scholarly journals Patient-reported outcomes data in patients with psoriatic arthritis from a randomised trial of etanercept and methotrexate as monotherapy or in combination

RMD Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. e001484
Author(s):  
Vibeke Strand ◽  
Philip J Mease ◽  
Ervant J Maksabedian Hernandez ◽  
Bradley S Stolshek ◽  
Lyrica X H Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Psoriatic Arthritis ◽  
Global Assessment ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Short Form ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Randomised Trial ◽  
Patient Global Assessment ◽  
Normative Values ◽  
Sf 36 ◽  
Patient Reported

ObjectivesWe examined patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in The Study of Etanercept And Methotrexate in Patients with Psoriatic Arthritis (PsA); a 48-week, phase 3, randomised controlled trial that compared outcomes with methotrexate (MTX) monotherapy, etanercept monotherapy, and MTX+ etanercept in patients with PsA.MethodsEfficacy endpoints included: mean changes from baseline and proportion of patients who reported improvements≥minimal clinically important difference (MCID) at week 24 in treatment groups for Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, Patient Global Assessment (PtGA), Patient Global Assessment of Joint Pain (PtGAJP) and Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 Questionnaire (SF-36) Physical Component Summary (PCS), and Mental Component Summary, and eight domain scores. PROs were analysed as reported (observed), without multiplicity adjustment; therefore, p values are descriptive.ResultsAt week 24, patients receiving etanercept monotherapy or MTX+ etanercept combination reported greater improvements (p≤0.05) in PtGA, PtGAJP and SF-36 PCS scores compared with those receiving MTX monotherapy. Compared with MTX monotherapy, higher proportions of patients receiving etanercept monotherapy and combination therapy reported improvements≥MCID in PtGA (etanercept vs MTX, p=0.005) and PtGAJP (MTX +etanercept vs MTX, p=0.038). Across PROs, proportions of patients reporting scores≥age and gender-matched normative values at week 24 ranged from 20.8% to 51.0% with MTX monotherapy, 30.9% to 48.8% with etanercept monotherapy, and 30.6% to 52.3% with MTX+ etanercept combination.ConclusionsPatients receiving etanercept monotherapy or MTX+ etanercept reported greater improvements from baseline in several PROs compared with those receiving MTX monotherapy. PROs should be incorporated in discussions between patients and clinicians regarding their treatment choices as they can help determine which treatments are more beneficial in patients with PsA.

scholarly journals Patient-reported outcomes for tofacitinib with and without methotrexate, or adalimumab with methotrexate, in rheumatoid arthritis: a phase IIIB/IV trial

RMD Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. e001040 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vibeke Strand ◽  
Eduardo Mysler ◽  
Robert J Moots ◽  
Gene V Wallenstein ◽  
Ryan DeMasi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Short Form ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Link Type ◽  
Combination Treatments ◽  
Sf 36 ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Phase Iiib

ObjectiveTo provide the first direct comparison of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) following treatment with tofacitinib monotherapy versus tofacitinib or adalimumab (ADA) in combination with methotrexate (MTX) in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) with inadequate response to MTX (MTX-IR).MethodsORAL Strategy (NCT02187055), a phase IIIB/IV, head-to-head, randomised controlled trial, assessed non-inferiority between tofacitinib 5 mg two times per day monotherapy, tofacitinib 5 mg two times per day+MTX and ADA 40 mg every other week+MTX. PROs assessed included the following: Patient Global Assessment of disease activity (PtGA), Pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue and 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) summary and domain scores.ResultsSubstantial improvements from baseline were reported across all PROs in all treatment arms, which, in the majority, met or exceeded minimum clinically important differences. Compared with tofacitinib monotherapy, tofacitinib+MTX combination treatment conferred significantly greater improvements in PtGA, Pain and SF-36 physical component summary scores at month 6. Statistically or numerically greater improvements were often, but not uniformly, reported for combination treatments compared with tofacitinib monotherapy at other time points.ConclusionTreatment with tofacitinib+MTX, ADA+MTX and tofacitinib monotherapy resulted in clinically meaningful improvements in PROs in MTX-IR patients with RA. These were comparatively greater with combination treatments versus tofacitinib monotherapy, although differences between treatment arms were small, limiting our ability to confer clinical meaning.Trial registration numberNCT02187055.

scholarly journals Upadacitinib improves patient-reported outcomes in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: results from SELECT-NEXT

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Vibeke Strand ◽  
Janet Pope ◽  
Namita Tundia ◽  
Alan Friedman ◽  
Heidi S. Camp ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Disease Activity ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Short Form ◽  
Normative Values ◽  
Number Needed To Treat ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Mixed Effect ◽  
Meaningful Improvement ◽  
Sf 36 ◽  
Patient Reported

Abstract Background To evaluate the effect of upadacitinib on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with RA who had an inadequate response to csDMARDs. Methods Patients in SELECT-NEXT, a randomised controlled trial, were on a background of csDMARDs and received upadacitinib 15 mg and 30 mg or placebo daily for 12 weeks. PROs included Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA), pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F), duration and severity of morning (AM) joint stiffness, Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36), and Work Instability Scale for RA (RA-WIS). Least squares mean (LSM) changes were based on mixed-effect repeated measure models. Percentages of patients reporting improvements ≥ minimum clinically important differences (MCIDs) and scores ≥ normative values and number needed to treat (NNT) were determined; group comparisons used chi-square tests. Results Data from 661 patients were analysed. Compared with placebo, patients receiving upadacitinib reported statistically significant improvements (both doses, P < 0.05) in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, FACIT-F, duration and severity of AM stiffness, SF-36 (PCS and 6/8 domains), and RA-WIS at week 12. Significantly, more upadacitinib-treated patients (both doses, P < 0.05) reported improvements ≥ MCID in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, FACIT-F, AM stiffness, SF-36 (PCS and 4 or 7/8 domains), and RA-WIS and scores ≥ normative values in HAQ-DI, FACIT-F, and SF-36 (PCS and 4 or 5/8 domains). For most PROs, the incremental NNT with upadacitinib to report clinically meaningful improvement from baseline ranged from 4 to 8 patients. Conclusions Upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg daily for 12 weeks resulted in significant and clinically meaningful improvements in global disease activity, pain, physical function, fatigue, duration and severity of AM stiffness, HRQOL, and work instability among csDMARD-IR patients with RA. Trial registration Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02675426. Retrospectively registered 5 February 2016.

scholarly journals Effects of upadacitinib on patient-reported outcomes: results from SELECT-BEYOND, a phase 3 randomized trial in patients with rheumatoid arthritis and inadequate responses to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Vibeke Strand ◽  
Michael Schiff ◽  
Namita Tundia ◽  
Alan Friedman ◽  
Sebastian Meerwein ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Short Form ◽  
Normative Values ◽  
Number Needed To Treat ◽  
Disease Modifying Antirheumatic Drugs ◽  
Antirheumatic Drugs ◽  
Sf 36 ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Disease Modifying

Abstract Background Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are important when evaluating treatment benefits in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). We compared upadacitinib, an oral, selective JAK-1 inhibitor, with placebo to assess clinically meaningful improvements in PROs in patients with RA who have had inadequate responses to biologic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs (bDMARD-IR). Methods PRO responses between upadacitinib 15 mg or 30 mg and placebo were evaluated at week 12 from the SELECT-BEYOND trial. Improvement was determined by measuring Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA), pain, Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Short Form-36 Health Survey (SF-36), duration and severity of morning (AM) stiffness, and Insomnia Severity Index (ISI). Least squares mean changes and percentage of patients reporting improvements ≥ minimum clinically important differences (MCID) and scores greater than or equal to normative values were determined. The number needed to treat (NNT) to achieve clinically meaningful improvements was calculated. Results In 498 patients, both upadacitinib doses resulted in statistically significant changes from baseline versus placebo in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS), 7 of 8 SF-36 domains (15 mg), 6 of 8 SF-36 domains (30 mg), and AM stiffness duration and severity. Compared with placebo, more upadacitinib-treated patients reported improvements ≥ MCID in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, SF-36 PCS, 7 of 8 SF-36 domains (15 mg), 5 of 8 SF-36 domains (30 mg), AM stiffness duration and severity, and ISI (30 mg) and scores ≥ normative values in HAQ-DI and SF-36 domains. Across most PROs, NNTs to achieve MCID with upadacitinib ranged from 4 to 7 patients. Conclusions In bDMARD-IR RA patients, upadacitinib (15 mg or 30 mg) improved multiple aspects of quality of life, and more patients reached clinically meaningful improvements approaching normative values compared with placebo. Trial registration The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02706847), registered 6 March 2016.

scholarly journals Patient-reported Outcomes in a Randomized Trial of Etanercept in Psoriatic Arthritis

2010 ◽  
Vol 37 (6) ◽  
pp. 1221-1227 ◽  
Author(s):  
PHILIP J. MEASE ◽  
J. MICHAEL WOOLLEY ◽  
AMITABH SINGH ◽  
WAYNE TSUJI ◽  
MELEANA DUNN ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Psoriatic Arthritis ◽  
Pain Assessment ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Short Form ◽  
Health Assessment ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Etanercept Treatment ◽  
Sf 36 ◽  
Patient Reported

Objective.To evaluate the effects of etanercept treatment on patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA).Methods.A 24-week double-blind comparison to placebo was followed by a 48-week open-label phase in which all eligible patients received etanercept. PRO were measured using the Stanford Health Assessment Questionnaire Disability Index (HAQ-DI), the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form (SF-36), the EQ-5D visual analog scale (VAS), and the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) patient pain assessment.Results.Beginning at Week 4 and continuing through Week 24 of double-blind treatment, patients treated with etanercept had significantly higher mean percentage improvement in HAQ-DI relative to baseline than patients given placebo (53.6% vs 6.4% at Week 24; p < 0.001). After 48 weeks of open-label treatment with etanercept, the mean percentage change from study baseline was 52.8% for the original etanercept group and 46.9% for the original placebo group, with 41.2% of patients overall achieving a HAQ-DI of 0. Mean changes relative to baseline for SF-36 physical component summary scores, EQ-5D VAS, and ACR pain assessment were also significant in the double-blind period for etanercept compared with placebo (p < 0.001 for all 3 measures). Patients taking placebo achieved similar improvements once they began treatment with etanercept in the open-label period.Conclusion.Patients with PsA treated with etanercept reported significant improvements in physical function that were almost 10 times the improvement seen with placebo and were maintained for up to 2 years. Almost half of patients treated with etanercept reported no disability by the end of the study.

scholarly journals Upadacitinib improves patient-reported outcomes vs placebo or adalimumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: results from SELECT-COMPARE

Rheumatology ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vibeke Strand ◽  
Namita Tundia ◽  
Martin Bergman ◽  
Andrew Ostor ◽  
Patrick Durez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Rheumatoid Arthritis ◽  
Least Squares ◽  
Physical Component Summary ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Short Form ◽  
Normative Values ◽  
Sf 36 ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Adalimumab Treatment ◽  
The Impact

ABSTRACT Objective To evaluate the impact of upadacitinib vs placebo and adalimumab treatment, on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in SELECT-COMPARE in an active RA population with inadequate responses to methotrexate (MTX-IR). Methods PROs in patients receiving upadacitinib (15 mg QD), placebo, or adalimumab (40 mg EOW) while on background MTX were evaluated over 48 weeks. PROs included PtGA and pain by VAS, HAQ-DI, 36-Item Short Form Survey (SF-36), morning (AM) stiffness duration and severity, FACIT-F, and work instability. Least squares mean (LSM) changes and proportions of patients reporting improvements ≥ minimal clinically important differences (MCID) and scores ≥ normative values were evaluated. Results Upadacitinib and adalimumab resulted in greater LSM changes from baseline vs placebo across all PROs (p &lt; 0.05) at week 12, and pain and AM stiffness severity (p &lt; 0.05) at week 2. More upadacitinib- vs placebo-treated (p &lt; 0.05) and similar percentages of upadacitinib- vs adalimumab-treated patients reported improvements ≥ MCID across all PROs at week 12. Upadacitinib vs adalimumab resulted in greater LSM changes from baseline in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, stiffness severity, FACIT-F, and SF-36 Physical Component Summary (PCS) (all p &lt; 0.05) at week 12. More upadacitinib- vs adalimumab-treated patients reported scores ≥ normative values in HAQ-DI and SF-36 PCS (p &lt; 0.05) at week 12. More upadacitinib- vs adalimumab-treated patients maintained clinically meaningful improvements in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, FACIT-F, and AM stiffness through 48 weeks. Conclusion In MTX-IR patients with RA, treatment with upadacitinib resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in PROs equivalent to or greater than with adalimumab.

PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES AND DISABILITY IN MULTIPLE SCLEROSIS

2015 ◽  
Vol 86 (11) ◽  
pp. e4.32-e4
Author(s):  
Neil Scolding ◽  
Hongwei Wang ◽  
Yan Liu ◽  
Lawrence Steinman
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Sclerosis ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Short Form ◽  
Minimum Important Difference ◽  
Point Change ◽  
Clinical Difference ◽  
Sf 36 ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Edss Score ◽  
Multiple Sclerosis Patients

In the 2-year, phase 3 CARE-MS II study (NCT00548405), alemtuzumab demonstrated superior clinical and patient-reported outcomes (PROs) over subcutaneous interferon beta-1a in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis patients who had inadequate efficacy response to prior therapy. To further evaluate the relationship between PROs and disability, Short-Form 36-Item (SF-36) survey physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS), and Functional Assessment of Multiple Sclerosis (FAMS) scores were analysed against Expanded Disability Status Scale (EDSS) outcomes, adjusted for baseline characteristics and randomisation arm. A 1.0-point difference in baseline EDSS score was associated with 2.0-point PCS, 0.8-point MCS, and 4.0-point FAMS worsening over 12 months (all P<0.001). A 1.0-point annualised EDSS score worsening corresponded to a 2.2-point PCS, 1.6-point MCS, and 6.0-point FAMS worsening (all P<0.001). For baseline EDSS score <4.0, 1.0-point annualised worsening was associated with 7.2-point FAMS and 2.0-point MCS worsening (both P<0.001). For baseline EDSS score ≥4.0, 1.0-point worsening corresponded to worsening on FAMS (2.4 points; P=0.04), but not MCS (P=0.82). Given that a half-point EDSS change is considered the minimum reliably measurable clinical difference, a 1.0-point change in SF-36 PCS and MCS or 3.0-point change in FAMS may represent a minimum important difference in PRO for multiple sclerosis patients.

scholarly journals Upadacitinib monotherapy improves patient-reported outcomes in rheumatoid arthritis: results from SELECT-EARLY and SELECT-MONOTHERAPY

Rheumatology ◽  
2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vibeke Strand ◽  
Namita Tundia ◽  
Alvin Wells ◽  
Maya H Buch ◽  
Sebastiao C Radominski ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Morning Stiffness ◽  
Short Form ◽  
Work Productivity ◽  
Least Square ◽  
Normative Values ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Activity Impairment ◽  
Clinical Trial Registration ◽  
Patient Reported

Abstract Objective To evaluate the effect of upadacitinib (UPA) monotherapy vs MTX on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with RA who were MTX-naïve or who had an inadequate response to MTX (MTX-IR). Methods PROs from the SELECT-EARLY and SELECT-MONOTHERAPY randomized controlled trials were evaluated at Weeks 2 and 12/14. Patients were ≥18 years of age with RA symptoms for ≥6 weeks (SELECT-EARLY, MTX-naïve) or diagnosed RA for ≥3 months (SELECT-MONOTHERAPY, MTX-IR) and received UPA monotherapy (15 or 30 mg) or MTX. PROs included Patient Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA), pain visual analogue scale, HAQ Disability Index (HAQ-DI), morning stiffness duration/severity, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT)-Fatigue (SELECT-EARLY), health-related quality of life (HRQOL) by the 36-iem Short Form Health Survey and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI; SELECT-EARLY). Least square mean (LSM) changes and proportions of patients reporting improvements greater than or equal to the minimum clinically important differences and normative values were determined. Results In 945 MTX-naïve and 648 MTX-IR patients, UPA monotherapy (15 mg, 30 mg) vs MTX resulted in greater reported LSM changes from baseline at Weeks 12/14 in PtGA, pain, HAQ-DI, morning stiffness duration/severity, FACIT-F (SELECT-EARLY), HRQOL and WPAI (SELECT-EARLY). These changes were statistically significant with both doses of UPA vs MTX at Weeks 12/14 in both RCTs. Improvements were reported as early as week 2. Compared with MTX, more UPA-treated MTX-naïve and MTX-IR patients reported improvements greater than or equal to the minimum clinically important differences and scores greater than or equal to normative values. Conclusion Among MTX-naïve and MTX-IR patients with active RA, UPA monotherapy at 15 or 30 mg for 12/14 weeks resulted in statistically significant and clinically meaningful improvements in pain, physical function, morning stiffness, HRQOL and WPAI compared with MTX alone. Clinical trial registration number SELECT-EARLY (NCT02706873) and SELECT-MONOTHERAPY (NCT02706951) are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov.

scholarly journals Tofacitinib or adalimumab versus placebo: patient-reported outcomes from OPAL Broaden—a phase III study of active psoriatic arthritis in patients with an inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs

RMD Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. e000806 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vibeke Strand ◽  
Kurt de Vlam ◽  
Jose A Covarrubias-Cobos ◽  
Philip J Mease ◽  
Dafna D Gladman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Psoriatic Arthritis ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Short Form ◽  
Janus Kinase ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Placebo Patient ◽  
Pain Patient ◽  
Inadequate Response ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Disease Modifying

ObjectivesTofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). We evaluated patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with PsA refractory to ≥1 conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD-IR) and tumour necrosis factor inhibitor-naïve in a 12-month, phase III randomised controlled trial (OPAL Broaden [NCT01877668]).MethodsPatients (N=422) received tofacitinib 5 mg or 10 mg twice daily, adalimumab 40 mg subcutaneously every 2 weeks or placebo advancing to tofacitinib 5 mg or 10 mg twice daily at month 3. Least squares mean changes from baseline and percentages of patients reporting improvements ≥minimum clinically important differences (MCID); and scores ≥normative values in: Patient Global Assessment of disease activity (PtGA), Pain, Patient Global Joint and Skin Assessment (PGJS), Short Form-36 Health Survey version 2 (SF-36v2), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue), EuroQol 5-Dimensions-3-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) and Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life (ASQoL) were determined. Nominal p values were cited without multiple comparison adjustments.ResultsAt month 3, PtGA, Pain, PGJS, FACIT-Fatigue, EQ-5D-3L, ASQoL and SF-36v2 Physical Component Summary (PCS), physical functioning (PF), bodily pain (BP) and vitality domain scores exceeded placebo with both tofacitinib doses (p≤0.05); SF-36v2 social functioning with 5 mg twice daily (p≤0.05). Percentages reporting improvements ≥MCID in PtGA, Pain, PGJS, FACIT-Fatigue, ASQoL and SF-36v2 PCS, PF, BP and general health scores exceeded placebo with both tofacitinib doses (p≤0.05) and were similar with adalimumab.ConclusioncsDMARD-IR patients with active PsA reported statistically and clinically meaningful improvements in PROs with tofacitinib compared with placebo at Month 3.

scholarly journals Novel Oral Testosterone Formulation Improves Male Well Being Without Compromising International Prostate Symptom Scores

2021 ◽  
Vol 5 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. A760-A760
Author(s):  
Om P Dhingra ◽  
James Bernstein ◽  
Shaina D Barnes ◽  
Hannah VanLaanen ◽  
Natasha Wadlington ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sleep Disturbances ◽  
Short Form ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Group Versus ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Male Hypogonadism ◽  
Meaningful Improvement ◽  
Testosterone Undecanoate ◽  
Sf 36 ◽  
Patient Reported

Abstract Introduction: Male hypogonadism results from insufficient secretion of testosterone (T) and is characterized by low serum T concentrations. Common symptoms of hypogonadism include decreased libido, impotence, weakness, low energy, depression and/or loss of motivation, memory and concentrating issues, and sleep disturbances. Several forms of T replacement are available. Testosterone undecanoate (TU) is a testosterone prodrug available in oral formulations. A novel TU formulation, SOV2012-F1, has been submitted for FDA consideration under the name KYZATREX®. While TU efficacy is measured by serum total T, patientfocused endpoints such as Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) are valuable indicators of well-being and psychosexual symptom abatement. Methods: A Phase 3, randomized, multicenter, open-label, active-controlled trial, comparing SOV2012F1 (testosterone undecanoate capsules) (n=214) with AndroGel® (1.62% topical testosterone gel) (n=100) enrolled males aged 18 to 65 years with hypogonadism (serum total T levels ≤281 ng/dL). A key exploratory endpoint was change from Baseline (ΔBL) after 52 weeks of treatment in the following PROs: International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), Psychosexual Daily Questionnaire (PDQ), Short Form Health Survey 36 item (SF-36), and the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF). Results: Total or overall scores for all PROs (IPSS, PDQ, SF-36 and IIEF) showed increased improvement in the SOV2012-F1 group relative to the Androgel group, and all but IPSS demonstrated improvement relative to BL. For IPSS, due to the potential that T could worsen urinary symptoms, the ΔBL would ideally be small to reflect minimal impact. Change for the SOV2012-F1 and AndroGel groups was, respectively, 0.6 and 1.0. Further, the IPSS total score was not significantly different from BL in the patients receiving SOV20212-F1 (p = 0.5659). For PDQ, a clinically meaningful improvement of sexual desire in hypogonadal men age ≥65 years is ≥0.7; mean ΔBL was 1.6 in the SOV2012-F1 group versus 1.4 in the AndroGel group. In the SF-36, the mean ΔBL total score was 83.7 in the SOV2012-F1 group and 70.2 in the AndroGel group. Further, post hoc analysis of the Health Change category found a significant (p ≤ 0.05) improvement in patient perspectives on health over the course of the study. The overall satisfaction score of the IIEF trended towards significance for the SOV2012-F1 group with a mean ΔBL score of 2.3 versus and 1.6 in the AndroGel group. The ΔBL for the 4 domains of male sexual function were small and consistent between the SOV2012-F1 and AndroGel groups. Comparable results were noted for Early Withdrawals and All Subjects across all PROs. Conclusion: Treatment with SOV2012-F1 for 52 weeks exceeded AndroGel patient satisfaction as measured by PROs including IPSS, PDQ, SF-36 and IIEF, demonstrating clinical distinction. Further analysis of SOV2012-F1 will be forthcoming.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document