The ability of a drug to lower glucose levels plays a decisive role in the choice between alternative treatments. Future research should strive to develop questionnaire designs relevant for the decision context of the study. That is, if the aim is to foster shared decision making, in clinical practice or drug development, this should guide the study design. Furthermore, concise reporting of all study dimensions-from the qualitative prework to the analysis stage-is warranted.

Aims: To determine the proportion of UK patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) who meet the cardiovascular (CV) or combined CV/core eligibility criteria used for the CV outcome trials (CVOTs) of UK-marketed glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists showing CV benefit (dulaglutide in REWIND, liraglutide in LEADER and injectable semaglutide in SUSTAIN-6).Materials and Methods: Adults with T2D on/before June 2018 were identified from the UK Clinical Practice Research Datalink GOLD primary care database and linked to Hospital Episode Statistics data (Protocol 19_262). Patient CV and clinical data were evaluated against the CVOT eligibility criteria. Data were analysed descriptively. Results:The study cohort (N = 33 118 patients with T2D) had a mean (standard deviation) age of 66.0 (13.3) years and 56.6% were male. Almost two-thirds (64.5%) of the study cohort met the CV criteria for REWIND, versus 43.0% for both LEADER and SUSTAIN-6. The proportions of the study cohort who met the CVOT criteria of "established CV disease" and "CV risk factors only" for REWIND were 22.4% and 42.1%, respectively, versus 38.7% and 4.3%, respectively, for both LEADER and SUSTAIN-6. The proportions of patients satisfying both CV and core criteria were 44.4% for REWIND, 13.3% for LEADER and 13.5% for SUSTAIN-6. Study findings remained consistent when restricted to GLP-1RA users.Conclusions: REWIND captured a trial population more representative of the realworld T2D population in the United Kingdom than LEADER or SUSTAIN-6 with regard to both CV and combined CV/core eligibility criteria.

Introduction Moderate to severe atopic dermatitis (AD) is associated with a significant disease burden, impacting sleep, quality of life, and treatment needs. The aim of this study was to characterize disease burden and treatment patterns for adults with moderate to severe AD in three European countries: France, Italy, and the UK. Methods This retrospective analysis of adult patients with moderate to severe AD in Europe used medical records and physician/patient survey data collected in August 2019 to April 2020. Demographic and baseline disease characteristics, information on current comorbidities, disease flares, and current and previous treatments were collected by the physician. Patient-perceived burden was assessed using patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires, which were completed on a voluntary basis and included the following instruments: Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure (POEM), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), EuroQol five-dimensional (EQ-5D), and Work Productivity and Activity Impairment (WPAI). Disease severity was subjectively assessed by physicians and was based on their own definition of the terms mild, moderate, and severe. Data were analyzed descriptively. Results The physician-reported sample included 912 patients with moderate to severe disease from France ( n = 314), Italy ( n = 309), and the UK ( n = 289); approximately 30% of patients provided PRO data. Across these countries, 22–41% of patients reported current flares; mean POEM and DLQI scores were 10.6–13.1 and 9.5–11.1, respectively, indicating a high disease burden. However, systemic therapy use was low (e.g., conventional systemics were used by 18–24% of patients). Physician-assessed disease severity did not fully align with EASI scores, indicating that factors in addition to skin signs are impacting AD severity. Conclusion Patients with moderate to severe AD report significant disease burden, highlighting unmet treatment needs, particularly with respect to the underuse of systemic treatments despite AD being a systemic disease and the associated disease burden. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s13555-022-00777-z.

We found evidence that benefit descriptions influence elicited preferences for the benefit-risk characteristics of injectable diabetes treatment. These findings argue for using carefully defined effectiveness measures to accurately take account of the patient perspective in benefit-risk assessments.