INCs. FLP was preferred over CIC with respect to scent, soothing feel and nasal irritation, and also overall. There were no significant adverse events.

Is allergy related to Meniere's disease?

Meniere's disease (MD) is characterized by episodic rotational vertigo, fluctuating sensorineural hearing loss, aural pressure, and tinnitus. The cause of MD is thought to be multifactorial, with anatomic and genetic contributions. Allergy is thought to be one of the possible extrinsic factors that, when combined with underlying intrinsic factors, may lead to MD. We review the epidemiologic associations of MD and allergy and review the recent literature on the association of allergy and MD.

Psychometric validation of the experience with allergic rhinitis nasal spray questionnaire

BACKGROUND

Patient experience and preference are critical factors influencing compliance in patients with allergic rhinitis (AR) receiving intranasal corticosteroids. The Experience with Allergic Rhinitis Nasal Spray Questionnaire (EARNS-Q) was developed to measure subject experiences with and preferences for nasal sprays.

OBJECTIVE

To describe the psychometric validation of the EARNS-Q modules.

METHODS

An observational study was conducted with subjects aged 18-65 years with physician-diagnosed vasomotor, seasonal, and/or perennial allergic rhinitis who were using a prescription nasal spray. Subjects completed the experience module of the EARNS-Q and the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire with Medication (TSQM) at baseline and after 2 weeks. Further validation analyses were conducted in a 3-week, randomized, single-blind, crossover, multicenter clinical study in which subjects ≥18 years of age with documented seasonal AR received flunisolide and beclomethasone and completed the EARNS-Q experience module on days 1 and 8, the EARNS-Q preference module on day 22, and the TSQM on days 8 and 22.

RESULTS

The observational and clinical studies were completed by 121 and 89 subjects, respectively. Both modules demonstrated acceptable reliability (α = 0.72 experience module; α = 0.93 preference module global scores) and validity (intraclass correlation coefficient or ICC 0.64 to 0.82 test-retest validity). Correlations among the experience and preference modules were moderate (r = 0.39 to 0.79) and within internal consistency reliability estimates, indicating measurement of distinct constructs.

CONCLUSION

The EARNS-Q is a patient-reported outcomes measure that enables reliable and valid measurement of subject experience with, and preference for, prescription intranasal corticosteroid sprays for allergic rhinitis.

Epidemiology of allergy

Atopic disease represents a spectrum of disorders characterized by abnormal sensitivity mediated by IgE; approximately 20% of Americans suffer from some form of allergic disease. The sequelae of inhalant and food allergies may present in many organ systems. Manifestations of allergic disease in one site are often associated with symptoms from another site. It is important for clinicians to understand the epidemiology of atopic disease and its causes to facilitate implementation of effective treatment and prevention strategies. This review focuses on the epidemiology of inhalant allergies causing allergic rhinitis and asthma and on IgE-mediated food allergies.

Specific recommendations for PROs and HRQoL assessment in allergic rhinitis and/or asthma: a GA(2)LEN taskforce position paper

The GA(2)LEN taskforce on Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) and Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) published in 2009 a position paper concerning PROS and HRQoL assessment in clinical trials on allergy. Because of the specificity of this topic in asthma and rhinitis, specific recommendations are needed. The aim of this position paper is to define PROs and their meaning in asthma and rhinitis research, explore the available tools to provide criteria for a proper choice, identify patient-related factor which could influence PROs assessment, define specific recommendations for assessment, analysis and results spreading, underline the unexplored areas and unmet needs. PROs assessment is gaining increasing importance, and it must be performed with a rigorous methodological procedure and using validated tools. This approach enables to better understand patient-related factors influencing clinical trials and real-life management outcomes, identify patients subgroups that can benefit from specific treatment and management plan and tailor treatment to address PROs (not only physician-defined targets) to improve asthma and rhinitis management.

Formulation considerations of intranasal corticosteroids for the treatment of allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

To examine how various aspects of an intranasal corticosteroid (INS) formulation may influence the efficacy, tolerability, and patient preference and adherence to INS therapy.

DATA SOURCES

A PubMed search of the literature was conducted for studies on allergic rhinitis published between January 1977 and January 2006 using the keywords intranasal corticosteroid, preservatives, benzalkonium chloride, and tonicity.

STUDY SELECTION

Prospective studies, retrospective studies, and case reports were selected for inclusion in this review.

RESULTS

Currently available INSs are effective first-line treatments for allergic rhinitis. Differences in patient preference for a particular INS are largely attributable to sensory attributes of the nasal spray, which arise from characteristics of the formulation. Additives and preservatives can cause tolerability issues by irritating the mucosal membranes and causing nasal drying, or they can confer an unpleasant odor or taste to an INS formulation. The relative osmotic pressure, or tonicity, of an INS can modulate nasal absorption and retention, thereby potentially influencing the clinical efficacy. Characteristics such as delivery device and spray volume can affect a patient's perception and experience with a particular INS. Newer INSs, such as ciclesonide, are in development for the treatment of allergic rhinitis, and consideration of the formulation characteristics of these agents is an important part of the development process.

CONCLUSIONS

INSs are an effective treatment option for patients with allergic rhinitis; however, there is room for formulation improvement. Optimization of formulation may increase the efficacy, tolerability, and patient preference and adherence to INSs.

A preference evaluation study comparing the sensory attributes of mometasone furoate and fluticasone propionate nasal sprays by patients with allergic rhinitis

OBJECTIVE

Data on intranasal corticosteroids suggest that individual product attributes may influence patient preference for therapy in allergic rhinitis. The study objective was to compare product sensory attributes and their impact upon patient preference for scent-free mometasone furoate nasal spray (MFNS) versus fluticasone propionate nasal spray (FPNS) in patients with symptomatic allergic rhinitis.

METHODS

In a double-blind, crossover study, 100 patients were randomized to MFNS microg followed by FPNS 200 microg, or vice versa. Patients rated the study drugs by completing an individual product sensory attributes questionnaire at the end of each period of drug administration. An overall sensory preference questionnaire was completed following crossover.

RESULTS

A significantly greater number of patients preferred MFNS to FPNS (p < 0.05). MFNS was superior for a number of individual sensory attributes based on mean patient ratings: significantly fewer patients perceived scent/odor (immediately and 2 minutes after drug administration; p < 0.001), taste (immediately after drug administration; p = 0.002), and after-taste (2 minutes after drug administration; p = 0.007) with MFNS compared with FPNS. Similarly, product sensory attribute preference data demonstrated that twice the number of patients preferred MFNS to FPNS for scent/odor (p = 0.0005), immediate taste (p = 0.005), and after-taste (p = 0.005). Fifty-four percent of patients said they would choose a prescription for MFNS compared with 33% for FPNS (p = 0.03). In addition, 47% of patients would be more likely to comply (use daily as directed) with MFNS compared with 25% with FPNS (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSION

Several individual sensory attributes of MFNS were rated significantly superior to FPNS. Overall, based on the tested sensory attributes, patients preferred MFNS to FPNS therapy for the treatment of allergic rhinitis.

A hybrid qualitative method for pretesting questionnaires: The example of a questionnaire to caregivers of Alzheimer disease patients

A hybrid method based on cognitive interviewing and consensus panels was developed to pretest a questionnaire for caregivers of persons with Alzheimer disease (AD). The objective of the questionnaire was to elicit caregivers' attitudes and opinions on the use of medications to treat the disease. Thirty-one caregivers were divided into five pretest groups, within which each participant was asked to comment on questionnaire wording and design. The comments from participants in the first three groups were used to revise the questionnaire, and the revised version was given to participants in the remaining two groups. Overall, 81% (118/146) of the participants' comments were implemented. The number of comments made in the last two groups decreased relative to the number of comments made in the first three groups. The hybrid method enhanced the user-friendliness of the questionnaire and can serve as an alternative to common ad hoc pretest approaches that have little basis in theory.