In CheckMate 9LA (NCT03215706), first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy (2 cycles) significantly improved overall survival versus chemotherapy (4 cycles) in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer and no known sensitising epidermal growth factor receptor/anaplastic lymphoma kinase alterations. We present exploratory patient-reported outcomes (PROs; minimum follow-up, 2 years). In patients (N = 719) randomised 1:1 to nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy or chemotherapy alone, disease-related symptom burden and health-related quality of life were assessed using the Lung Cancer Symptom Scale (LCSS) and 3-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-3L). Treatment-phase changes in LCSS average symptom burden index (ASBI), LCSS three-item global index (3-IGI) and EQ-5D-3L visual analogue scale (VAS) and utility index (UI) over time were analysed descriptively and using mixed-effect model repeated measures. Time-to-deterioration/improvement analyses were conducted. Treatment-phase PRO questionnaire completion rates were >80%. Mean treatment-phase changes showed no deterioration from baseline in both arms for LCSS ASBI/3-IGI and EQ-5D-3L VAS/UI; however, minimally important differences were not met. Mixed-effect model repeated measures analyses showed overall reduction in symptom burden from baseline for both arms; changes from baseline for LCSS 3-IGI and EQ-5D-3L VAS/UI were numerically improved with nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy versus chemotherapy, but minimally important differences were not met. Nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy delayed time-to-definitive-deterioration versus chemotherapy (LCSS ASBI: hazard ratio, 0.62 [95% confidence interval, 0.45-0.87]); results were similar across PRO measures. At 2-year minimum follow-up, first-line nivolumab plus ipilimumab with chemotherapy reduced the risk of definitive deterioration in disease-related symptom burden and health-related quality of life versus chemotherapy and maintained QoL in patients with metastatic non-small cell lung cancer. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier, NCT03215706.

Background: It is imperative to evaluate health related quality of life (HRQoL) pre-COVID-19, but there is currently no evidence of the retrospective application of the EuroQol 5-Dimension, 5 level version (EQ-5D-5L) for COVID-19 studies. Methods: Symptomatic patients with SARS-CoV-2 at CVS Health US test sites were recruited between 01/31/2022-04/30/2022. Consented participants completed the EQ-5D-5L questionnaire twice: a modified version where all the questions were past tense to retrospectively assess pre-COVID-19 baseline QoL, and the standard version in present tense to assess current HRQoL. Duncan’s new multiple range test was adopted for post analysis of variance pairwise comparisons of EQ visual analog scale (EQ VAS) means between problem levels for each of 5 domains. A linear mixed model was applied to check whether the relationship between EQ VAS and utility index (UI) was consistent pre-COVID-19 and during COVID-19. Matching-adjusted indirect comparison was used to compare pre-COVID-19 UI and EQ VAS scores with those of the US population. Lastly, Cohen’s d was used to quantify the magnitude of difference in means between two groups. Results: Of 676 participants, 10.2% were age 65 or more years old, 73.2% female and 71.9% white. Diabetes was reported by 4.7% participants and hypertension by 11.2%. The estimated coefficient for the interaction of UI-by-retrospective collection indicator (0 = standard prospective collection, 1 = retrospective for pre-COVID-19), -4.2 (SE: 3.2), P = 0.197, indicates that retrospective collection does not significantly alter the relationship between EQ VAS and UI. After adjusting for age, gender, diabetes, hypertension, and percent of mobility problems, the predicted means of pre-COVID-19 baseline EQ VAS and UI were 84.6 and 0.866, respectively. Both means were close to published US population norms (80.4 and 0.851) compared to those observed (87.4 and 0.924). After adjusting for age, gender, diabetes, and hypertension, the calculated ES between pre-COVID-19 and COVID-19 for UI and EQ VAS were 0.15 and 0.39, respectively. Without retrospectively collected EQ-5D-5L, using US population norms tended to underestimate the impact of COVID-19 on HRQoL. Conclusion: At a group level the retrospectively collected pre-COVID-19 EQ-5D-5L is adequate and makes it possible to directly evaluate the impact of COVID-19 on HRQoL. (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05160636)

COVID-19 infection adversely impacts patients’ wellbeing and daily lives. This survey-based study examined differences in patient-reported COVID-19 symptoms, Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) among groups of patients defined based on age and symptom-based long COVID status. Symptomatic, COVID-19-positive US outpatients were recruited from 31 January–30 April 2022. Outcomes were collected via validated instruments at pre-COVID, Day 3, Week 1, Week 4, Month 3 and Month 6 following infection, with changes assessed from pre-COVID and between groups, adjusting for covariates. EQ-5D-5L HRQoL and WPAI scores declined in all groups, especially during the first week. Long COVID patients reported significantly higher symptoms burden and larger drops in HRQoL and WPAI scores than patients without long COVID. Their HRQoL and WPAI scores did not return to levels comparable to pre-COVID through Month 6, except for absenteeism. Patients without long COVID generally recovered between Week 4 and Month 3. Older (>50) and younger adults generally reported comparable symptoms burden and drops in HRQoL and WPAI scores. During the first week of infection, COVID-19-related health issues caused loss of 14 to 26 work hours across the groups. These data further knowledge regarding the differential impacts of COVID-19 on clinically relevant patient groups.

Background: Long COVID has become a central public health concern. This study characterized the effectiveness of BNT162b2 BA.4/5 bivalent COVID-19 vaccine (bivalent) against long COVID symptoms. Methods: Symptomatic US adult outpatients testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 were recruited between 2 March and 18 May 2023. Symptoms were assessed longitudinally using a CDC-based symptom questionnaire at Week 4, Month 3, and Month 6 following infection. The odds ratio (OR) of long COVID between vaccination groups was assessed by using mixed-effects logistic models, adjusting for multiple covariates. Results: At Week 4, among 505 participants, 260 (51%) were vaccinated with bivalent and 245 (49%) were unvaccinated. Mean age was 46.3 years, 70.7% were female, 25.1% had ≥1 comorbidity, 43.0% prior infection, 23.0% reported Nirmatrelvir/Ritonavir use. At Month 6, the bivalent cohort had 41% lower risk of long COVID with ≥3 symptoms (OR: 0.59, 95% CI, 0.36–0.96, p = 0.034) and 37% lower risk of ≥2 symptoms (OR: 0.63, 95% CI, 0.41–0.96, p = 0.030). The bivalent cohort reported fewer and less durable symptoms throughout the six-month follow-up, driven by neurologic and general symptoms, especially fatigue. Conclusions: Compared with unvaccinated participants, participants vaccinated with the bivalent were associated with approximately 40% lower risk of long COVID and less symptom burden over the six-month study duration.

BACKGROUND: The mSToPS study (mHealth Screening to Prevent Strokes) reported screening older Americans at risk for atrial fibrillation (AF) and stroke using 2-week patch monitors was associated with increased rates of AF diagnosis and anticoagulant prescription within 1 year and improved clinical outcomes at 3 years relative to matched controls. Cost-effectiveness of this AF screening approach has not been explored. METHODS: We conducted a US-based health economic analysis of AF screening using patient-level data from mSToPS. Clinical outcomes, resource use, and costs were obtained through 3 years using claims data. Individual costs, survival, and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) were projected over a lifetime horizon using regression modeling, US life tables, and external data where needed. Adjustment between groups was performed using propensity score bin bootstrapping. RESULTS: Screening participants (mean age, 74 years, 41% female, median CHA ₂ DS ₂ -VASC score 3) wore on average 1.7 two-week monitors at a mean cost of $614/person. Over 3 years, outpatient visits were more frequent for monitored than unmonitored individuals (difference 190 per 100 patient-years [95% CI, 82–298]), but emergency department visits (−8.3 [95% CI, −12.6 to −4.1]) and hospitalizations (−15.2 [CI, −22 to −8.6]) were less frequent. Total adjusted 3-year costs were slightly higher (mean difference, $1551 [95% CI, −$1047 to $4038]) in the monitoring group. In patient-level projections, the monitoring group had slightly greater quality-adjusted survival (8.81 versus 8.71 QALYs, difference, 0.09 [95% CI, −0.05 to 0.24]) and slightly higher lifetime costs, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $36 100/QALY gained. With bootstrap resampling, the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio for monitoring was <$50 000/QALY in 64% of study replicates, and <$150 000/QALY in 91%. CONCLUSIONS: Using lifetime projections derived from the mSToPS study, we found that AF screening using 2-week patch monitors in older Americans was associated with high economic value. Confirmation of these uncertain findings in a randomized trial is warranted. REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov ; Unique identifier: NCT02506244.

Evidence on the impact of COVID-19 vaccination on symptoms, Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI) is scarce. We analyzed associations between bivalent BA.4/5 BNT162b2 (BNT162b2) and these patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Symptomatic US adults testing positive for SARS-CoV-2 were recruited between 2 March and 18 May 2023 (CT.gov NCT05160636). PROs were assessed using four questionnaires measuring symptoms, HRQoL and WPAI (a CDC-based symptom survey, PROMIS Fatigue, EQ-5D-5L, WPAI-GH), from pre-COVID to Week 4 following infection. Multivariable analysis using mixed models for repeated measures was conducted, adjusting for several covariates. The study included 643 participants: 316 vaccinated with BNT162b2 and 327 unvaccinated/not up-to-date. Mean (SD) age was 46.5 years (15.9), 71.2% were female, 44.2% reported prior infection, 25.7% had ≥1 comorbidity. The BNT162b2 cohort reported fewer acute symptoms through Week 4, especially systemic and respiratory symptoms. All PROs were adversely affected, especially at Week 1; however, at that time point, the BNT162b2 cohort reported better work performance, driven by less absenteeism, and fewer work hours lost. No significant differences were observed for HRQoL COVID-19 negatively impacted patient outcomes. Compared with unvaccinated/not up-to-date participants, those vaccinated with bivalent BA.4/5 BNT162b2 reported fewer and less persistent symptoms and improved work performance.