Cargando…

Interpreting change from patient reported outcome (PRO) endpoints: patient global ratings of concept versus patient global ratings of change, a case study among osteoporosis patients

BACKGROUND: Regulatory guidance recommends anchor-based methods for interpretation of treatment effects measured by PRO endpoints. Methodological pros and cons of patient global ratings of change vs. patient global ratings of concept have been discussed but empirical evidence in support of either ap...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Nixon, Annabel, Doll, Helen, Kerr, Cicely, Burge, Russel, Naegeli, April N.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4759933/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26896284
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12955-016-0427-5
_version_ 1782416813213089792
author Nixon, Annabel
Doll, Helen
Kerr, Cicely
Burge, Russel
Naegeli, April N.
author_facet Nixon, Annabel
Doll, Helen
Kerr, Cicely
Burge, Russel
Naegeli, April N.
author_sort Nixon, Annabel
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Regulatory guidance recommends anchor-based methods for interpretation of treatment effects measured by PRO endpoints. Methodological pros and cons of patient global ratings of change vs. patient global ratings of concept have been discussed but empirical evidence in support of either approach is lacking. This study evaluated the performance of patient global ratings of change and patient global ratings of concept for interpreting patient stability and patient improvement. METHODS: Patient global ratings of change and patient global ratings of concept were included in a psychometric validation study of an osteoporosis-targeted PRO instrument (the OPAQ-PF) to assess its ability to detect change and to derive responder definitions. 144 female osteoporosis patients with (n = 37) or without (n = 107) a recent (within 6 weeks) fragility fracture completed the OPAQ-PF and global items at baseline, 2 weeks (no recent fracture), and 12 weeks (recent fracture) post-baseline. RESULTS: Results differed between the two methods. Recent fracture patients reported more improvement while patients without recent fracture reported more stability on ratings of change than ratings of concept. However, correlations with OPAQ-PF score change were stronger for ratings of concept than ratings of change (both groups). Effect sizes for OPAQ-PF score change increased consistently with level of change in ratings of concept but inconsistently with ratings of change, with the mean AUC for prediction of a one-point change being 0.72 vs. 0.56. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides initial empirical support for methodological and regulatory recommendations to use patient global ratings of concept rather than ratings of change when interpreting change captured by PRO instruments in studies evaluating treatment effects. These findings warrant being confirmed in a purpose-designed larger scale analysis. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12955-016-0427-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4759933
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-47599332016-02-20 Interpreting change from patient reported outcome (PRO) endpoints: patient global ratings of concept versus patient global ratings of change, a case study among osteoporosis patients Nixon, Annabel Doll, Helen Kerr, Cicely Burge, Russel Naegeli, April N. Health Qual Life Outcomes Research BACKGROUND: Regulatory guidance recommends anchor-based methods for interpretation of treatment effects measured by PRO endpoints. Methodological pros and cons of patient global ratings of change vs. patient global ratings of concept have been discussed but empirical evidence in support of either approach is lacking. This study evaluated the performance of patient global ratings of change and patient global ratings of concept for interpreting patient stability and patient improvement. METHODS: Patient global ratings of change and patient global ratings of concept were included in a psychometric validation study of an osteoporosis-targeted PRO instrument (the OPAQ-PF) to assess its ability to detect change and to derive responder definitions. 144 female osteoporosis patients with (n = 37) or without (n = 107) a recent (within 6 weeks) fragility fracture completed the OPAQ-PF and global items at baseline, 2 weeks (no recent fracture), and 12 weeks (recent fracture) post-baseline. RESULTS: Results differed between the two methods. Recent fracture patients reported more improvement while patients without recent fracture reported more stability on ratings of change than ratings of concept. However, correlations with OPAQ-PF score change were stronger for ratings of concept than ratings of change (both groups). Effect sizes for OPAQ-PF score change increased consistently with level of change in ratings of concept but inconsistently with ratings of change, with the mean AUC for prediction of a one-point change being 0.72 vs. 0.56. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides initial empirical support for methodological and regulatory recommendations to use patient global ratings of concept rather than ratings of change when interpreting change captured by PRO instruments in studies evaluating treatment effects. These findings warrant being confirmed in a purpose-designed larger scale analysis. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12955-016-0427-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2016-02-19 /pmc/articles/PMC4759933/ /pubmed/26896284 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12955-016-0427-5 Text en © Nixon et al. 2016 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Nixon, Annabel
Doll, Helen
Kerr, Cicely
Burge, Russel
Naegeli, April N.
Interpreting change from patient reported outcome (PRO) endpoints: patient global ratings of concept versus patient global ratings of change, a case study among osteoporosis patients
title Interpreting change from patient reported outcome (PRO) endpoints: patient global ratings of concept versus patient global ratings of change, a case study among osteoporosis patients
title_full Interpreting change from patient reported outcome (PRO) endpoints: patient global ratings of concept versus patient global ratings of change, a case study among osteoporosis patients
title_fullStr Interpreting change from patient reported outcome (PRO) endpoints: patient global ratings of concept versus patient global ratings of change, a case study among osteoporosis patients
title_full_unstemmed Interpreting change from patient reported outcome (PRO) endpoints: patient global ratings of concept versus patient global ratings of change, a case study among osteoporosis patients
title_short Interpreting change from patient reported outcome (PRO) endpoints: patient global ratings of concept versus patient global ratings of change, a case study among osteoporosis patients
title_sort interpreting change from patient reported outcome (pro) endpoints: patient global ratings of concept versus patient global ratings of change, a case study among osteoporosis patients
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4759933/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26896284
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12955-016-0427-5
work_keys_str_mv AT nixonannabel interpretingchangefrompatientreportedoutcomeproendpointspatientglobalratingsofconceptversuspatientglobalratingsofchangeacasestudyamongosteoporosispatients
AT dollhelen interpretingchangefrompatientreportedoutcomeproendpointspatientglobalratingsofconceptversuspatientglobalratingsofchangeacasestudyamongosteoporosispatients
AT kerrcicely interpretingchangefrompatientreportedoutcomeproendpointspatientglobalratingsofconceptversuspatientglobalratingsofchangeacasestudyamongosteoporosispatients
AT burgerussel interpretingchangefrompatientreportedoutcomeproendpointspatientglobalratingsofconceptversuspatientglobalratingsofchangeacasestudyamongosteoporosispatients
AT naegeliapriln interpretingchangefrompatientreportedoutcomeproendpointspatientglobalratingsofconceptversuspatientglobalratingsofchangeacasestudyamongosteoporosispatients