BACKGROUND: Since the last guidance was published by the Canadian Thoracic Society, there have been several advances in the clinical management of severe asthma. To gain a better understanding of the current standards of care and treatment patterns of patients, the CASCADE practice reflective program was established to conduct a real-world analysis of severe asthma management among specialists in Canada with a goal of identifying areas of opportunity to enhance patient management and outcomes.
METHODS: The CASCADE program was a two-part practice reflective and assessment program delivered through an on-line portal for selected specialists (Respirologists and Allergists) in Canada. The program consisted of a one-time overview survey of physician practice to establish overall practice parameters, followed by a review of at least 5 severe asthma patients to establish the current landscape of severe asthma management.
RESULTS: The program collected practice overview surveys from 78 specialists (52 Respirologists, 24 Allergists, and 2 General practice physicians with an interest in respiratory disease) in 8 provinces. Practices included a variety of types in both large metropolitan centres and smaller regional settings. There were 503 patients reviewed and included in the program. Most (65%) patients were currently using a biologic treatment, 30% were biologic naive, and 5% had used a biologic treatment in the past. Most patients (53%) were reported to have mixed allergic and eosinophilic phenotypes, despite a perception that allergic, eosinophilic and mixed phenotypes were evenly balanced in the physician practice. Overall, patients currently treated with biologic agents had parameters suggesting higher control and were more satisfied with treatment. However, there was less than optimal treatment satisfaction for more than half of all patients, particularly for those patients not treated with a biologic agent.
CONCLUSIONS: Phenotyping is hampered by poor availability for several assessments, and the full range of treatments are not currently fully utilized, partly due to physician familiarity with the agents and partly due to prescribing restrictions. Even when treated with biologic agents, patient satisfaction can still be improved.

BACKGROUND: The National Psoriasis Foundation (NPF) recommends evaluating patient response to treatment at week 12, with a target response of ≤ 1% body surface area (BSA) affected by plaque psoriasis and an acceptable response of BSA ≤ 3% or ≥ 75% improvement. This post hoc analysis compared the achievement of NPF target and acceptable responses for ixekizumab (IXE) versus other biologics.
METHODS: Outcomes were evaluated at week 12 for patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis from four head-to-head randomized clinical trials (RCTs; UNCOVER-2, UNCOVER-3, IXORA-R, and IXORA-S) and one real-world prospective observational study (Psoriasis Study of Health Outcomes; PSoHO). RCT patients were treated with IXE or etanercept (ETN; UNCOVER-2/3), guselkumab (GUS; IXORA-R), or ustekinumab (UST; IXORA-S). PSoHO patients were treated with anti-interleukin (IL)-17A biologics (IXE, secukinumab, SEC) and other approved biologics for the treatment of plaque psoriasis. Patients with missing outcomes were imputed as non-responder imputation. For RCT data, statistical comparisons between treatment groups were performed using Fisher\'s exact test with no multiplicity adjustments. For real-world data, adjusted comparative analyses were performed using frequentist model averaging (FMA) and reported as odds ratio (OR).
RESULTS: Across the four head-to-head clinical trials analyzed, significantly higher proportions of patients achieved target and acceptable responses at week 12 with IXE versus ETN, GUS, or UST. Likewise, the proportion of PSoHO patients achieving target and acceptable response at week 12 was higher with IXE compared with other individual biologics. Adjusted comparative analyses showed that IXE had significantly greater odds of target and acceptable response at week 12 versus SEC, GUS, risankizumab (RIS), adalimumab (ADA), UST, and tildrakizumab (TILD) and numerically greater odds of target and acceptable response at week 12 versus brodalumab (BROD).
CONCLUSIONS: Across both clinical studies and real-world settings, more patients treated with IXE achieved NPF target and acceptable responses at week 12 compared with those treated with other biologics.
BACKGROUND: UNCOVER-2 (NCT01597245); UNCOVER-3 (NCT01646177); IXORA-R (NCT03573323); IXORA-S (NCT02561806); PSoHO (EUPAS24207).

Therapist-client cognitive match upon key constructs such as treatment goals is purported to be an important component of culturally competent care. For adolescent clients, treatment may involve both youths and their parents, suggesting the need to consider both youth-therapist and parent-therapist perspectives. This longitudinal study examined broadband youth-therapist and parent-therapist treatment goal matching and mismatching in relationship to treatment engagement in a culturally diverse sample of 245 outpatient mental health service-using youth. Although goal matching/mismatching did not uniformly predict treatment engagement as measured by a total score, youth-therapist internalizing goal matching predicted better youth engagement, and parent-therapist externalizing goal mismatch marginally predicted worse parent engagement. When selected post hoc analyses examined relationships to four individual engagement dimensions, youth-therapist internalizing goal matches positively predicted youth Client-therapist interaction, Communication/Openness, Client\'s perceived usefulness of therapy, and Collaboration with treatment, while parent-therapist externalizing goal mismatch negatively predicted parent Collaboration with treatment. Findings support the importance of cognitive match on treatment goals as well as the consideration of both parent and youth perspectives, matched and mismatched goals, internalizing and externalizing goals, and examining individual dimensions in addition to total scores of engagement.

UNASSIGNED: To better understand what is most important to people living with human immunodeficiency virus (PLWH) when choosing their treatment. We assessed how PLWH trade off the potential risks and benefits of oral and long acting injectable (LAI) treatments.
UNASSIGNED: Firstly, in-depth interviews were conducted with 11 PLWH to develop a holistic understanding of experiences and determine attributes that contribute to treatment decision-making. Secondly, a discrete choice experiment (DCE) was used to understand the treatment preferences for PLWH with n = 99 PLWH aged 18 years or over with a diagnosis of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and who were currently using anti-retroviral therapy (ART). Study participants were presented with 12 scenarios and asked to select their preferred treatment among two hypothetical injectable treatment alternatives, \"injection 1\" and \"injection 2\" and their current oral ART treatment. The DCE data were modelled using a latent class model (LCM).
UNASSIGNED: The model revealed significant heterogeneity in preferences for treatment attributes among study participants. Two segments/classes of PLWH were identified. The first segment expressed a strong preference for their current oral treatment; the second segment showed strong preference for the injection treatment and for it to be administered in a GP clinic. Overall, out-of-pocket cost was the most important attribute for participants. One-third of PLWH were willing to switch to an LAI.
UNASSIGNED: Not all PLWH valued the same treatment attributes equally. Overall, out-of-pocket costs for treatments were considered by respondents as the most determining factor in making treatment choices. Results have important implications for healthcare policy and will serve to better inform patients and stakeholders involved in the treatment decision-making process about the treatment preferences of PLWH. Clinicians are encouraged to consider shared decision-making to establish the treatment course that best aligns with PLWH\'s treatment goals.

UNASSIGNED: Evaluation of patient-reported outcomes including health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and perceived benefits from treatment has become a fundamental component of medical decision-making. Standardized evaluation of treatment benefits in rosacea based on patient preferences is still lacking.
UNASSIGNED: Development and validation of an instrument for recording patient-defined benefits in rosacea therapy based on the Patient Benefit Index (PBI) methodology.
UNASSIGNED: In an open survey of n = 50 patients, potential benefits of therapy from the patient\'s perspective were examined. The generated item pool was combined with pre-existing PBI items for other skin conditions and reviewed by an expert panel of dermatologists, psychologists and patients. Items were condensed to n = 25 and converted into a Likert-scaled questionnaire. The validity and feasibility of the resulting Patient Benefit Index for rosacea (PBI-RO) were tested on individuals with rosacea recruited from a German rosacea patient organization.
UNASSIGNED: N = 446 patients with rosacea completed the PBI-RO. The internal consistencies measured by Cronbach\'s alpha were high (Patient Needs Questionnaire [PNQ] 0.94). Mean PBI-RO was 1.9 ± 1.2 (scale from 0 = no benefit to 4 = maximum benefit), 23.5% of the patients experienced a PBI-RO < 1 (no clinically relevant benefit). The PBI-RO correlated with HRQoL, health state, current extent of rosacea lesions and treatment satisfaction. The highest correlation was found between PBI-RO and satisfaction with previous treatment (r = -0.59, p < 0.001); correlation with the extent of rosacea lesions was low (r = 0.16, p < 0.001).
UNASSIGNED: The PBI-RO shows satisfying internal consistency and construct validity. It offers the option of a patient-weighted evaluation of the therapeutic benefit of rosacea therapy and may add to more stringent goal orientation in therapy.

UNASSIGNED: To identify and compare treatment goals between IBD patients and partners, and how these change upon receiving information.
UNASSIGNED: During a patient information day a self-made survey was distributed before and after a lecture about a physicians\' view on treatments goals. Patients and partners were asked for their preferred treatment goals at 6 weeks and at 6 months and could choose between short-term goals (symptom free, improved functioning, better QOL, normal colonoscopy) and long-term goals (prevention of surgery, complications, flares and no steroids).
UNASSIGNED: Being \"symptom-free\" (55.9%) was the preferred goal. Patients with higher disease activity chose more short-term goals (p=0.03) at 6 weeks. Age, gender and education did not affect treatment goals. Partners chose more short-term goals (p=0.03) at 6 weeks. Post-lecture, answers shifter to normal colonoscopy (4.2% versus 18.0%, p=0.001), and a better QOL (21.2% vs 33.3%, p=0.039) as goal at 6-months.
UNASSIGNED: Patients\' 6-week treatment goals focused on being symptom-free and having a high QOL, especially those patients with high disease activity. Partners chose more short-term goals than patients at 6 weeks.
UNASSIGNED: General health information can be applied and translated into treatment goals. This may assist in remote shared goal setting and decision making.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate patient-physician communication and patients\' understanding of treatment goals in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).
METHODS: A cross-sectional online survey of patients with RA and physicians treating RA was conducted between 16 and 30 June 2021. Participants were asked to rate the importance of 17 goals on a 6-point Likert scale, and mean scores were compared between patients and physicians by the Wilcoxon rank sum test. Patients\' satisfaction with physician communication and their understanding of treatment goals were also assessed.
RESULTS: The responses of 502 patients and 216 physicians were analyzed. The most common patient age group was 50-59 years (28.5%), and the mean disease duration was 10.3 years. Physicians had a mean of 19.2 years of treatment experience and were treating a mean of 44.3 patients. Among the 17 goals assessed, patients placed significantly more importance on drug tapering or discontinuation as short-term goals (3-6 months) and on performing basic activities of daily living, being able to engage in daily tasks, achieving and maintaining remission, maintaining better laboratory values, and drug tapering or discontinuation as long-term goals (5-10 years; all adjusted p < 0.05). Patient treatment satisfaction was significantly associated with disease activity, a feeling of treatment effectiveness, satisfaction with physician communication, and agreement with physician goals.
CONCLUSIONS: Differences exist among patients with RA and physicians treating RA regarding the importance of short- and long-term treatment goals. Good patient-physician communication appears to be important for improving patient satisfaction.
BACKGROUND: University Hospital Medical Information Network identifier: UMIN000044463.

BACKGROUND: The Understanding Psoriatic Disease Leveraging Insights for Treatment (UPLIFT) survey study was conducted globally in 2020 to understand how disease perceptions, including disease severity, treatment goals, and quality of life (QoL), have evolved recently, especially for mild-to-moderate psoriatic disease. Here, key findings from the UPLIFT survey based on respondents located in the US are presented. Leveraging results from the UPLIFT survey could lead to more effective interactions between patients and physicians and greater patient satisfaction.
METHODS: UPLIFT was a multinational web-based survey of dermatologists, rheumatologists, and patients who self-reported a healthcare provider diagnosis of psoriasis (PsO) and/or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) conducted from March 2, 2020, to June 3, 2020.
RESULTS: US respondents included 1006 patients (26.4% of global population; PsO only, n = 535; PsA only, n = 72; PsO and PsA, n = 399) and 216 physicians (dermatologists, n = 115; rheumatologists, n = 101). Most patients (66.4%) reported a body surface area (BSA; assessed by number of palms) of ≤ 3; of these, 56.2% rated their disease as moderate or severe. Most patients with PsO felt they were somewhat (40.1%) or very (49.3%) closely aligned with their dermatologists regarding treatment goals. Alternately, most patients with PsA felt that they were not too closely (32.1%) or not at all (59.3%) aligned with their rheumatologists. Most patients reported either a moderate (PsO, 35.5%; PsA, 31.8%) or strong (PsO, 47.7%; PsA, 53.9%) need for better treatments. Across BSA subgroups, most patients (60.8% to 86.1%) had a Dermatology Life Quality Index score ≥ 6, indicating at least a moderately impacted QoL.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite more treatment options, management of psoriatic disease remains suboptimal, with many patients reporting moderate-to-severe disease and impaired QoL, even with limited skin involvement. Results further suggest an unmet need for alignment between patients and physicians in the US to optimize the management of PsO and PsA.
The Understanding Psoriatic Disease Leveraging Insights for Treatment (UPLIFT) survey was an online survey conducted in 2020. The participants were patients who self-reported a healthcare provider diagnosis of psoriasis and/or psoriatic arthritis, dermatologists, and rheumatologists. The survey was distributed in several countries in North America, Europe, and Japan and a total of 3806 patients responded to the survey. Results from US patients and physicians are presented here.UPLIFT was designed to understand current perceptions of patients and physicians relating to psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis, especially for mild-to-moderate disease. Participants were surveyed regarding treatments, severity of disease, impact on quality of life, treatment goals, and patient-physician interactions.In the US, 1006 patients and 216 physicians completed the survey and were included in the analysis. Most patients had limited skin involvement but still rated their disease as moderate or severe. Regardless of whether patients had a small or large amount of skin involved, most reported at least a moderately impacted quality of life. The survey results suggested that there was disconnect between patients and physicians regarding treatment goals, treatment satisfaction, disease severity, and their recollection of what occurred during physician office visits. Despite new treatment options in recent years, the UPLIFT survey results show that US patients with psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis still experience a great disease burden and could benefit from better communication with physicians to optimize their treatment.

Aim: We developed the Patient-Engaged Health Technology Assessment strategy for survey-based goal collection from patients to yield patient-important outcomes suitable for use in multi-criteria decision analysis. Methods: Rheumatoid arthritis patients were recruited from online patient networks for proof-of-concept testing of goal collection and prioritization using a survey. A Project Steering Committee and Expert Panel rated the feasibility of scaling to larger samples. Results: Survey respondents (n = 47) completed the goal collection exercise. Finding effective treatments was rated by respondents as the most important goal, and reducing stiffness was rated as the least important. Feedback from our steering committee and expert panel support the approach\'s feasibility for goal identification and ranking. Conclusion: Goals relevant for treatment evaluation can be identified and rated for importance by patients to permit wide input from patients with lived experience of disease.

UNASSIGNED: The primary objective of the study was to understand the therapeutic inertia in treatment and management of plaque psoriasis among dermatologists, along with determining the preferred treatment choices for management of plaque psoriasis; it also included the resulting treatment satisfaction among patients. The secondary objective was to identify the gaps in terms of knowledge and attitude among dermatologists and the expectations of patients.
UNASSIGNED: A multicentre, cross-sectional quantitative survey was conducted among dermatologists and patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis across India. The interviews were conducted either face to face or via telephone between September and November 2020, using structured and validated questionnaires based on specific themes. The data obtained were statistically analysed, wherever applicable.
UNASSIGNED: Overall, 207 adult patients with moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis and 303 dermatologists were interviewed. Post experiencing symptoms, 44% of the patients visited general physicians for treatment and there was an average 7.8-month delay by the patients to consult a dermatologist. Approximately one-fourth of patients used home remedies before seeking medical help. One-third of dermatologists used the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) for assessing the disease severity. Majority of dermatologists preferred combination therapy for their patients. The lack of quick resolution and side effects were the major reasons for changing the treatment. Overall, only 35% of the patients complied to current treatment. Satisfaction with existing forms of therapies was highest for mild plaque psoriasis (62%) as confirmed by dermatologists, while 52% of the overall patients were satisfied with their therapy. Majority of the patients (64%) affirmed living with plaque psoriasis impacted their lives.
UNASSIGNED: This first-of-its-kind survey in India highlighted the gaps in terms of the disease journey between dermatologists and patients. The survey emphasises the need for shared decision-making and may benefit dermatologists in suggestive modifications of the treatment algorithm and disease management in clinical settings.