Cargando…
The PAC‐SYM questionnaire for chronic constipation: defining the minimal important difference
BACKGROUND: The Patient Assessment of Constipation‐Symptoms (PAC‐SYM) questionnaire is frequently used in clinical trials of constipation. However, the threshold for reduction in total PAC‐SYM score used to define a clinical response on this 0‐4 point scale has not undergone formal appraisal, and it...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2017
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5698746/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28983926 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/apt.14349 |
_version_ | 1783280818511151104 |
---|---|
author | Yiannakou, Y. Tack, J. Piessevaux, H. Dubois, D. Quigley, E. M. M. Ke, M. Y. Da Silva, S. Joseph, A. Kerstens, R. |
author_facet | Yiannakou, Y. Tack, J. Piessevaux, H. Dubois, D. Quigley, E. M. M. Ke, M. Y. Da Silva, S. Joseph, A. Kerstens, R. |
author_sort | Yiannakou, Y. |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: The Patient Assessment of Constipation‐Symptoms (PAC‐SYM) questionnaire is frequently used in clinical trials of constipation. However, the threshold for reduction in total PAC‐SYM score used to define a clinical response on this 0‐4 point scale has not undergone formal appraisal, and its relationship with clinical benefit as perceived by patients has not been defined. AIM: To determine the minimal important difference in PAC‐SYM score, and the optimum cut‐off value for defining responders. METHODS: The minimal important difference was estimated using data from six international phase 3/4, double‐blind, randomised controlled trials of prucalopride in patients with chronic constipation (NCT01147926, NCT01424228, NCT01116206, NCT00485940, NCT00483886, NCT00488137), with anchor‐ and distribution‐based approaches. Five appropriate patient‐reported outcomes were selected as anchors. In addition, receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analyses were used to investigate responder discrimination for each anchor. RESULTS: Data from 2884 patients were included. Minimal important difference estimates ranged from –0.52 to –0.63 across the five anchors. Estimates were not affected by study location but were consistently lower for rectal symptoms than for abdominal and stool symptoms. Distribution‐based estimates were considerably lower than anchor‐based estimates. ROC curve analyses showed optimum cut‐off scores for discriminating responders to be similar to anchor‐based minimal important difference estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Anchor‐based methods gave consistent results for the minimal important difference, at approximately –0.6, and this value was close to the ROC‐determined optimal cut‐off scores for responder discrimination. This value could be considered in clinical practice. A slightly more conservative threshold (eg –0.75) could be used in clinical trials to reduce the placebo response rate. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5698746 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2017 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-56987462017-11-30 The PAC‐SYM questionnaire for chronic constipation: defining the minimal important difference Yiannakou, Y. Tack, J. Piessevaux, H. Dubois, D. Quigley, E. M. M. Ke, M. Y. Da Silva, S. Joseph, A. Kerstens, R. Aliment Pharmacol Ther Patient Assessment of Chronic Constipation BACKGROUND: The Patient Assessment of Constipation‐Symptoms (PAC‐SYM) questionnaire is frequently used in clinical trials of constipation. However, the threshold for reduction in total PAC‐SYM score used to define a clinical response on this 0‐4 point scale has not undergone formal appraisal, and its relationship with clinical benefit as perceived by patients has not been defined. AIM: To determine the minimal important difference in PAC‐SYM score, and the optimum cut‐off value for defining responders. METHODS: The minimal important difference was estimated using data from six international phase 3/4, double‐blind, randomised controlled trials of prucalopride in patients with chronic constipation (NCT01147926, NCT01424228, NCT01116206, NCT00485940, NCT00483886, NCT00488137), with anchor‐ and distribution‐based approaches. Five appropriate patient‐reported outcomes were selected as anchors. In addition, receiver operating characteristics (ROC) curve analyses were used to investigate responder discrimination for each anchor. RESULTS: Data from 2884 patients were included. Minimal important difference estimates ranged from –0.52 to –0.63 across the five anchors. Estimates were not affected by study location but were consistently lower for rectal symptoms than for abdominal and stool symptoms. Distribution‐based estimates were considerably lower than anchor‐based estimates. ROC curve analyses showed optimum cut‐off scores for discriminating responders to be similar to anchor‐based minimal important difference estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Anchor‐based methods gave consistent results for the minimal important difference, at approximately –0.6, and this value was close to the ROC‐determined optimal cut‐off scores for responder discrimination. This value could be considered in clinical practice. A slightly more conservative threshold (eg –0.75) could be used in clinical trials to reduce the placebo response rate. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017-10-06 2017-12 /pmc/articles/PMC5698746/ /pubmed/28983926 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/apt.14349 Text en © 2017 Shire International GMBH. Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. |
spellingShingle | Patient Assessment of Chronic Constipation Yiannakou, Y. Tack, J. Piessevaux, H. Dubois, D. Quigley, E. M. M. Ke, M. Y. Da Silva, S. Joseph, A. Kerstens, R. The PAC‐SYM questionnaire for chronic constipation: defining the minimal important difference |
title | The PAC‐SYM questionnaire for chronic constipation: defining the minimal important difference |
title_full | The PAC‐SYM questionnaire for chronic constipation: defining the minimal important difference |
title_fullStr | The PAC‐SYM questionnaire for chronic constipation: defining the minimal important difference |
title_full_unstemmed | The PAC‐SYM questionnaire for chronic constipation: defining the minimal important difference |
title_short | The PAC‐SYM questionnaire for chronic constipation: defining the minimal important difference |
title_sort | pac‐sym questionnaire for chronic constipation: defining the minimal important difference |
topic | Patient Assessment of Chronic Constipation |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5698746/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28983926 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/apt.14349 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT yiannakouy thepacsymquestionnaireforchronicconstipationdefiningtheminimalimportantdifference AT tackj thepacsymquestionnaireforchronicconstipationdefiningtheminimalimportantdifference AT piessevauxh thepacsymquestionnaireforchronicconstipationdefiningtheminimalimportantdifference AT duboisd thepacsymquestionnaireforchronicconstipationdefiningtheminimalimportantdifference AT quigleyemm thepacsymquestionnaireforchronicconstipationdefiningtheminimalimportantdifference AT kemy thepacsymquestionnaireforchronicconstipationdefiningtheminimalimportantdifference AT dasilvas thepacsymquestionnaireforchronicconstipationdefiningtheminimalimportantdifference AT josepha thepacsymquestionnaireforchronicconstipationdefiningtheminimalimportantdifference AT kerstensr thepacsymquestionnaireforchronicconstipationdefiningtheminimalimportantdifference AT yiannakouy pacsymquestionnaireforchronicconstipationdefiningtheminimalimportantdifference AT tackj pacsymquestionnaireforchronicconstipationdefiningtheminimalimportantdifference AT piessevauxh pacsymquestionnaireforchronicconstipationdefiningtheminimalimportantdifference AT duboisd pacsymquestionnaireforchronicconstipationdefiningtheminimalimportantdifference AT quigleyemm pacsymquestionnaireforchronicconstipationdefiningtheminimalimportantdifference AT kemy pacsymquestionnaireforchronicconstipationdefiningtheminimalimportantdifference AT dasilvas pacsymquestionnaireforchronicconstipationdefiningtheminimalimportantdifference AT josepha pacsymquestionnaireforchronicconstipationdefiningtheminimalimportantdifference AT kerstensr pacsymquestionnaireforchronicconstipationdefiningtheminimalimportantdifference |