Search

Purpose: The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life-Core Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) is a widely used generic self-report measure of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) for cancer patients. However, no validated voice script for interviewer-led telephone administration was previously available. The aim of this study was to develop a voice script for interviewer administration via telephone. Methods: Following guidelines from the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR) PRO Mixed Modes Good Research Practices Task Force, a randomised cross-over equivalence study, including cognitive debriefing, was conducted to assess equivalence between paper and telephone administration modes. Assuming an expected intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of 0.70 and a minimally acceptable level of 0.50, a sample size of 63 was required. Results: Cognitive interviews with five cancer patients found the voice script to be clear and understandable. Due to a protocol deviation in the first wave of testing, only 26 patients were available for analyses. A second wave of recruitment was conducted, adding 37 patients (n = 63; mean age 55.48; 65.1% female). Total ICCs for mode comparison ranged from 0.72 (nausea and vomiting, 95% CI 0.48–0.86) to 0.90 (global health status/QoL, 95% CI 0.80–0.95; pain, 95% CI 0.79–0.95; constipation, 95% CI 0.80–0.95). For paper first administration, all ICCs were above 0.70, except nausea and vomiting (ICC 0.55; 95% CI 0.24–0.76) and financial difficulties (ICC 0.60; 95% CI 0.31–0.79). For phone first administration, all ICCs were above 0.70. Conclusions: The equivalence testing results support the voice script's validity for administration of the QLQ-C30 via telephone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A common method of pain assessment is the numerical rating scale, where patients are asked to rate their pain on a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 is "no pain" and 10 is "pain as bad as you can imagine". We hypothesize such language is suboptimal as it involves a test of a cognitive skill, imagination, in the assessment of symptom severity. Methods: We used a large-scale online research registry, ResearchMatch, to conduct a randomized controlled trial to compare the distributions of pain scores of two different pain scale anchors. We recruited adults located in the United States who reported a chronic pain problem (> 3 months) and were currently in pain. Participants were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to receive pain assessment based on a modified Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), where the anchor for a score of 10 was either "extremely severe pain", or the original BPI, with the anchor "pain as bad as you can imagine". Participants in both groups also answered additional questions about pain, other symptomatology and creativity. Results: Data were obtained from 405 participants for the modified and 424 for the original BPI. Distribution of responses to pain questions were similar between groups (all p-values ≥ 0.12). We did not see evidence that the relationship between pain score and the anchor text differed based on self-perceived creativity (all interaction p-values ≥ 0.2). However, in the key analysis, correlations between current pain assessments and known correlates (fatigue, anxiety, depression, current pain compared to a typical day, pain compared to other people) were stronger for "extreme" vs. "imaginable" anchor text (p = 0.005). Conclusion: Pain rating scales should utilize the modified anchor text "extremely severe pain" instead of "pain as bad as you can imagine". Further research should explore the effects of anchors for other symptoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The COMET-ICE trial demonstrated that sotrovimab clinically and statistically significantly reduces the risk of all-cause > 24-h hospitalization or death due to any cause among patients with COVID-19 at high risk of disease progression. Patient-reported outcomes are important to capture symptom burden of COVID-19 and assess treatment effectiveness. This study investigated symptoms and their impact over the acute phase of COVID-19 infection among patients on sotrovimab versus placebo. Methods: Randomized (1:1), double-blind, multicenter, placebo-controlled, phase 2/3 study in 57 centers across five countries. Participants were non-hospitalized patients with symptomatic, mild-to-moderate COVID-19 and ≥ 1 baseline risk factor for disease progression (aged ≥ 55 years or ≥ 1 of the following: diabetes requiring medication, obesity, chronic kidney disease, congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, or moderate-to-severe asthma). An intravenous infusion of sotrovimab 500 mg or placebo was administered on Day 1. The FLU-PRO Plus questionnaire was administered once-daily with 24-h recall from Day 1–21, and at Day 29. Intensity and duration of COVID-19 symptoms were determined from area under the curve (AUC) and mean change in total and individual domain scores through Days 7, 14, and 21. Time to symptom alleviation was assessed. Results: In total, 1057 patients were randomized to sotrovimab (n = 528) or placebo (n = 529). At Day 7, mean decrease in FLU-PRO Plus total score (measured by AUC) was statistically significantly greater for patients on sotrovimab (–3.05 [95% confidence interval (CI) –3.27 to –2.83]) than placebo (–1.98 [95% CI –2.20 to –1.76]; difference –1.07 [95% CI –1.38 to –0.76]; p < 0.001). Significant differences were also observed at Days 14 and 21. A more rapid decline in symptom severity was observed with sotrovimab versus placebo through Week 1 and the first 21 days post-treatment. By Day 21, 41% of patients on sotrovimab and 34% on placebo reported symptom resolution. In a post-hoc analysis, median time to symptom alleviation was 4 and 6 days, respectively. Conclusions: Sotrovimab provides significant and rapid improvements in patient-reported COVID-19 symptoms, as measured by the FLU-PRO Plus. These results further show the benefits of sotrovimab in alleviating symptoms among high-risk patients with COVID-19. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.Gov: NCT04545060 (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04545060). Date of registration: September 10, 2020 (retrospectively registered). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: We have developed a short, patient-reported outcome questionnaire-the Osteoporosis Assessment Questionnaire-Physical Function (OPAQ-PF)-that assesses the impact of osteoporosis on physical function. OPAQ-PF contains 15 items in three domains (mobility, physical positions, and transfers) and has content validity in osteoporosis patients with and without a history of fracture. Introduction: This paper describes the development of the Osteoporosis Assessment Questionnaire-Physical Function (OPAQ-PF), a patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaire based on OPAQ v.2.0 (60 items, 14 domains) that assesses the impact of osteoporosis on physical function. Methods: OPAQ v.2.0 was administered to patients with osteoporosis. Item response theory methodology and clinical judgment were used to retain/eliminate items. The resulting instrument was modified during two sets of concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing interviews with osteoporosis patients. Results: Item response theory-based analysis of OPAQ v.2.0 ( n = 1,478) coupled with clinician input resulted in the generation of a 21-item, six-domain instrument with a frequency response format. Interview data from 32 participants were used to modify this version and led to generation of the final instrument, OPAQ-PF. This final version has a severity response format and contains 15 items in three domains (mobility, physical positions, and transfers) that group together to provide an overall assessment of physical function in patients with osteoporosis. Twenty-two of the 32 interview participants (69 %) had previously sustained a fracture. Symptoms occurred primarily in these patients. Conclusions: OPAQ-PF represents a brief, focused, PRO instrument that assesses physical function in patients with osteoporosis, specifically related to mobility, physical positions, and transfers. This questionnaire has content validity in osteoporosis patients who have, and have not, sustained a prior fracture. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]