Review : "Quality of life: the assessment, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes (2nd Ed.)" by Peter M. Fayers & David Machin

An updated version, this excellent text is a timely addition to the library of any nurse researching in oncology or other settings where individuals’ quality of life must be understood. Health-related quality of life should be a central aspect of studies concerned with health and illness. Indeed, considerable evidence has recently emerged in oncology and other research settings that selfreported quality of life is of great prognostic significance and may be the most reliable predictor of subsequent morbidity and mortality. From a nursing perspective, it is also gratifying to note that novel therapy and other oncology studies increasingly recognize the importance of understanding patients’ subjective experiences of an intervention over time and to ascertain whether patients perceive that a new intervention makes a difference to their quality of life and treatment outcomes. Measurements of quality of life are now routine in clinical trials of chemotherapy drugs and are often considered the prime outcome of interest in the cost/benefit analyses of these treatments. The authors have extensive experience in qualityof- life assessment in cancer clinical trials, where most of the pioneering work into quality of life has been conducted. That said, many of the health-related qualityof- life issues discussed are common to many illnesses, and researchers outside of cancer should find the book equally helpful.

Impact of depressive symptoms on subjective well-being: the importance of patient-reported outcomes in schizophrenia

Objective: The subjective experience of psychotic patients toward treatment is a key factor in medication adherence, quality of life, and clinical outcome. The aim of this study was to assess the subjective well-being in patients with schizophrenia and to examine its relationship with the presence and severity of depressive symptoms. Methods: A multicenter, cross-sectional study was conducted with clinically stable outpatients diagnosed with schizophrenia. The Subjective Well-Being under Neuroleptic Scale - short version (SWN-K) and the Calgary Depression Scale for Schizophrenia (CDSS) were used to gather information on well-being and the presence and severity of depressive symptoms, respectively. Spearman's rank correlation was used to assess the associations between the SWN-K total score, its five subscales, and the CDSS total score. Discriminative validity was evaluated against that criterion by analysing the area under the curve (AUC). Results: Ninety-seven patients were included in the study. Mean age was 35 years (standard deviation = 10) and 72% were male. Both the total SWN-K scale and its five subscales correlated inversely and significantly with the CDSS total score (P < 0.0001). The highest correlation was observed for the total SWN-K (Spearman's rank order correlation [ rho] = -0.59), being the other correlations: mental functioning (-0.47), social integration (-0.46), emotional regulation (-0.51), physical functioning (-0.48), and self-control (-0.41). A total of 33 patients (34%) were classified as depressed. Total SWN-K showed the highest AUC when discriminating between depressive severity levels (0.84), followed by emotional regulation (0.80), social integration (0.78), physical functioning and self-control (0.77), and mental functioning (0.73). Total SWN-K and its five subscales showed a significant linear trend against CDSS severity levels (P < 0.001). Conclusion: The presence of moderate to severe depressive symptoms was relatively high, and correlated inversely with patients' subjective well-being. Routine assessment of patient-reported measures in patients with schizophrenia might reduce potential discrepancy between patient and physician assessment, increase therapeutic alliance, and improve outcome.

Choosing appropriate patient-reported outcomes instrument for glaucoma research: a systematic review of vision instruments

PURPOSE: To identify vision Patient-Reported Outcomes instruments relevant to glaucoma and assess their content validity.

METHODS: MEDLINE, MEDLINE in Process, EMBASE and SCOPUS (to January 2009) were systematically searched. Observational studies or randomised controlled trials, published in English, reporting use of vision instruments in glaucoma studies involving adults were included. In addition, reference lists were scanned to identify additional studies describing development and/or validation to ascertain the final version of the instruments. Instruments' content was then mapped onto a theoretical framework, the World Health Organization International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health. Two reviewers independently evaluated studies for inclusion and quality assessed instrument content.

RESULTS: Thirty-three instruments were identified. Instruments were categorised into thirteen vision status, two vision disability, one vision satisfaction, five glaucoma status, one glaucoma medication related to health status, five glaucoma medication side effects and six glaucoma medication satisfaction measures according to each instruments' content. The National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-25, Impact of Vision Impairment and Treatment Satisfaction Survey-Intraocular Pressure had the highest number of positive ratings in the content validity assessment.

CONCLUSION: This study provides a descriptive catalogue of vision-specific PRO instruments, to inform the choice of an appropriate measure of patient-reported outcomes in a glaucoma context.

Patient-reported outcomes in randomised controlled trials on age-related macular degeneration

BACKGROUND/AIMS: The purpose of this systematic review was to identify the frequency and type of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in recent randomised controlled trials (RCTs) for age-related macular degeneration (AMD).

METHODS: The authors conducted a systematic search between January 2010 and November 2013 in MEDLINE, EMBASE, Scopus, Cochrane Library (Central) and the clinical trials registries (http://www.controlled-trials.com and http://www.ClinicalTrials.gov) according to defined inclusion criteria (RCTs on AMD in English). Two independent reviewers evaluated studies for inclusion. One reviewer extracted data of included studies, and a second masked reviewer assessed 10% to confirm accuracy in data collection. Reference lists of included papers and appendices of relevant Cochrane systematic reviews were scanned to identify other relevant RCTs. Information collected on extracted outcomes was analysed using descriptive statistics.

RESULTS: Literature and registry search yielded 3816 abstracts of journal articles and 493 records from trial registries. A total of 177 RCTs were deemed to have met inclusion criteria. Of the 858 outcomes reported, 38 outcomes were identified as PROMs (4.4%). Of the 177 RCTs examined, PROMs were used in 25 trials (14.1%). The National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-25 was the most frequently used PROM instrument (64% of RCTs with PROMs included).

CONCLUSIONS: This review highlights that a small proportion of AMD RCTs included PROMs as outcome measures and that there was a variety in the instruments used.

Establishing a population-based patient-reported outcomes study (PROMs) using national cancer registries across two jurisdictions: The Prostate Cancer Treatment, your experience (PiCTure) study

Objective: To establish an international patient-reported outcomes (PROMs) study among prostate cancer survivors, up to 18 years postdiagnosis, in two countries with different healthcare systems and ethical frameworks. Design: A cross-sectional, postal survey of prostate cancer survivors sampled and recruited via two population-based cancer registries. Healthcare professionals (HCPs) evaluated patients for eligibility to participate. Questionnaires contained validated instruments to assess health-related quality of life and psychological well-being, including QLQ-C30, QLQPR-25, EQ-5D-5L, 21-question Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21) and the Decisional Regret Scale. Setting: Republic of Ireland (RoI) and Northern Ireland (NI). Primary outcome measures: Registration completeness, predictors of eligibility and response, data missingness, unweighted and weighted PROMs. Results: Prostate cancer registration was 80% (95% CI 75% to 84%) and 91% (95% CI 89% to 93%) complete 2 years postdiagnosis in NI and RoI, respectively. Of 12 322 survivors sampled from registries, 53% (n=6559) were classified as eligible following HCP screening. In the multivariate analysis, significant predictors of eligibility were: being ≤59 years of age at diagnosis (p<0.001), short-term survivor (<5 years postdiagnosis; p<0.001) and from RoI (p<0.001). 3348 completed the questionnaire, yielding a 54% adjusted response rate. 13% of men or their families called the study freephone with queries for assistance with questionnaire completion or to talk about their experience. Significant predictors of response in multivariate analysis were: being ≤59 years at diagnosis (p<0.001) and from RoI (p=0.016). Mean number of missing questions in validated instruments ranged from 0.12 (SD 0.71; EQ-5D-5L) to 3.72 (SD 6.30; QLQ-PR25). Weighted and unweighted mean EQ-5D-5L, QLQ-C30 and QLQ-PR25 scores were similar, as were the weighted and unweighted prevalences of depression, anxiety and distress. Conclusions: It was feasible to perform PROMs studies across jurisdictions, using cancer registries as sampling frames; we amassed one of the largest, international, population-based data set of prostate cancer survivors. We highlight improvements which could inform future PROMs studies, including utilising general practitioners to assess eligibility and providing a freephone service.

Hypofractionated radiotherapy versus conventionally fractionated radiotherapy for patients with intermediate-risk localised prostate cancer: 2-year patient-reported outcomes of the randomised, non-inferiority, phase 3 CHHiP trial

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) might detect more toxic effects of radiotherapy than do clinician-reported outcomes. We did a quality of life (QoL) substudy to assess PROs up to 24 months after conventionally fractionated or hypofractionated radiotherapy in the Conventional or Hypofractionated High Dose Intensity Modulated Radiotherapy in Prostate Cancer (CHHiP) trial.

METHODS: The CHHiP trial is a randomised, non-inferiority phase 3 trial done in 71 centres, of which 57 UK hospitals took part in the QoL substudy. Men with localised prostate cancer who were undergoing radiotherapy were eligible for trial entry if they had histologically confirmed T1b-T3aN0M0 prostate cancer, an estimated risk of seminal vesicle involvement less than 30%, prostate-specific antigen concentration less than 30 ng/mL, and a WHO performance status of 0 or 1. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to receive a standard fractionation schedule of 74 Gy in 37 fractions or one of two hypofractionated schedules: 60 Gy in 20 fractions or 57 Gy in 19 fractions. Randomisation was done with computer-generated permuted block sizes of six and nine, stratified by centre and National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) risk group. Treatment allocation was not masked. UCLA Prostate Cancer Index (UCLA-PCI), including Short Form (SF)-36 and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P), or Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC) and SF-12 quality-of-life questionnaires were completed at baseline, pre-radiotherapy, 10 weeks post-radiotherapy, and 6, 12, 18, and 24 months post-radiotherapy. The CHHiP trial completed accrual on June 16, 2011, and the QoL substudy was closed to further recruitment on Nov 1, 2009. Analysis was on an intention-to-treat basis. The primary endpoint of the QoL substudy was overall bowel bother and comparisons between fractionation groups were done at 24 months post-radiotherapy. The CHHiP trial is registered with ISRCTN registry, number ISRCTN97182923.

FINDINGS: 2100 participants in the CHHiP trial consented to be included in the QoL substudy: 696 assigned to the 74 Gy schedule, 698 assigned to the 60 Gy schedule, and 706 assigned to the 57 Gy schedule. Of these individuals, 1659 (79%) provided data pre-radiotherapy and 1444 (69%) provided data at 24 months after radiotherapy. Median follow-up was 50·0 months (IQR 38·4-64·2) on April 9, 2014, which was the most recent follow-up measurement of all data collected before the QoL data were analysed in September, 2014. Comparison of 74 Gy in 37 fractions, 60 Gy in 20 fractions, and 57 Gy in 19 fractions groups at 2 years showed no overall bowel bother in 269 (66%), 266 (65%), and 282 (65%) men; very small bother in 92 (22%), 91 (22%), and 93 (21%) men; small bother in 26 (6%), 28 (7%), and 38 (9%) men; moderate bother in 19 (5%), 23 (6%), and 21 (5%) men, and severe bother in four (<1%), three (<1%) and three (<1%) men respectively (74 Gy vs 60 Gy, ptrend=0.64, 74 Gy vs 57 Gy, ptrend=0·59). We saw no differences between treatment groups in change of bowel bother score from baseline or pre-radiotherapy to 24 months.

INTERPRETATION: The incidence of patient-reported bowel symptoms was low and similar between patients in the 74 Gy control group and the hypofractionated groups up to 24 months after radiotherapy. If efficacy outcomes from CHHiP show non-inferiority for hypofractionated treatments, these findings will add to the growing evidence for moderately hypofractionated radiotherapy schedules becoming the standard treatment for localised prostate cancer.

FUNDING: Cancer Research UK, Department of Health, and the National Institute for Health Research Cancer Research Network.

Cumulative long-term safety, efficacy and patient-reported outcomes in children with juvenile idiopathic arthritis treated with intravenous abatacept: up to 7 years of treatment

The long-term efficacy and safety of intravenous abatacept in patients (pts) with juvenile idiopathic arthritis (JIA) have been reported previously from the Phase III AWAKEN trial ([1, 2]). Here, we report efficacy, safety and pt-reported outcomes from the open-label, long-term extension (LTE) of AWAKEN, with up to 7 years of follow-up. Pts entered the LTE if they were JIA ACR 30 non-responders (NR) at the end of the 4-month lead-in period (abatacept only), or if they received abatacept or placebo (pbo) in the 6-month double-blind (DB) period. The Child Health Questionnaire was used to evaluate health-related quality of life (HRQoL); physical (PhS) and psychosocial (PsS) summary and pain scores were analyzed. Pain was assessed by parent global assessment using a 100 mm visual analog scale. Efficacy and HRQoL evaluations are reported up to Day 1765 (~ Year 5.5). Safety is presented for the cumulative period (lead-in, DB and LTE), for all pts who received abatacept during the LTE. Of the 153 pts entering the LTE (58 from DB abatacept group, 59 from DB pbo group, 36 NR), 69 completed the trial (29 abatacept, 27 pbo, 13 NR). For pts treated in the LTE, mean (range) exposure to abatacept was 53.6 (5.6–85.6) months. During the LTE, incidence rates of AEs and serious AEs per 100 pt-years were 209.1 and 5.6. Thirty pts (19.6%) had serious AEs; most were unrelated and were musculoskeletal (8.5%) or infectious events (6.5%). No malignancy was reported. There was one death (accidental; unrelated). At Day 169, JIA ACR 50 and 70 response rates were 79.3% and 55.2% in the abatacept group, and 52.5% and 30.5% in the pbo group; 31.0% and 10.2% of pts in the abatacept and pbo groups, respectively, had inactive disease. By Day 1765, JIA ACR 50 and 70 response rates were 93.9% and 78.8% in the abatacept group, and 80.0% and 63.3% in the pbo group; 51.5% and 33.3% had inactive disease. In the NR group, 69.2% and 53.8% of pts achieved JIA ACR 50 and 70 responses at Day 1765, and 30.8% had inactive disease. In pts who entered the LTE, mean baseline PhS scores were below the range for healthy children (abatacept 30.2, pbo 31.0, NR 29.5). At Day 169, 38.3% of pts had reached a PhS score >50 ((1). By the end of the LTE, 43.5% of pts had reached a PhS score >50. At baseline, mean PsS scores for those who entered the LTE were slightly lower than the mean for healthy children (abatacept 43.5, pbo 44.2, NR 47.0). At Day 169, 54.9% of pts had a PsS score >50 (1). By Day 1765, 58.1% of pts had reached a PsS score >50. At baseline, the mean pain score was 42.9. By Day 169, 13.9% of pts were considered pain free (pain score = 0); this was maintained over the LTE (1).

Patient-reported outcomes of patients with advanced biliary tract cancers receiving gemcitabine plus capecitabine: a multicenter, phase II trial of the Swiss Group for Clinical Cancer Research

PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of palliative chemotherapy with gemcitabine plus capecitabine (GemCap) on patient-reported outcomes measured using clinical benefit response (CBR) and quality-of-life (QOL) measures in patients with advanced biliary tract cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients had to manifest symptoms of advanced biliary tract cancer and have at least one of the following: impaired Karnofsky performance score (60 to 80), average analgesic consumption >or= 10 mg of morphine equivalents per day, and average pain intensity score of >or= 20 mm out of 100 mm. Treatment consisted of oral capecitabine 650 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1 through 14 plus gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) as a 30-minute infusion on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks until progression. The primary end point was the number of patients categorized as having a CBR or stable CBR (SCBR) during the first three treatment cycles. RESULTS: Forty-four patients were enrolled (bile duct cancer, n = 36; gallbladder cancers, n = 8). The main grade 3 or 4 adverse events included hematologic toxicity and fatigue. After three cycles, 36% of patients achieved a CBR, and 34% achieved an SCBR. Over the full course of treatment, 57% of patients achieved a CBR, and 18% achieved an SCBR. Improved QOL was observed in patients with a CBR or SCBR. The objective response rate was 25%. Median time to progression and overall survival times were 7.2 months and 13.2 months, respectively. CONCLUSION: Chemotherapy with GemCap is well tolerated and effective and leads to a high CBR rate. Patient-reported outcomes are useful for evaluating the effects of palliative chemotherapy in patients with biliary tract cancer.

Patient-reported outcomes in meta-analyses - part 2: methods for improving interpretability for decision-makers

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized trials that include patient-reported outcomes (PROs) often provide crucial information for patients, clinicians and policy-makers facing challenging health care decisions. Based on emerging methods, guidance on improving the interpretability of meta-analysis of patient-reported outcomes, typically continuous in nature, is likely to enhance decision-making. The objective of this paper is to summarize approaches to enhancing the interpretability of pooled estimates of PROs in meta-analyses. When differences in PROs between groups are statistically significant, decision-makers must be able to interpret the magnitude of effect. This is challenging when, as is often the case, clinical trial investigators use different measurement instruments for the same construct within and between individual randomized trials. For such cases, in addition to pooling results as a standardized mean difference, we recommend that systematic review authors use other methods to present results such as relative (relative risk, odds ratio) or absolute (risk difference) dichotomized treatment effects, complimented by presentation in either: natural units (e.g. overall depression reduced by 2.4 points when measured on a 50-point Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression); minimal important difference units (e.g. where 1.0 unit represents the smallest difference in depression that patients, on average, perceive as important the depression score was 0.38 (95%CI 0.30 to 0.47) units less than the control group); or a ratio of means (e.g. where the mean in the treatment group is divided by the mean in the control group, the ratio of means is 1.27, representing a 27%relative reduction in the mean depression score).

Patient-reported outcomes in borderline personality disorder.

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) refers to measures that emphasize the subjective view of patients about their health-related conditions and behaviors. Typically, PROs include self-report questionnaires and clinical interviews. Defining PROs for borderline personality disorder (BPD) is particularly challenging given the disorder's high symptomatic heterogeneity, high comorbidity with other psychiatric conditions, highly fluctuating symptoms, weak correlations between symptoms and functional outcomes, and lack of valid and reliable experimental measures to complement self-report data. Here, we provide an overview of currently used BPD outcome measures and discuss them from clinical, psychometric, experimental, and patient perspectives. In addition, we review the most promising leads to improve BPD PROs, including the DSM-5 Section III, the Recovery Approach, Ecological Momentary Assessments, and novel experimental measures of social functioning that are associated with functional and social outcomes.

Patient-reported outcomes of maxillary implant-supported overdentures compared with conventional dentures

OBJECTIVE The aim of the present prospective clinical study was to compare patient-reported outcomes for maxillary conventional dentures and maxillary implant-supported dentures. MATERIAL AND METHODS Twenty-one patients (6 women and 15 men) being edentulous in the maxilla and encountering problems with their existing dentures were included. Twelve patients (4 women and 8 men) received a new set of conventional dentures, due to insufficient dentures. In nine patients (2 women and 7 men), the existing dentures were adjusted by means of relining or rebasing. All patients received implant-supported dentures on two retentive anchors. In total, 42 implants were inserted in the anterior maxilla. The participants rated their satisfaction on their existing conventional dentures, 2 months after insertion of new conventional dentures and 2 months after insertion of implant-supported dentures. Thereby, patients responded to questionnaires capturing the oral health impact profile (OHIP) using visual analog scales. Seven domains (functional limitation, physical pain, psychological discomfort, physical, psychological and social disability and handicap) were assessed. Higher scores implied poorer patient satisfaction. In addition, the questionnaire involved the evaluation of cleaning ability, general satisfaction, speech, comfort, esthetics, stability, and chewing ability. Higher scores implied higher patient satisfaction. RESULTS Patient satisfaction significantly increased for implant-supported dentures compared with old dentures in all seven OHIP subgroups, as well as for cleaning ability, general satisfaction, ability to speak, comfort, esthetics, and stability (P < 0.05). The comparison of new conventional dentures and implant-supported dentures revealed a statistically significantly increased satisfaction for functional limitation (difference of 33.2 mm), psychological discomfort (difference of 36.7 mm), physical disability (difference of 36.3 mm), and social disability (difference of 23.5 mm), (P < 0.05). Additionally, general satisfaction, chewing ability, speech, and stability significantly improved in implant-supported dentures (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS Within the limits of this study, maxillary dentures retained by two implants provided some significant short-term improvements over conventional dentures in oral- and health-related quality of life.

Open-Source Computerized Patient-Reported Outcomes: Case Studies Illustrating Fifteen Years of Evolution

Thesis (Master's)--University of Washington, 2016-06

Evaluation of clinically relevant changes in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the minimal clinically important improvement

Background: In clinical trials, at the group level, results are usually reported as mean and standard deviation of the change in score, which is not meaningful for most readers. Objective: To determine the minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) of pain, patient's global assessment of disease activity, and functional impairment in patients with knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA). Methods: A prospective multicentre 4 week cohort study involving 1362 outpatients with knee or hip OA was carried out. Data on assessment of pain and patient's global assessment, measured on visual analogue scales, and functional impairment, measured on the Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) function subscale, were collected at baseline and final visits. Patients assessed their response to treatment on a five point Likert scale at the final visit. An anchoring method based on the patient's opinion was used. The MCII was estimated in a subgroup of 814 patients ( 603 with knee OA, 211 with hip OA). Results: For knee and hip OA, MCII for absolute ( and relative) changes were, respectively, ( a) -19.9 mm (-40.8%) and -15.3 mm (-32.0%) for pain; ( b) -18.3 mm ( - 39.0%) and -15.2 mm ( -32.6%) for patient's global assessment; ( c) -9.1 ( -26.0%) and -7.9 ( -21.1%) for WOMAC function subscale score. The MCII is affected by the initial degree of severity of the symptoms but not by age, disease duration, or sex. Conclusion: Using criteria such as MCII in clinical trials would provide meaningful information which would help in interpreting the results by expressing them as a proportion of improved patients.

Evaluation of clinically relevant states in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the patient acceptable symptom state

Background: The patient acceptable symptom state ( PASS) is the value beyond which patients can consider themselves well. This concept can help in interpreting results of clinical trials. Objective: To determine the PASS estimate for patients with knee and hip osteoarthritis (OA) by assessing pain, patient's global assessment of disease activity, and functional impairment. Methods: A 4 week prospective multicentre cohort study of 1362 outpatients with knee or hip OA was carried out. Data on assessment of pain and patient's global assessment of disease, measured on visual analogue scales, and functional impairment, measured on the Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) function subscale, were collected at baseline and final visits. The patients assessed their satisfaction with their current state at the final visit. An anchoring method based on the patient's opinion was used. Results: For patients with knee and hip OA, the estimates of PASS were, respectively, 32.3 and 35.0 mm for pain, 32.0 and 34.6 mm for patient global assessment of disease activity, and 31.0 and 34.4 points for WOMAC function score. The PASS varied moderately across the tertiles of baseline scores but not across age, disease duration, or sex. Conclusion: The use of PASS in clinical trials would provide more meaningful results expressed as a proportion of patients in an acceptable symptom state.