Is the Symptoms Evolution of COVID-19 (SE-C19) instrument a valid and reliable tool, able to detect symptom changes in outpatients with laboratory-confirmed COVID-19?
In this diagnostic/prognostic study of SE-C19 using 657 outpatients with COVID-19 randomized to the NCT04425629 trial, 19 of 23 items from the SE-C19 instrument were identified as valid and reliable to measure disease-related symptoms.
These findings suggest that the SE-C19 instrument is a valid and reliable method for identifying symptom resolution among outpatients with COVID-19 and may be useful in the clinical research context.
Patient-reported outcome instruments are key in assessing COVID-19–related symptoms and associated burden. However, a valid and reliable instrument to assess symptom severity and progression among outpatients with COVID-19 is not yet available.
To assess the extent to which the Symptoms Evolution of COVID-19 (SE-C19) instrument is valid, reliable, and able to detect symptom changes in outpatients with COVID-19, as well as to establish a definition of symptom resolution.
Design, Setting, and Participants
In this diagnostic/prognostic study, psychometric properties of SE-C19 were assessed in participants recruited into an ongoing, adaptive, phase 1/2/3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial, during 2020 to 2022. Adult outpatients with symptomatic COVID-19 were randomized 1:1:1 to receive 2.4 g or 8.0 g intravenous casirivimab and imdevimab or placebo, in outpatient centers at 114 sites, from 2 countries (US and Mexico).
Main Outcomes and Measures
Reliability, validity, and sensitivity to change of the SE-C19 were assessed. SE-C19 and Patient Global Impression of Severity (PGIS) were administered daily from predose at day 1 to day 29.
Analysis was conducted on 657 adult outpatients (342 female patients [52.1%], 562 White patients [85.5%]), and 337 non-Hispanic patients [51.3%]. At baseline, patients reported a mean (SD) of 6.6 (3.9) symptoms (ie, rated as at least mild) with a mean (SD) of 3.8 (3.3) of these symptoms being rated as moderate or severe. Stable patients according to PGIS showed scores with intraclass correlation values indicating moderate-to-good test-retest reliability (ie, 0.50-0.90). At baseline, 20 item scores (87%) varied significantly across PGIS-defined groups, supporting the validity of the SE-C19. A symptom-resolution end point was defined after excluding the item sneezing due to its low ability to discriminate severity levels, and excluding confusion, rash, and vomiting, due to their low prevalence in this population. Symptom resolution required complete absence of all remaining items, except cough, fatigue, and headache, which could be mild or moderate in severity. A total of 19 of 23 items from the SE-C19 instrument were identified as valid and reliable to measure disease-related symptoms in outpatients with COVID-19.
Conclusions and Relevance
This study identified 19 items that are valid and reliable to measure disease-related symptoms in outpatients with COVID-19, and proposed a definition of symptom resolution for potential use in future clinical trials.
Sign in to take quiz and track your certificates
JN Learning™ is the home for CME and MOC from the JAMA Network. Search by specialty or US state and earn AMA PRA Category 1 Credit(s)™ from articles, audio, Clinical Challenges and more. Learn more about CME/MOC
CME Disclosure Statement: Unless noted, all individuals in control of content reported no relevant financial relationships. If applicable, all relevant financial relationships have been mitigated.
Accepted for Publication: September 12, 2022.
Published: October 28, 2022. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.39053
Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY-NC-ND License. © 2022 Rofail D et al. JAMA Network Open.
Corresponding Author: Diana Rofail, PhD, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc, One Rockwood Rd, Sleepy Hollow, NY 10591 (firstname.lastname@example.org).
Author Contributions: Drs Rofail and Griffiths had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
Concept and design: Rofail, Griffiths, Hussein, Sivapalasingam, Rodriguez, Mastey, Gwaltney.
Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.
Drafting of the manuscript: Rofail, Griffiths, Podolanczuk, Gwaltney.
Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.
Statistical analysis: Griffiths, Flore, Rodriguez, Gwaltney.
Obtained funding: Rofail.
Administrative, technical, or material support: Rofail, Hussein, Sivapalasingam.
Supervision: Rofail, Hussein, Podolanczuk, Rodriguez, Mastey.
Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Rofail reported being a Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc employee, and a former Roche employee and current stockholder. Dr Griffiths reported being an employee of IQVIA, which received consulting fees from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc for data collection, data analysis, and to support data interpretation during the conduct of the study. Mr Flore reported being an employee of IQVIA, which received consulting fees from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc for data collection, data analysis, and to support data interpretation during the conduct of the study. Dr Hussein reported being a Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. employee. Dr Podolanczuk reported receiving personal fees from Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc during the conduct of the study, personal fees from Imvaria, Boehringer Ingelheim, EBSCO/Dynamed, and Roche outside the submitted work. Ms Mastey reported being a Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc employee. Dr Gwaltney reported receiving personal fees from IQVIA during the conduct of study and outside the submitted work.No other disclosures were reported.
Funding/Support: This research was funded by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Role of the Funder/Sponsor: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc designed, conducted, and supported the trial that collected the electronic symptom diary data and other data analyzed for this study. The finalized database was electronically transferred to IQVIA. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc was involved in the design of this study and in partnership with IQVIA the determination of the statistical psychometric analysis plan by consensus; supported the analysis of the data, performed by IQVIA; and was involved in the interpretation of results. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc and all authors were involved in the review and approval of the manuscript, and the decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
Additional Contributions: We thank the study participants, their families, and the clinicians involved in this trial. Medical writing assistance was provided by Hervé Besson, PhD, and Montse Casamayor, MD, PhD, from IQVIA; these writers did not receive any compensation beyond their normal salary. Editorial support was provided by Prime, Knutsford, UK, funded by Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
You currently have no searches saved.
You currently have no courses saved.