Search

Objectives: To assess the use of a co-designed patient-reported outcome (PRO) clinical dashboard and estimate its impact on shared decision-making (SDM) and symptomatology in adults with advanced cancer or chronic kidney disease (CKD)., Materials and Methods: We developed a clinical PRO dashboard within the Northwestern Medicine Patient-Reported Outcomes system, enhanced through co-design involving 20 diverse constituents. Using a single-group, pretest-posttest design, we evaluated the dashboard's use among patients with advanced cancer or CKD between June 2020 and January 2022. Eligible patients had a visit with a participating clinician, completed at least two dashboard-eligible visits, and consented to follow-up surveys. PROs were collected 72 h prior to visits, including measures for chronic condition management self-efficacy, health-related quality of life (PROMIS measures), and SDM (collaboRATE). Responses were integrated into the EHR dashboard and accessible to clinicians and patients., Results: We recruited 157 participants: 66 with advanced cancer and 91 with CKD. There were significant improvements in SDM from baseline, as assessed by collaboRATE scores. The proportion of participants reporting the highest level of SDM on every collaboRATE item increased by 15 percentage points from baseline to 3 months, and 17 points between baseline and 6-month follow-up. Additionally, there was a clinically meaningful decrease in anxiety levels over study period (T-score baseline: 53; 3-month: 52; 6-month: 50; P < .001), with a standardized response mean (SRM) of -0.38 at 6 months., Discussion: PRO clinical dashboards, developed and shared with patients, may enhance SDM and reduce anxiety among patients with advanced cancer and CKD., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association.)

Purpose: Our purpose was to evaluate the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures used in the ongoing RadComp pragmatic randomized clinical trial (PRCT)., Methods and Materials: The deidentified and blinded data set included 774 English-speaking female participants who completed their 6-month posttreatment assessment. Eleven PRO measures were evaluated, including the Trial Outcome Index from the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B), Satisfaction with Breast Cosmetic Outcomes, the BREAST-Q, and selected Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures. PROs were measured at 3 timepoints: baseline, completion of radiation therapy (RT), and 6 months post-RT. Ten variables were used as validity anchors. Pearson or Spearman correlations were calculated between PROs and convergent validity indicators. Mean PRO differences between clinically distinct categories were compared with analysis of variance methods (known-groups validity). PRO change scores were mapped to change in other variables (sensitivity to change)., Results: Most correlations between PROs and validity indicators were large (≥0.5). Mean score for Satisfaction with Breast Cosmetic Outcomes was higher (better) for those with a lumpectomy compared with those with a mastectomy (P < .001). Mean scores for the FACT-B Trial Outcome Index and for PROMIS Fatigue and Ability to Participate in Social Roles and Activities were better for those with good baseline performance status compared with those with poorer baseline performance status (P < .05). At completion of RT and post-RT, mean scores for Satisfaction with Breast Cosmetic Outcomes and BREAST-Q Radiation were significantly different (P < .001) across categories for all Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy -Treatment Satisfaction - General items. There were medium-sized correlations between change scores for FACT-B Trial Outcome Index, Fatigue, Anxiety, and Ability to Participate in Social Roles and change scores in the Visual Analog Scale., Conclusions: For patients with nonmetastatic breast cancer receiving radiation in the RadComp PRCT, our findings demonstrate high reliability and validity for important PRO measures, supporting their psychometric strength and usefulness to reflect the effect of RT on health-related quality of life., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Breast cancer is one of the most common cancers in women. Patient-reported outcome measures are used to evaluate patients' health-related quality of life in clinical breast cancer studies. This study evaluated the structure, validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network-Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast Cancer Symptom Index (NFBSI-16) subscales in a clinical trial featuring patients with advanced/metastatic breast cancer (aBC), and estimated NFBSI-16 meaningful change thresholds., Methods: Data from 101 patients with aBC enrolled in a phase II trial (Xenera-1) were included for psychometric evaluation of the NFBSI-16. Subscale structure was evaluated by assessing inter-item correlations, item-total correlations, and internal consistency (cycles 2 and 5). Validity was assessed using scale-level convergent validity (cycles 2 and 5) and known-groups (Baseline). Reliability was analysed via test-retest at cycles 3-4, and responsiveness to improvement and worsening was evaluated at cycles 5, 7, and 9. Meaningful change thresholds were estimated using anchor-based methods (supported by distribution-based methods) at cycles 5, 7, and 9., Results: NFBSI-16 internal consistency was acceptable, but item-total correlations suggested that its subscales and the GP5 item (side-effect of treatment) scores may be preferred over a total score. Convergent and known-groups evidence supported NFBSI-16 validity. Test-retest reliability was good to excellent for Total and DRS-P (disease-related symptoms: physical) scales, and moderate for the GP5 item. Responsiveness to worsening was generally demonstrated, but responsiveness to improvement could not be demonstrated due to limited observed improvement. Anchor-based meaningful change thresholds were estimated for DRS-P and Total scores., Conclusion: This study provides evidence that the NFBSI-16 has desirable psychometric properties for use in clinical studies in aBC. It also provides estimates of group- and individual-level meaningful change thresholds to facilitate score interpretation in future aBC research., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Fatigue is an important symptom for most patients with axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). The FACIT-Fatigue is a 13-item patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument that has been used in axSpA clinical trials to measure fatigue severity and impact on daily activities. However, the psychometric properties of the FACIT-Fatigue are not fully evaluated across the entire spectrum of axSpA including non-radiographic axSpA (nr-axSpA) and radiographic axSpA (r-axSpA). This study determined: (1) the psychometric properties of the FACIT-Fatigue in nr-axSpA, r-axSpA, and the broad axSpA population and (2) FACIT-Fatigue scores representing meaningful within-patient change (MWPC), meaningful between-group differences, and cross-sectional severity bands., Methods: Data from two Phase 3 trials in adults with nr-axSpA (BE MOBILE 1; N = 254) and r-axSpA (BE MOBILE 2; N = 332) were analyzed pooled and separately to assess the psychometric properties of the FACIT-Fatigue. MWPC and meaningful between-group difference estimates were derived using anchor-based and distribution-based methods. Cross-sectional fatigue severity bands were estimated using logistic regression analysis., Results: The FACIT-Fatigue presented good internal consistency, adequate convergent and known-groups validity, and was sensitive to change over time across the full axSpA spectrum. A 5-11-point increase in FACIT-Fatigue score was estimated to represent a MWPC, with an 8-point increase selected as the responder definition. A 2.14-5.34-point difference in FACIT-Fatigue score change over a 16-week period was estimated to represent a small-to-medium meaningful between-group difference. FACIT-Fatigue score severity bands were defined as: none or minimal (>40), mild (>30 to ≤40), moderate (>21 to ≤30), and severe (≤21)., Conclusions: These findings support the use of the FACIT-Fatigue as a fit-for-purpose measure to assess fatigue-related treatment benefit in axSpA clinical trials. The proposed score estimates and thresholds can guide FACIT-Fatigue score interpretation across the full axSpA spectrum., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.Gov, NCT03928704. Registered 26 April 2019-Retrospectively registered, https://classic., Clinicaltrials: gov/ct2/show/NCT03928704 ., Clinicaltrials: Gov, NCT03928743. Registered 26 April 2019-Retrospectively registered, https://classic., Clinicaltrials: gov/ct2/show/NCT03928743 ., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Patients with head/neck squamous cell carcinomas (HNSCC) experience significant tumor- and treatment-related side effects. No efficient summary measure capturing the totality of side effect burden currently exists. We examined associations between a single patient-reported outcome (PRO) item evaluating side effect bother (FACT GP5, "I am bothered by side effects of treatment") with overall side effects in HNSCC., Methods: We performed a retrospective secondary analysis of development of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) Head/Neck Symptom Index (FHNSI-10), which included completing FACT-HN (including Head/Neck Cancer Subscale (HNCS) and Trial Outcome Index (TOI)) and the pain intensity numeric rating scale (NRS). We calculated Spearman's correlations between GP5 and these measures of patient-reported global health, head/neck side effects, and pain intensity NRS. A correlation of > 0.4 was considered sufficient evidence of association., Results: Ninety-seven patients completed baseline and 85 completed 3-month follow-up surveys. GP5 was highly correlated with FACT-HN total score (baseline r = 0.66, 3 months r = 0.67) and FHNSI-10 (baseline r = 0.63, 3 months r = 0.65). GP5 correlated with multiple FACT-HN subscales including FACT-G, physical well-being, functional well-being, HNCS, and TOI (range baseline r = 0.53-0.77, range 3 months r = 0.49-0.77). Worsening GP5 score was associated with worsening overall HNCS (p = 0.002), worsening FHNSI-10 score (p < 0.001), and worsening mean pain intensity (p < 0.001)., Conclusion: GP5 exhibited validity within HNSCC, exhibiting substantial correlations with a number of HNSCC-related PRO measures including FACT-HN and FHNSI-10. Worsening GP5 was associated with worsening HNCS, FHNSI summary score, and pain intensity. GP5 has promise as a summary indicator of symptom and side effect bother in HNSCC., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

Background: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures of distinct concepts are often put together into patient profile assessments. When brief, profile assessments can decrease respondent burden and increase measure completion rates. In this report, we describe the creation of 5 self-reported 4-item short forms and the Mechanical Circulatory Support: Measures of Adjustment and Quality of Life (MCS A-QOL) 20-item profile to assess PROs specific to adjustment and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) among patients who undergo left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation., Methods: Using a cross-sectional sample of patients (n = 620) who underwent LVAD implantation at 12 U.S. sites or participated in the MyLVAD.com support group, we created 5 4-item short forms: Satisfaction with Treatment, ventricular assist device (VAD) Team Communication, Being Bothered by VAD Self-care and Limitations, Self-efficacy Regarding VAD self-care, and Stigma, which we combined into a 20-item profile. Analyses included intercorrelations among measures, Cronbach's alpha (i.e., internal consistency reliability)/score-level-specific reliability, and construct validity., Results: The 620 patients were mean age = 57 years, 78% male, 70% White, and 56% on destination therapy LVADs. Intercorrelations among the 5 4-item measures were low to moderate (≤0.50), indicating they are associated yet largely distinct, and correlations with calibrated measures and 6-item short forms were ≥0.76, indicating their ability to reflect full-item bank scores. Internal consistency reliability for the 5 4-item short forms ranged from acceptable (≥0.70) to good (≥0.80). Construct validity was demonstrated for these measures., Conclusions: Our 5 4-item short forms are reliable and valid and may be used individually or together as a 20-item profile to assess adjustment and HRQOL in patients who undergo LVAD implantation., Competing Interests: Disclosure statement Kathleen L. Grady, PhD, RN – NIH Grants (NIA and NHLBI) and payment of room reservation by NIH as faculty at the Ten-day Seminar; lecturer (registration fees paid for meeting: Heart Failure Society of America, American Heart Association, International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation, and American College of Cardiology); leadership or fiduciary role (ISHLT Board of Directors, Foundation Board, Research Oversight Committee, Governance Committee, Leadership Advisory Forum, and chair, Grants and Awards Committee). Michael Kallen, PhD – Deceased; ICMJE Disclosure Form not completed. Larry A. Allen, MD, MHS – Grant from PCORI and NIH; Consultant for ACI Clinical, Boston Scientific, Cytokinetics, Novartis, UpToDate, and Quidel. JoAnn Lindenfeld, MD –Consulting fees from Abbott, Alleviant, Axon, Astra Zenaca, Boston Scientific, CVRx, Merck, Medtronic, VWave, Edwards Lifesciences, Whiteswell, and Vascular Dynamicx. Colleen K. McIlvennan, PhD, DNP, ANP – Grant from PCORI and Cambia Health Foundation; HFSA Board of Directors. Christopher S. Lee, PhD, RN – DSMB chair: COMBAT-DS; US Department of Health and Human Services: National Advisory Council (member). Josef Stehlik, MD – Grants from Natera and Merck and consulting for Medtronic, Natera, and TransMedics. James K. Kirklin, MD – Intellectual properties for IT software development in registry database design developed at and licensed from the University of Alabama at Birmingham; chair of DSMB for Xeltis cardiac conduit clinical trial, chair of DSMB for Carmat TAH clinical trial, chair XVIVO Clinical Safety Monitoring Board; President World Society for Pediatric and Congenital Heart Surgery; common stock in Kirklin Solutions Co. Database development and analytics (20% ownership; $3.75 per share; current market value $700,000); partial salary support as Director of the Data Center for STS Intermacs/Pedimacs (no payments for any of these roles related to this publication). Jeffrey Teuteberg, MD – Consultant for Abbott, CareDx, Medtronic and Takeda; Lecturer for CareDx, Cytokinetics, Medtronic, and Paragonix. Eric Adler, MD – Grants from Lexeo Therapeutics, Rocket Pharmaceuticals, and California Institute for Regenerative Medicines; Royalties or licenses from Lexeo Therapeutics, Rocket Pharmaceuticals, and Papillion Therapeutics; consulting fees from Abiomed, Norvartis, Abbott, Ionis, Kiniska, Sana, Medtronic, and Cytokinetics; payment for expert testimony on behalf of Astro Zeneca; patents planned, issued or pending: Method for treating Danon disease and other disorders of autophagy and ex vivo genetic modification of hematopoietic cells for the treatment of Danon Disease; participation on DSMB: Edwards Lifesciences, Ancora Heart, and Corstasis Therapeutics; leadership or fiduciary role: Chief Science Officer for Lexeo Therapeutics, Scientific Advisory Board for Sarnoff Foundation, and Board of Directors for Papillion Therapeutics; stock or stock options: Rocket Pharmaceuticals, Lexeo Therapeutics, Corstasis Therapeutics, and Papillion Therapeutics. Michael Kiernan, MD – Steering Committee: Medtronic and Endotronix. The other authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose. Michael Kallen, PhD, MPH, coauthor and statistician/psychometrician for MCS A-QOL and this paper, passed away on July 27, 2023. His contributions to this manuscript were substantial and his passion for the development of patient-reported outcome measures was inspiring. He was a kind and gentle person who is genuinely missed by Beth Hahn, my co-PI on MCS A-QOL, and me. Words cannot adequately express our deep sense of gratitude and loss. This work was sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI), Mechanical Circulatory Support: Measures of Adjustment and Quality of Life (MCS A-QOL, [R01HL130502], Grady K.L. and Hahn E.A. [co-PIs])., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: The NFLymSI-18 is a patient-reported outcome measure comprised of the highest priority symptoms, emotional concerns, treatment side effects, and other concerns identified by lymphoma patients and oncologists. This study assessed the content validity of the NFLymSI-18 for patients with indolent B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (iNHL), with a focus on the Disease-Related Symptoms Physical (DRS-P) subscale., Methods: Patients with a confirmed iNHL diagnosis who had received one or more lines of treatment were recruited during clinic visits. Patients described their symptoms, treatment side effects, and emotional concerns related to iNHL in a semi-structured interview. Qualitative data were analyzed using NVivo10., Results: Data saturation was obtained by the 18th interview. Most participants (67%) had follicular lymphoma. 28% of participants had marginal zone lymphoma, and one participant had lymphoplasmacytoid lymphoma/Waldenström macroglobulinemia. Mean age of the 18 participants was 67 years. 56% of the sample was male. Most participants (67%) had a college or advanced degree. When asked to describe their iNHL symptoms, patients most often discussed swelling (n = 14), fatigue (n = 11), and pain (n = 8). The following symptoms were mentioned by three patients each: anxiety, appetite loss, rash, sleep disruption, trouble breathing, and malaise. Mapping of NFLymSI-18 content to these concerns showed the instrument includes all those most frequently mentioned symptoms., Conclusions: This study supports the content validity of the NFLymSI-18, including its DRS-P Subscale, for patients with iNHL. The instrument shows strong validity for the most referenced symptoms of swelling, fatigue, and pain. The diversity of additional symptoms reported by patients is consistent with the heterogeneous symptomology of iNHL., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: As cancer centers have increased focus on patient-centered, evidenced-based care, implementing efficient programs that facilitate effective patient-clinician communication remains critical. We implemented an electronic health record-integrated patient-reported symptom and needs monitoring program ('cPRO' for cancer patient-reported outcomes). To aid evaluation of cPRO implementation, we asked patients receiving care in one of three geographical regions of an academic healthcare system about their experiences., Methods: Using a sequential mixed-methods approach, we collected feedback in two waves. Wave 1 included virtual focus groups and interviews with patients who had completed cPRO. In Wave 2, we administered a structured survey to systematically examine Wave 1 themes. All participants had a diagnosed malignancy and received at least 2 invitations to complete cPRO. We used rapid and traditional qualitative methods to analyze Wave 1 data and focused on identifying facilitators and barriers to cPRO implementation. Wave 2 data were analyzed descriptively., Results: Participants (n = 180) were on average 62.9 years old; were majority female, White, non-Hispanic, and married; and represented various cancer types and phases of treatment. Wave 1 participants (n = 37) identified facilitators, including cPRO's perceived value and favorable usability, and barriers, including confusion about cPRO's purpose and various considerations for responding. High levels of clinician engagement with, and patient education on, cPRO were described as facilitators while low levels were described as barriers. Wave 2 (n = 143) data demonstrated high endorsement rates of cPRO's usability on domains such as navigability (91.6%), comprehensibility (98.7%), and relevance (82.4%). Wave 2 data also indicated low rates of understanding cPRO's purpose (56.7%), education from care teams about cPRO (22.5%), and discussing results of cPRO with care teams (16.3%)., Conclusions: While patients reported high value and ease of use when completing cPRO, they also reported areas of confusion, emphasizing the importance of patient education on the purpose and use of cPRO and clinician engagement to sustain participation. These results guided successful implementation changes and will inform future improvements., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires considered in this paper contain multiple subscales, although not all subscales are equally relevant for administration in all target patient populations. A group of measurement experts, developers, license holders, and other scientific-, regulatory-, payer-, and patient-focused stakeholders participated in a panel to discuss the benefits and challenges of a modular approach, defined here as administering a subset of subscales out of a multi-scaled PRO measure. This paper supports the position that it is acceptable, and sometimes preferable, to take a modular approach when administering PRO questionnaires, provided that certain conditions have been met and a rigorous selection process performed. Based on the experiences and perspectives of all stakeholders, using a modular approach can reduce patient burden and increase the relevancy of the items administered, and thereby improve measurement precision and eliminate wasted data without sacrificing the scientific validity and utility of the instrument. The panelists agreed that implementing a modular approach is not expected to have a meaningful impact on item responses, subscale scores, variability, reliability, validity, and effect size estimates; however, collecting additional evidence for the impact of context may be desirable. It is also important to recognize that adequate rationale and evidence (e.g., of fit-for-purpose status and relevance to patients) and a robust consensus process that includes patient perspectives are required to inform selection of subscales, as in any other measurement circumstance, is expected. We believe that the considerations discussed within (content validity, administration context, and psychometric factors) are relevant across multiple therapeutic areas., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in healthcare research to provide evidence of the benefits and risks of interventions from the patient perspective and to inform regulatory decisions and health policy. The use of PROs in clinical practice can facilitate symptom monitoring, tailor care to individual needs, aid clinical decision-making and inform value-based healthcare initiatives. Despite their benefits, there are concerns that the potential burden on respondents may reduce their willingness to complete PROs, with potential impact on the completeness and quality of the data for decision-making. We therefore conducted an initial literature review to generate a list of candidate recommendations aimed at reducing respondent burden. This was followed by a two-stage Delphi survey by an international multi-stakeholder group. A consensus meeting was held to finalize the recommendations. The final consensus statement includes 19 recommendations to address PRO respondent burden in healthcare research and clinical practice. If implemented, these recommendations may reduce PRO respondent burden., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature America, Inc.)

Importance: Patients undergoing radiation therapy (RT) for head and neck squamous cell carcinoma (HNSCC) experience a range of debilitating adverse effects (AEs). Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures to quantify these AEs are a necessary and important component of health care; however, currently available PRO options often measure only disease-related symptoms or AEs of non-RT treatments., Objective: To develop a brief PRO measure of the most common AEs associated with RT for HNSCC., Design, Setting, and Participants: This was a qualitative study that followed the US Food and Drug Administration guidelines to develop a brief measure of patient-reported RT-related AEs (the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Head and Neck Radiotherapy [FACT-HN-RAD] measure). The study included (1) a literature review of clinical trials; (2) secondary analysis of retrospective concept elicitation interviews (CEIs); (3) electronic surveys of practicing radiation oncologists; (4) mapping of existing items to inform the development of the draft version of the measure; and (5) validation of content and face validity via patient cognitive interviews. Analysis was performed of CEI data and interviews with practicing radiation oncologists. Data analysis was conducted from July 1, 2022, to April 21, 2023., Exposures: Surveys and qualitative interviews., Main Outcomes and Measures: The most common patient-reported RT-related AEs among patients with HNSCC., Results: Of 19 CEI participants, 14 (mean [range] age, 67 [49-86] years; 12 [86%] men and 2 [14%] women) described RT-related AEs and were included in the secondary analysis. Eleven (79%) patients reported difficulty swallowing; 8 (57%), oral pain; 7 (50%), dry mouth; 7 (50%), weight loss; 6 (43%), skin burning; 5 (36%), loss of taste; 5 (36%), voice changes (36%); and 5 (36%), fatigue. Nine radiation oncologists (mean [range] time in practice, 8 [1-42] years; 5 [56%] men and 4 [44%] women) reported the most common AEs: 9 (100%) reported dysgeusia; 7 (78%), xerostomia; 7 (78%), mucositis or oral pain; 8 (89%), dysphagia or odynophagia; 6 (67%), dermatitis; and 3 (33%), fatigue. Together these data informed the development of an 8-item AE-focused measure of pain, dysphagia, xerostomia, dysgeusia, voice changes, dermatitis, fatigue, and weight loss. Cognitive interviews with 10 patients (mean [range] age, 61 [29-84] years; 8 [80%] men and 2 [20%] women) demonstrated strong face validity; all (100%) reported that the measure reflected their experience with RT and stated that the length of the questionnaire was "just right.", Conclusions and Relevance: The 8-item FACT-HN-RAD measure captures the most common patient- and physician-reported AEs related to RT for HNSCC. This measure offers a means to serially monitor patient-reported treatment-related AEs and recovery over time in both clinical and research settings. Future work will evaluate the psychometric validity of the measure.

Objectives: This study aimed to examine the ability of classical test theory (CTT) and item response theory (IRT) scores assessed by Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS®) measures to identify significant individual changes in the setting of clinical studies, using both simulated and empirical data., Methods: We used simulated data to compare the estimation of significant individual changes between CTT and IRT scores across different conditions and a clinical trial data set to verify the simulation results. We calculated reliable change indexes to estimate significant individual changes., Results: For small true change, IRT scores showed a slightly higher rate of classifying change groups than CTT scores and were comparable with CTT scores for a shorter test length. Additionally, IRT scores were found to have a prominent advantage in the classification rates of change groups for medium to high true change over CTT scores. Such an advantage became prominent in a longer test length. The empirical data analysis results using an anchor-based approach further supported the above findings that IRT scores can more accurately classify participants into change groups than CTT scores., Conclusions: Given that IRT scores perform better, or at least comparably, in most conditions, we recommend using IRT scores to estimate significant individual changes and identify responders to treatment. This study provides evidence-based guidance in detecting individual changes based on CTT and IRT scores under various measurement conditions and leads to recommendations for identifying responders to treatment for participants in clinical trials., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Purpose: Individual change on a patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure can be assessed by statistical significance and meaningfulness to patients. We explored the relationship between these two criteria by varying the confidence levels of the coefficient of repeatability (CR) on the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (R) Physical Function (PF) 10a (PF10a) measure., Methods: In a sample of 1129 adult cancer patients, we estimated individual-change thresholds on the PF10a from baseline to 6 weeks later with the CR at 50%, 68%, and 95% confidence. We also assessed agreement with group- and individual-level thresholds from anchor-based methods [mean change and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve] using a PF-specific patient global impression of change (PGIC)., Results: CRs at 50%, 68%, and 95% confidence were 3, 4, and 7 raw score points, respectively. The ROC- and mean-change-based thresholds for deterioration were -4 and -6; for improvement they were both 2. Kappas for agreement between anchor-based thresholds and CRs for deterioration ranged between κ = 0.65 and 1.00, while for improvement, they ranged between 0.35 and 0.83. Agreement between the PGIC and all CRs always fell below "good" (κ < 0.40) for deterioration (0.30-0.33) and were lower for improvement (0.16-0.28)., Conclusions: In comparison to the CR at 95% confidence, CRs at 50% and 68% confidence (considered likely change indexes) have the advantage of maximizing the proportion of patients appropriately classified as changed according to statistical significance and meaningfulness., (© 2022. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Objective: Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures can be administered via computerized adaptive testing (CAT) or fixed short forms (FSFs), but the empirical benefits of CAT versus FSFs are unknown in juvenile myositis (JM). The present study was undertaken to assess whether PROMIS CAT is feasible, precise, correlated with FSFs, and less prone to respondent burden and floor/ceiling effects than FSFs in JM., Methods: Patients 8-17 years of age (self-report and parent proxy) and parents of patients 5-7 years of age (only parent proxy) completed PROMIS fatigue, pain interference, upper extremity function, mobility, anxiety, and depressive symptoms measures. Pearson correlations, paired t-tests, and Cohen's d were calculated between PROMIS CAT and FSFs. McNemar's test assessed floor/ceiling effects between CAT and FSFs. Precision and respondent burden were examined across the T score range., Results: Data from 67 patient-parent dyads were analyzed. CAT and FSF mean scores did not significantly differ except in parent proxy anxiety and fatigue (effect size 0.23 and 0.19, respectively). CAT had less pronounced floor/ceiling effects at the less symptomatic extreme in all domains except self-report anxiety. Increased item burden and higher SEs were seen in less symptomatic scorers for CAT. Modified stopping rules limiting CAT item administration did not decrease precision., Conclusion: PROMIS CAT appears to be feasible and correlated with FSFs. CAT had less pronounced floor/ceiling effects, allowing detection of individual differences in less symptomatic patients. Modified stopping rules for CAT may decrease respondent burden. CAT can be considered for long-term follow-up of JM patients., (© 2021 American College of Rheumatology.)

Disparities in care, treatment-related toxicity and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) for adolescents and young adults (AYAs, aged 15-39 years) with cancer are under-addressed partly because of limited collection of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in cancer clinical trials (CCTs). The AYA years include key developmental milestones distinct from younger and older patients, and cancer interrupts attainment of critical life goals. Lack of consensus on a standardized approach to assess HRQoL and treatment-related toxicity in AYA CCTs has limited the ability to improve patient outcomes. The National Cancer Institute's Clinical Trials Network AYA PRO Task Force was assembled to reach consensus on a core set of PROs and foster its integration into AYA CCTs. Eight key considerations for selecting the core PRO AYA battery components were identified: relevance to AYAs; importance of constructs across the age continuum; prioritization of validated measures; availability of measures without licensing fees; availability in multiple languages; applicability to different cancer types and treatments; ability to measure different HRQoL domains and toxicities; and minimized burden on patients and sites. The Task Force used a modified Delphi approach to identify key components of the PRO battery. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) and the PRO Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events Measurement System met all criteria and were selected to assess HRQoL and treatment toxicity, respectively. Investigators are rapidly incorporating the recommendations of the Task Force into AYA trials. Inclusion of a standardized assessment of HRQoL and treatment toxicities in AYA CCTs is a vital first step to develop interventions to improve health outcomes for AYAs diagnosed with cancer., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

The functional medicine model of care is focused on patient-centered rather than disease-centered care. Patient-centered care incorporates the patient's voice or experience of their condition alongside conventional biological factors to provide a "more complete" account of health. PROMIS Global, an NIH-validated patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure that evaluates the health-related quality of life, can be incorporated within the functional medicine model of care to evaluate self-reported physical, mental and social well-being across various conditions and guide personalized management strategies. Proper incorporation of PROMIS Global into clinical care and research is warranted to expand the available evidence base., Competing Interests: Disclosure M. Beidelschies reports personal fees from Cleveland HeartLab, Inc. outside the submitted work. In addition, she has a patent number 20110269150; issued. All other authors have nothing to disclose., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Importance: Electronic systems that facilitate patient-reported outcome (PRO) surveys for patients with cancer may detect symptoms early and prompt clinicians to intervene., Objective: To evaluate whether electronic symptom monitoring during cancer treatment confers benefits on quality-of-life outcomes., Design, Setting, and Participants: Report of secondary outcomes from the PRO-TECT (Alliance AFT-39) cluster randomized trial in 52 US community oncology practices randomized to electronic symptom monitoring with PRO surveys or usual care. Between October 2017 and March 2020, 1191 adults being treated for metastatic cancer were enrolled, with last follow-up on May 17, 2021., Interventions: In the PRO group, participants (n = 593) were asked to complete weekly surveys via an internet-based or automated telephone system for up to 1 year. Severe or worsening symptoms triggered care team alerts. The control group (n = 598) received usual care., Main Outcomes and Measures: The 3 prespecified secondary outcomes were physical function, symptom control, and health-related quality of life (HRQOL) at 3 months, measured by the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ-C30; range, 0-100 points; minimum clinically important difference [MCID], 2-7 for physical function; no MCID defined for symptom control or HRQOL). Results on the primary outcome, overall survival, are not yet available., Results: Among 52 practices, 1191 patients were included (mean age, 62.2 years; 694 [58.3%] women); 1066 (89.5%) completed 3-month follow-up. Compared with usual care, mean changes on the QLQ-C30 from baseline to 3 months were significantly improved in the PRO group for physical function (PRO, from 74.27 to 75.81 points; control, from 73.54 to 72.61 points; mean difference, 2.47 [95% CI, 0.41-4.53]; P = .02), symptom control (PRO, from 77.67 to 80.03 points; control, from 76.75 to 76.55 points; mean difference, 2.56 [95% CI, 0.95-4.17]; P = .002), and HRQOL (PRO, from 78.11 to 80.03 points; control, from 77.00 to 76.50 points; mean difference, 2.43 [95% CI, 0.90-3.96]; P = .002). Patients in the PRO group had significantly greater odds of experiencing clinically meaningful benefits vs usual care for physical function (7.7% more with improvements of ≥5 points and 6.1% fewer with worsening of ≥5 points; odds ratio [OR], 1.35 [95% CI, 1.08-1.70]; P = .009), symptom control (8.6% and 7.5%, respectively; OR, 1.50 [95% CI, 1.15-1.95]; P = .003), and HRQOL (8.5% and 4.9%, respectively; OR, 1.41 [95% CI, 1.10-1.81]; P = .006)., Conclusions and Relevance: In this report of secondary outcomes from a randomized clinical trial of adults receiving cancer treatment, use of weekly electronic PRO surveys to monitor symptoms, compared with usual care, resulted in statistically significant improvements in physical function, symptom control, and HRQOL at 3 months, with mean improvements of approximately 2.5 points on a 0- to 100-point scale. These findings should be interpreted provisionally pending results of the primary outcome of overall survival., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03249090.

Background: In clinical trials and clinical practice, patient-reported outcomes are almost always assessed using multiple patient-reported outcome measures at the same time. This raises concerns about whether patient responses are affected by the order in which the patient-reported outcome measures are administered., Methods: This questionnaire-based study of order effects included adult cancer patients from five cancer centers. Patients were randomly assigned to complete questionnaires via paper booklets, interactive voice response system, or tablet web survey. Linear Analogue Self-Assessment, Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System assessment tools were each used to measure general health, physical function, social function, emotional distress/anxiety, emotional distress/depression, fatigue, sleep, and pain. The order in which the three tools, and domains within tools, were presented to patients was randomized. Rates of missing data, scale scores, and Cronbach's alpha coefficients were compared by the order in which they were assessed. Analyses included Cochran-Armitage trend tests and mixed models adjusted for performance score, age, sex, cancer type, and curative intent., Results: A total of 1830 patients provided baseline patient-reported outcome assessments. There were no significant trends in rates of missing values by whether a scale was assessed earlier or later. The largest order effect for scale scores was due to a large mean score at one assessment time point. The largest difference in Cronbach's alpha between the versions for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System scales was 0.106., Conclusion: The well-being of a cancer patient has many different aspects such as pain, fatigue, depression, and anxiety. These are assessed using a variety of surveys often collected at the same time. This study shows that the order in which the different aspects are collected from the patient is not important.

Objective: Expand the current Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) well-being measures to early childhood (1-5 years) using best practices from PROMIS and developmental science., Methods: Qualitative methods included expert input, literature and measure review, and parent interviews to confirm measure frameworks, item understandability, and developmental appropriateness. Quantitative methods included two waves of field testing and item response theory (IRT)-based psychometric evaluation of reliability and validity, as well as IRT centering and item calibration. Correlational analyses with other PROMIS Early Childhood (EC) Parent Report measures and known-group differences analyses by health status were conducted to evaluate construct validity. All measures were normed to the general U.S. population., Results: Qualitative results suggested three primary early childhood well-being domains: Positive Affect, Engagement, and Self-Regulation. Quantitative results revealed a unidimensional factor structure for Positive Affect and multidimensional factor structures for Engagement and Self-Regulation, both of which had two factors accounting for >10% of modeled variance reflecting unique unidimensional domains. This resulted in five final PROMIS EC well-being measures: Positive Affect, Engagement-Curiosity, Engagement-Persistence, Self-Regulation-Flexibility, and Self-Regulation-Frustration Tolerance. Correlations and known-groups differences analyses showed robust construct validity across a range of chronic health conditions., Conclusions: The new PROMIS EC Parent Report well-being measures offer clinicians and researchers a brief, efficient, and precise way to evaluate young children's well-being. All five measures include only positively valanced item content, which pushes the field to evaluate the presence of children's positive assets rather than the absence of problems., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society of Pediatric Psychology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objective: Provide an overview of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®) Early Childhood Parent Report measurement development project and describe its qualitative methods., Methods: The PROMIS Early Childhood (PROMIS EC) initiative used the PROMIS mixed-methods approach to patient-reported outcome development, with insight from the developmental specification framework to create parent report measures appropriate for assessing young children's health-related quality of life. Qualitative methods to develop these instruments included expert input, literature and measure review, and parent concept elicitation and cognitive interviews to confirm the measure frameworks, item understandability, and developmental appropriateness., Results: Twelve measures resulted from the PROMIS EC initiative. These parent report instruments cover young children's physical, mental, and social health., Conclusions: The new PROMIS EC Parent Report instruments offer clinicians and researchers brief and psychometrically robust tools to evaluate young children's physical, mental, and social health outcomes. Aligned with the PROMIS Pediatric instruments, the early childhood versions enable coherent lifespan measurement starting at age 1 while maintaining developmental sensitivity., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society of Pediatric Psychology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Itch compromises QOL, but most itch assessments focus only on itch intensity. We aimed to develop and validate a comprehensive Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) pediatric measure for itch symptoms and itch impact, defined as the effect specifically of itch on physical, mental, and social health, all of which can affect life quality. After literature review, concept elicitation and cognitive interviews with parents and children with itch, and repeated content-expert review, an item pool was generated and refined. The pool was calibrated with data from 499 children with pruritus using exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, item response theory, and item fit analysis. The resultant 45-item bank, PROMIS Itch Questionnaire-Child (PIQ-C), showed good convergent and discriminant validity in 181 children aged 8‒17 years, discriminating children with different levels of severity, and was responsive to change. Strong correlations (rho ≥ 0.60) were observed with pain and sleep measures, and moderate correlations were observed with other pediatric Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System measures. Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Itch Questionnaire-Child comprehensively measures itch intensity and burden, providing an itch-specific alternative for assessing life quality. The independent calibration of each item/question allows for flexibility in generating short forms or computerized adaptive testing for efficient use in research and office practice., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Some concerns have been raised about potential bias in patient-reported outcome (PRO) results from open-label cancer randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We investigated if open-label trials favor the experimental treatment over the standard treatment more frequently than blinded trials. We also examined if the effect of blinding differs for distal vs more proximal PROs. We assessed 538 RCTs with a PRO endpoint conducted in the most prevalent cancers, of which 366 (68.0%) were open-label, 148 (27.5%) were blinded, and 24 (4.5%) were categorized as unclear. In our multivariable logistic regression model, we did not observe a statistically significant association of the independent variable treatment concealment (blinded vs open-label) on the dependent variable measuring the proportion of trials favoring the experimental treatment (adjusted odds ratio = 1.19, 95% confidence interval = 0.79 to 1.79; 2-sided P = .40). This was also the case when comparing distal and proximal PROs. Our findings provide novel evidence-based data that support the validity of PRO results from open-label cancer RCTs., (© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Objectives: This study aimed to determine whether responses to Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Short Form v2.0 - Physical Function 8c (PROMIS PF8c) items differed when the use of a 7-day recall period was compared with no specified recall period., Methods: Using a within-subject design, we surveyed 1810 individuals from the US general population, administering PROMIS PF8c at survey beginning and end. The order of measure presentation was randomly assigned. We calculated recall difference scores (RDSs) as no recall score minus 7-day recall score using both item response theory-based T scores and raw summed scores. We examined the distribution and created Bland-Altman plots for both RDS Tscore and RDS Raw . We also calculated correlations between no recall versus 7-day recall T score and raw scores. Finally, we determined whether differences in no recall versus 7-day recall scores were associated with patient-reported PF., Results: RDS Tscore and RDS Raw had means (root mean square differences) of 0.00 (5.43) and -0.04 (3.79), respectively. The vast majority (%) of RDS Tscore and RDS Raw values fell between the Bland-Altman limits of agreement (-10.65 to 10.66 and -7.46 to 7.38, respectively). Pearson's correlations between no recall and 7-day recall for T scores and raw scores were 0.88 and 0.87, respectively. Effect sizes for mean RDS Tscore and RDS Raw compared across level of Eastern Oncology Cooperative Group performance status, patient global impression of PF severity, and single PF items were near 0., Conclusions: We did not find any significant recall period effect on PF8c responses. Therefore, we recommend the use of the PROMIS physical function standard, with no specified recall time period., (Copyright © 2021 ISPOR–The International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In the CheckMate 9ER trial, patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma who received first-line nivolumab plus cabozantinib had significantly better progression-free survival compared with those given sunitinib. In this study, we aimed to describe the patient-reported outcome (PRO) results from CheckMate 9ER., Methods: In this open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial done in 125 cancer centres, urology centres, and hospitals across 18 countries, patients aged 18 years or older with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma with a clear-cell component, a Karnofsky performance status of 70% or more, and available tumour tissue were randomly assigned (1:1) via interactive response technology to nivolumab 240 mg intravenously every 2 weeks plus oral cabozantinib 40 mg per day, or oral sunitinib 50 mg per day monotherapy for 4 weeks in 6-week cycles. The primary endpoint of progression-free survival was reported previously. PROs were analysed as prespecified exploratory endpoints at common timepoints (at baseline and every 6 weeks) until week 115. Disease-related symptoms were evaluated using the 19-item Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Kidney Symptom Index (FKSI-19), and global health status was assessed with the three-level EQ-5D (EQ-5D-3L) visual analogue scale (VAS) and UK utility index. PRO analyses were done in the intention-to-treat population. Change from baseline was assessed using mixed-model repeated measures. A time-to-deterioration analysis was done for first and confirmed deterioration events. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03141177, and is closed to recruitment., Findings: Between Sept 11, 2017, and May 14, 2019, 323 patients were randomly assigned to nivolumab plus cabozantinib and 328 to sunitinib. Median follow-up was 23·5 months (IQR 21·0-26·5). At baseline, patients in both groups reported low symptom burden (FKSI-19 disease-related symptoms version 1 mean scores at baseline were 30·24 [SD 5·19] for the nivolumab plus cabozantinib group and 30·06 [5·03] for the sunitinib group). Change from baseline in PRO scores indicated that nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with more favourable outcomes versus sunitinib (treatment difference 2·38 [95% CI 1·20-3·56], nominal p<0·0001, effect size 0·33 [95% CI 0·17-0·50] for FKSI-19 total score; 1·33 [0·84-1·83], nominal p<0·0001, 0·45 [0·28-0·61] for FKSI-19 disease-related symptoms version 1; 3·48 [1·58-5·39], nominal p=0·0004, 0·30 [0·14-0·47] for EQ-5D-3L VAS; and 0·04 [0·01-0·07], nominal p=0·0036, 0·25 [0·08-0·41] for EQ-5D-3L UK utility index), reaching significance at most timepoints. Nivolumab plus cabozantinib was associated with decreased risk of clinically meaningful deterioration for FKSI-19 total score compared with sunitinib (first deterioration event hazard ratio 0·70 [95% CI 0·56-0·86], nominal p=0·0007; confirmed deterioration event 0·63 [0·50-0·80], nominal p=0·0001)., Interpretation: PROs were maintained or improved with nivolumab plus cabozantinib versus sunitinib. Compared with sunitinib, nivolumab plus cabozantinib significantly delayed time to deterioration of patient-reported outcome scores. These results suggest a benefit for nivolumab plus cabozantinib compared with sunitinib in the treatment of patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma., Funding: Bristol Myers Squibb., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests DC reports consultant fees from AbbVie, Bristol Myers Squibb (BMS), Exelixis, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer; reports licensing fees from FACIT.org; research grants (institutional) from AbbVie, Astellas, Aveo, BMS, GlaxoSmithKline, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer; and is an officer of FACIT.org. RJM reports advisory board fees from AstraZeneca, Aveo Pharmaceuticals, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Genentech/Roche, Incyte, Lilly Oncology, Merck, Novartis, and Pfizer; and principal investigator fees (institutional) from BMS, Eisai, Exelixis, Genentech/Roche, Merck, and Pfizer. CS reports advisory board fees from Astellas Pharma, Bayer, BMS, EUSA Pharma, Hoffmann-La Roche, Ipsen, Merck Sharp & Dohme, Novartis, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Aventis; speakers' bureau fees from Astellas Pharma, BMS, Hoffmann-La Roche, Ipsen, and Pfizer; and research grants (institutional) from AB Science, Aragon Pharmaceuticals, Astellas Pharma, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Blueprint Medicines, Boehringer Ingelheim España, BMS, Clovis Oncology, Exelixis, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Hoffmann-La Roche, Novartis Farmaceutica, Pfizer, and Sanofi-Aventis. SIB is an employee of BMS, and has stock ownership in BMS and GlaxoSmithKline. FE, MH, BS, and JZ are employees of and have stock ownership in BMS. JFW is an employee and has stock ownership in Exelixis. CI is an employee of IQVIA. TKC reports advisory board fees from Aptitude Health, AstraZeneca, BMS, Calithera, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Infinity, Merck, Pfizer, and Surface Oncology; speaker's fees from Advent Health, ASCO-SITC, ASiM, CancerNet, Ipsen, MD Anderson Cancer Center (Houston, TX, USA), MJH Life Sciences, PeerView, Physicians Education Resources, Research To Practice, Springer, and WebMD; consulting fees from The Analysis Group; stock ownership in Pionyr and Tempest; a personal grant from Orien; royalties from Up-To-Date online textbook; funding (institutional) from Alliance Cooperative Group, AstraZeneca, BMS, Eisai, EMD Serono, Exelixis, Lilly, Merck, Peloton, Pfizer, Takeda, and Tracon; research grants (institutional) from BMS, Exelixis, and Roche; principal investigator fees (institutional) from GlaxoSmithKline, Roche, and Surface Oncology; a non-financial leadership role interest with Kidney Cancer Research Summit of KidneyCAN (meeting co-chair in 2019 and 2020); being a grant reviewer for the American Association for Cancer Research; being a track leader, session chair, speaker, and discussant for the American Society of Clinical Oncology; being a speaker and discussant for the European Society for Medical Oncology; access to the genomic database from Foundation Medicine; access to the genomic database (institutional) from Guardant; access to the genomic database (institutional) from Invitae; personal non-financial interests for medical writing and editorial assistance from Clinical Thinking, Envision Pharma Group, Fishawack Group of Companies, Health Interactions, Parexel, and Oxford PharmaGenesis; and personal non-financial interests for reviews of papers for various journals. ABA declares no competing interests., (Copyright © 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is increasingly recognized as important when evaluating cancer treatments. The use, reporting, and analysis of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs), however, are not standardized in clinical trials and are often poorly implemented in clinical practice. We report the results of a systematic literature review (PubMed search: January 1, 2000 to August 15, 2020) of PROM use, reporting, and analysis in phase 3 clinical trials of hormone receptor-positive (HR+) advanced breast cancer (ABC). Further inspection of cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitor publications was performed to examine PROMs in the HR+/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative setting. A total of 88 results were identified in the initial search; 32 were included in the final analysis. Among included studies, most (66%) had been published in the last 5 years (2015 to 2020). CDK4/6 inhibitors (38%) were the most common agents reported. No clear standard for PROM use, reporting, or analysis was found. The most common PROMs were European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30; 59%) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast (FACT-B; 34%). Important differences, among studies that reported them, ranged from 5 to 10 points for the EORTC QLQ-C30 and 8 points for the FACT-B total score. This review showed that a lack of clear consistency remains for PROM use, reporting, and analysis in phase 3 clinical trials of HR+ ABC. However, HRQOL is of high interest in the literature, including for CDK4/6 inhibitors., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Abstract: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) will be an important component of real-world evidence, but best practices for capture and integration are not yet defined. While digital tools support patients, clinicians, and researchers to collect PROMs, PROM capture in clinical care remains challenging. We synthesized PROM implementation strategies that are successfully used by hundreds of arthroplasty surgeons and early PROM-adopter clinical systems. This information can guide health systems that are preparing to implement PROMs to inform clinical care, drive quality-improvement activities, and support reporting for payer-sponsored incentives. Specific information is included to guide each step in the implementation process, including selecting PROMs, redesigning office procedures, programming of information technology, and informing interpretation and clinical use. While no one solution exists for successful PROM implementation in total hip and total knee replacement, referred to as total joint replacement, these guidelines can inform optimal PROM deployment and the capture of complete PROM data. In addition, we outline future research that is needed to define methods for optimal patient engagement, technology infrastructure, and operational systems to seamlessly integrate PROM collection in clinical care., Competing Interests: Disclosure: The Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest forms are provided with the online version of the article (http://links.lww.com/JBJS/G561)., (Copyright © 2021 by The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, Incorporated.)

Objectives: Incomplete reporting of key information on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in oncology has been highlighted repeatedly as a major barrier to the use of study findings in clinical practice. We investigated whether the quality of reporting of PRO data in cancer RCTs has improved over the last 15 years., Methods: We identified all cancer RCTs with PRO endpoints conducted across the most prevalent solid tumor types worldwide published between 2004 and 2019. The quality of PRO reporting was assessed using the International Society for Quality of Life Research recommended standards, which include important aspects related to assessment methodology, statistical analyses, and interpretation of data., Results: We assessed a total of 631 cancer RCTs in breast (n = 187), lung (n = 131), prostate (n = 120), colorectal (n = 107), and gynecological (n = 86) cancer. We observed a higher adherence to the International Society for Quality of Life Research reporting criteria in the more recently published studies. In a multivariable linear regression analysis, we observed a statistically significant improvement in the quality of PRO reporting over time (P<.001), and this relationship was independent of other measured confounding factors, such as sample size and study sponsorship. Overall, the quality of PRO reporting was higher for studies published after the publication of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-PRO Extension., Conclusions: The quality of PRO reporting in cancer RCTs published in the last 15 years has improved significantly. Our findings are encouraging because better reporting of PRO results may translate into a greater impact of study findings on real-world practice., (Copyright © 2021 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: An increased focus on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) has led to a proliferation of these measures in orthopaedic surgery. Mandating a single PROM in clinical and research orthopaedics is not feasible given the breadth of data already collected with older measures and the emergence of psychometrically superior measures. Creating crosswalk tables for scores between measures allows providers to maintain control of measure choice. Furthermore, crosswalk tables permit providers to compare scores collected with older outcome measures with newly collected ones. Given the widespread use of the newer Patient-reported Outcome Measure Information System Physical Function (PROMIS PF) and the established Knee Outcome and Osteoarthritis Score (KOOS), it would be clinically useful to link these two measures., Question/purpose: Can the KOOS Function in Activities of Daily Living (ADL) subscale be robustly linked to the PROMIS PF to create a crosswalk table of equivalent scores that accurately reflects a patient's reported physical function level on both scales?, Methods: We sought to establish a common standardized metric for collected responses to the PROMIS PF and the KOOS ADL to develop equations for converting a PROMIS PF score to a score for the KOOS-ADL subscale and vice versa. To do this, we performed a retrospective, observational study at two academic medical centers and two community hospitals in an urban and suburban healthcare system. Patients 18 years and older who underwent TKA were identified. Between January 2017 and July 2020, we treated 8165 patients with a TKA, 93% of whom had a diagnosis of primary osteoarthritis. Of those, we considered patients who had completed a full KOOS and PROMIS PF 10a on the same date as potentially eligible. Twenty-one percent (1708 of 8165) of patients were excluded because no PROMs were collected at any point, and another 67% (5454 of 8165) were excluded because they completed only one of the required PROMs, leaving 12% (1003 of 8165) for analysis here. PROMs were collected each time they visited the health system before and after their TKAs. Physical function was measured by the PROMIS PF version 1.0 SF 10a and KOOS ADL scale. Analyses to accurately create a crosswalk of equivalent scores between the measures were performed using the equipercentile linking method with both unsmoothed and log linear smoothed score distributions., Results: Crosswalks were created, and adequate validation results supported their validity; we also created tables to allow clinicians and clinician scientists to convert individual patients' scores easily. The mean difference between the observed PROMIS PF scores and the scores converted by the crosswalk from the KOOS-ADL scores was -0.08 ± 4.82. A sensitivity analysis was conducted, confirming the effectiveness of these crosswalks to link the scores of two measures from patients both before and after surgery., Conclusion: The PROMIS PF 10a can be robustly linked to the KOOS ADL measure. The developed crosswalk table can be used to convert PROMIS PF scores from KOOS ADL and vice versa., Clinical Relevance: The creation of a crosswalk table between the KOOS Function in ADL subscale and PROMIS PF allows clinicians and researchers to easily convert scores between the measures, thus permitting greater choice in PROM selection while preserving comparability between patient cohorts and PROM data collected from older outcome measures. Creating a crosswalk, or concordance table, between the two scales will facilitate this comparison, especially when pooling data for meta-analyses., Competing Interests: All ICMJE Conflict of Interest Forms for authors and Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® editors and board members are on file with the publication and can be viewed on request. Each author certifies that there are no funding or commercial associations (consultancies, stock ownership, equity interest, patent/licensing arrangements, etc.) that might pose a conflict of interest in connection with the submitted article related to the author or any immediate family members., (Copyright © 2021 by the Association of Bone and Joint Surgeons.)

Objectives: In a prospective study of platinum-resistant ovarian cancer patients, we examined whether the Disease-related Symptoms-Physical (DRS--P) scale of the NCCN/FACT-Ovarian Cancer Symptom Index-18 (NFOSI-18) is responsive to clinical change in patients estimated by their provider to survive at least six months., Methods: The NFOSI-18, and other FACT measures, was collected at study entry and 3 and 6 months post-enrollment. Measures were compared for those who died or dropped off study prior to 3 months or prior to 6 months (assumed as health deterioration over time), or those who stayed on study through 6 months (presumed as stable disease over time). Statistical analyses included a fitted linear mixed model for estimating the group differences over time, Cox regression to assess the probability of survival with patient-reported outcomes, and effect size., Results: DRS-P scores of patients who completed only one assessment were significantly lower compared to patients who were able to complete two assessments [5.9 points lower (2.0-9.8); p < 0.01], or three assessments [8.1 points lower (4.8-11.5); p < 0.01]. Measures of abdominal discomfort, functional well-being, emotional well-being, and quality of life were also significant, but treatment side effects were not. Further, in every scale except for neurotoxicity, higher (better) baseline scores were associated with a decreased likelihood of death, after adjusting for age, performance and disease status., Conclusion: The NFOSI-18 DRS-P scale is responsive to clinical change. It has potential as an indicator of changing health status with ovarian cancer disease progression, distinct from treatment side effects., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

We define the minimal important change (MIC) as a threshold for a minimal within-person change over time above which patients perceive themselves importantly changed. There is a lot of confusion about the concept of MIC, particularly about the concepts of minimal important change and minimal detectable change, which questions the validity of published MIC values. The aims of this study were: (1) to clarify the concept of MIC and how to use it; (2) to provide practical guidance for estimating methodologically sound MIC values; and (3) to improve the applicability of PROMIS by summarizing the available evidence on plausible PROMIS MIC values. We discuss the concept of MIC and how to use it and provide practical guidance for estimating MIC values. In addition, we performed a systematic review in PubMed on MIC values of any PROMIS measure from studies using recommended approaches. A total of 50 studies estimated the MIC of a PROMIS measure, of which 19 studies used less appropriate methods. MIC values of the remaining 31 studies ranged from 0.1 to 12.7 T-score points. We recommend to use the predictive modeling method, possibly supplemented with the vignette-based method, in future MIC studies. We consider a MIC value of 2-6 T-score points for PROMIS measures reasonable to assume at this point. For surgical interventions a higher MIC value might be appropriate. We recommend more high-quality studies estimating MIC values for PROMIS., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

Background: The International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) develops condition-specific Standard Sets of outcomes to be measured in clinical practice for value-based healthcare evaluation. Standard Sets are developed by different working groups, which is inefficient and may lead to inconsistencies in selected PROs and PROMs. We aimed to identify common PROs across ICHOM Standard Sets and examined to what extend these PROs can be measured with a generic set of PROMs: the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS®)., Methods: We extracted all PROs and recommended PROMs from 39 ICHOM Standard Sets. Similar PROs were categorized into unique PRO concepts. We examined which of these PRO concepts can be measured with PROMIS., Results: A total of 307 PROs were identified in 39 ICHOM Standard Sets and 114 unique PROMs are recommended for measuring these PROs. The 307 PROs could be categorized into 22 unique PRO concepts. More than half (17/22) of these PRO concepts (covering about 75% of the PROs and 75% of the PROMs) can be measured with a PROMIS measure., Conclusion: Considerable overlap was found in PROs across ICHOM Standard Sets, and large differences in terminology used and PROMs recommended, even for the same PROs. We recommend a more universal and standardized approach to the selection of PROs and PROMs. Such an approach, focusing on a set of core PROs for all patients, measured with a system like PROMIS, may provide more opportunities for patient-centered care and facilitate the uptake of Standard Sets in clinical practice., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

The psychometric process used to establish a relationship between the scores of two (or more) instruments is generically referred to as linking. When two instruments with the same content and statistical test specifications are linked, these instruments are said to be equated. Linking and equating procedures have long been used for practical benefit in educational testing. In recent years, health outcome researchers have increasingly applied linking techniques to patient-reported outcome (PRO) data. However, these applications have some noteworthy purposes and associated methodological questions. Purposes for linking health outcomes include the harmonization of data across studies or settings (enabling increased power in hypothesis testing), the aggregation of summed score data by means of score crosswalk tables, and score conversion in clinical settings where new instruments are introduced, but an interpretable connection to historical data is needed. When two PRO instruments are linked, assumptions for equating are typically not met and the extent to which those assumptions are violated becomes a decision point around how (and whether) to proceed with linking. We demonstrate multiple linking procedures-equipercentile, unidimensional IRT calibration, and calibrated projection-with the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Depression bank and the Patient Health Questionnaire-9. We validate this link across two samples and simulate different instrument correlation levels to provide guidance around which linking method is preferred. Finally, we discuss some remaining issues and directions for psychometric research in linking PRO instruments., (© 2021. The Psychometric Society.)

Background Context: When different health care providers use different patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments, it is challenging to integrate findings that describe particular patient groups or to establish treatment effectiveness across studies. It is therefore critical to develop accurate ways to convert scores between various instruments for clinicians and researchers to make comparisons across health outcomes., Purpose: To develop a common metric so that scores on the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and scores on the PROMIS Physical Function can be converted interchangeably., Study Design/setting: Data were collected from a prospective study. A single-group linking design was used., Patient Sample: The study population included 9020 patients presented to an orthopedic spine clinic from November 2013 to March 2019., Outcome Measures: Patients completed the ODI and the PROMIS Pain Interference scale delivered by Computerized Adaptive Testing (CAT) at the same time prior to their visit with a spine clinician., Methods: Equipercentile linking methods based on log-linear smoothing approach and non-smoothing approach were used to establish a common metric across the two measures., Results: The two measures assess the similar contruct of pain. The correlation between the scores of the ODI and the PROMIS PI was 0.81. The standardized Root Expected Mean Square Difference (REMSD) values for gender, ethnic, and racial groups ranged from 3.55% to 4.81%. Hence, the assumptions for the equipercentile linking method were met. The crosswalk derived linked scores based on the log-linear smoothing method yielded small deviations (Δ = 0.09) from the observed scores. We then identified linked PROMIS-PI scores corresponding to the benchmark ODI scores for the five disability levels and for various categories of patients., Conclusions: This study is the first to create crosswalks to interchangeably convert scores between the ODI to the PROMIS-PI in a large population of spine patients using the equipercentile linking method. The results of this study provide confidence in the validity and usefulness of the derived crosswalks based on the equipercentile linking approach. The crosswalks are helpful for comparing new and old studies on the two measures and identifying benchmark scores for various diseases and disability levels., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-Plus-Osteoarthritis of the Knee (OAK) profile integrates universal PROMIS items with knee-specific items across 13 domains. We evaluated the psychometric properties of a subset of six domains associated with quality of life in people with OAK., Study Design and Setting: In a cross-sectional study of OAK patients (n=600), we estimated reliability using Pearson and Spearman correlations with Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscores and known-groups validity with PROMIS Global Health. Measure responsiveness was tested via paired t-tests in a longitudinal study (n=238), pre/post total knee replacement., Results: Across the six domains, internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha) was 0.77-0.95 and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficients) was ≥0.90. Correlations with Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) subscores and PROMIS Global supported convergent and divergent validity. Known-groups validity testing revealed better scores in all domains for high vs. low global status groups, and knee-specific items added value in physical function and pain. All domains reflected (p<0.001) better health status scores at follow up., Conclusion: The six PROMIS-Plus-OAK profile domains demonstrated good psychometric characteristics. The measure integrates universal and knee-specific content to provide enhanced relevance, measurement precision and efficient administration for patient care and clinical research., (Copyright © 2021. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Objective: PROMIS offers computerized adaptive tests (CAT) of patient-reported outcomes, using a single set of US-based IRT item parameters across populations and language-versions. The use of country-specific item parameters has local appeal, but also disadvantages. We illustrate the effects of choosing US or country-specific item parameters on PROMIS CAT T-scores., Study Design and Setting: Simulations were performed on response data from Dutch chronic pain patients (n = 1110) who completed the PROMIS Pain Behavior item bank. We compared CAT T-scores obtained with (1) US parameters; (2) Dutch item parameters; (3) US item parameters for DIF-free items and Dutch item parameters (rescaled to the US metric) for DIF items; (4) Dutch item parameters for all items (rescaled to the US metric)., Results: Without anchoring to a common metric, CAT T-scores cannot be compared. When scores were rescaled to the US metric, mean differences in CAT T-scores based on US vs. Dutch item parameters were negligible. However, 0.9%-4.3% of the T-score differences were larger than 5 points (0.5 SD)., Conclusion: The choice of item parameters can be consequential for individual patient scores. We recommend more studies of translated CATs to examine if strategies that allow for country-specific item parameters should be further investigated., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Immuno-oncology therapies have been approved for various solid tumors; however, the high cost of these treatments and their potential toxicities require a thorough assessment of their risks and benefits. Collection of data directly from patients through patient-reported outcome instruments can improve the precision and reliability of adverse event detection, assess tolerability of adverse events, and provide an evaluation of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) changes from immuno-oncology therapies. There is robust development in HRQOL tools specifically for patients treated with immuno-oncology agents. This review examines the history and basic concepts of HRQOL and patient-reported outcome assessments commonly used in oncological trials, highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of current approaches when applied to immunotherapies, as well as some of the current efforts to develop tools for this field and opportunities for future research. LAY SUMMARY: Immuno-oncology (IO) therapies are costly and carry potential toxicities known as immune-related adverse events. Evaluation of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) can impact the risk-benefit assessment of IO therapies. Integration of HRQOL end points and patient-reported outcome data for IO therapies are urgently needed. Ongoing robust development of patient-reported outcome tools specific to IO therapies are currently underway and will permit the evaluation of HRQOL for IO agents. Improvement in precision and reliability of HRQOL evaluation will enhance the ultimate true value of these expensive and effective drugs., (© 2021 American Cancer Society.)

Objectives: In our systematic review, we assessed past and current practice of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurement in cancer randomized, controlled trials (RCTs)., Methods: We included RCTs with PRO endpoints evaluating conventional medical treatments, conducted in patients with the most prevalent solid tumor types (breast, lung, colorectal, prostate, bladder, and gynecological cancers) and either published in 2004 to 2018 or registered on clinicaltrials.gov and initiated in 2014 to 2019. Frequency of use of individual PRO measures was assessed overall, over time, and by cancer site., Results: Screening of 42 095 database records and 3425 registered trials identified 480 published and 537 registered trials meeting inclusion criteria. Among published trials, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) measures were used most often (54.8% of trials), followed by the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) measures (35.8%), the EQ-5D (10.2%), the SF-36 (7.3%), and the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI; 2.5%). Among registered trials, the EORTC measures were used in 66.1% of the trials, followed by the FACIT measures (25.9%), the EQ-5D (23.1%), the SF-36 (4.8%), the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE; 2.2%), the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures (1.7%), and the MDASI measures (1.1%)., Conclusion: The PRO measures most frequently used in RCTs identified in our review differ substantially in terms of content and domains, reflecting the ongoing debate among the scientific community, healthcare providers, and regulators on the type of PRO to be measured. Current findings may contribute to better informing the development of an internationally agreed core outcome set for future cancer trials., (Copyright © 2020 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) is validated for measuring fatigue in rheumatoid arthritis (RA). However, 10 of 13 FACIT-F items are identified as relevant to patients with RA. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) uses an item response theory-calibrated T score metric. The PROMIS Fatigue item bank includes the FACIT-F items, enabling score conversion. The performance of converted PROMIS Fatigue scores has not been evaluated in RA populations or clinical trials. Our objective was to assess the performance of converted PROMIS Fatigue scores in 2 RA clinical trials of baricitinib., Methods: Crosswalk tables and pattern-scoring methods converted FACIT-F scores to PROMIS Fatigue for both the 13-item FACIT-F and the 10-item RA-optimized FACIT-F instrument, in 2 RA clinical trials evaluating baricitinib, RA-BEAM, and RA-BEACON. RA-BEAM patients had an inadequate response to methotrexate. RA-BEACON patients had an inadequate response or intolerance to ≥1 tumor necrosis factor inhibitor. Baricitinib was compared to all treatment arms via analysis of covariance on PROMIS Fatigue score conversions., Results: Baseline FACIT-F-derived PROMIS Fatigue scores reflected severe fatigue across treatment groups and were similar using different scoring methods. At week 24 in both studies, baricitinib was associated with clinically meaningful improvements in PROMIS Fatigue scores. PROMIS Fatigue scores were consistent for conversion methods and for the 13-item or 10-item FACIT-F., Conclusion: All 4 conversion methods showed differentiation of active treatment compared with placebo from week 12, supporting the use of the PROMIS Fatigue and converting the 10-item FACIT-F to assess fatigue and demonstrate treatment benefit in RA clinical trials on a standardized metric., (© 2020, American College of Rheumatology.)

Patients with cancer are ideally screened for symptoms, including distress, using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). This initiative was developed to ensure patients without access to an electronic portal were screened for distress and related symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic. Prior to the pandemic, these patients could complete screening in clinic. However, many visits transitioned to telehealth. We implemented a standardized telephone outreach process targeting patients without active electronic portal accounts to improve remote symptom monitoring. Outreach resulted in 172 completed screens, identifying 110 needs for 63 individuals. Twenty-eight patients completed patient portal enrollment. Outreach calls captured a higher percentage of Black patients (34%) and a higher percentage of 61-80 year olds (69%) compared to portal users. Telephone outreach during the pandemic captured data that otherwise would have been missed in elderly and minority patients without electronic patient portal access. Patient engagement is vital to the distress screening process.

Background: The majority of persons with Huntington disease (HD) experience mental health symptoms. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are capable of capturing unobservable behaviors and feelings relating to mental health. The current study aimed to test the reliability and responsiveness to self-reported and clinician-rated change over time of Neuro-QoL and PROMIS mental health PROs over the course of a 24-month period., Methods: At baseline, 12-months, and 24-months, 362 participants with premanifest or manifest HD completed the Neuro-QoL Depression computer adaptive test (CAT), PROMIS Depression short form (SF), Neuro-QoL Anxiety CAT, PROMIS Anxiety SF, PROMIS Anger CAT and SF, Neuro-QoL Emotional/Behavioral Dyscontrol CAT and SF, Neuro-QoL Positive Affect and Well-Being CAT and SF, and Neuro-QoL Stigma CAT and SF. Participants completed several clinician-administered measures at each time point, as well as several global ratings of change at 12- and 24-months. Reliability (test-retest reliability and measurement error) and responsiveness (using standardized response means and general linear models) were assessed., Results: Test-retest reliability and measurement error were excellent for all PROs (all ICC ≥ .90 for test-retest reliability and all SEM percentages ≤ 6.82%). In addition, 12- and 24-month responsiveness were generally supported for the Neuro-QoL and PROMIS mental health PROs; findings relative to clinician-rated anchors of change (e.g., SRMs for the group with declines ranged from .38 to .91 for 24-month change and .09 to .45, with the majority above .25 for 12-month change) were generally more robust than those relative to self-reported anchors of change (e.g., SRMs for the group with declines ranged from .02 to .75, with the majority above .39 for 24-month change and .09 to .45, with the majority above .16 for 12-month change)., Conclusions: The Neuro-QoL and PROMIS mental health PROs demonstrated strong psychometric reliability, as well as responsiveness to self-reported and clinician-rated change over time in people with HD.

Background: Patients with advanced head and neck cancer have identified pain, fatigue, and difficulties swallowing, breathing, and communicating as high-priority disease-related symptoms. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Head and Neck Symptom Index-10 (FHNSI-10) assesses these symptoms. We sought to validate the FHNSI-10, another brief symptom index (FHNSI-7), and individual symptom endpoints representing these high-rated priority disease symptoms among patients with recurrent or metastatic squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck (SCCHN)., Methods: Patients (N = 239) were enrolled in a phase III randomized clinical trial (E1302) and completed the FHNSI-10 at multiple time points. We assessed the internal consistencies and test-retest reliabilities of the FHNSI-10 and FHNSI-7 scores, and the known-groups validity, predictive criterion validity, and responsiveness-to-change of the symptom indexes and individual symptom endpoint scores., Results: The FHNSI-10 and FHNSI-7 indexes showed satisfactory internal consistencies (Cronbach's alpha coefficient range 0.60-0.75) and acceptable test-retest reliabilities (intraclass correlation coefficients = 0.75 and 0.74, respectively). The FHNSI-10, FHNSI-7, and the pain, fatigue, swallowing, and breathing symptom scores showed evidence of known-groups validity by performance status at baseline. The FHNSI-10, FHNSI-7, and the pain, fatigue, and breathing symptom scores at baseline showed evidence of predictive criterion validity for overall survival, but not time-to-progression (TTP). Changes in the symptom indexes and individual symptom scores were not associated with changes in performance status over 4 weeks, though most patients had stable performance status., Conclusions: There is initial evidence of validity for the FHNSI-10 and FHNSI-7 indexes and selected individual symptom endpoints as brief disease-related symptom assessments for patients with recurrent or metastatic SCCHN., (© 2020 The Authors. Cancer Medicine published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Background: The ideal patient-reported outcome measure to assess sleep disturbance in atopic dermatitis (AD) has not been determined., Objective: We sought to determine the measurement properties of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Itch Questionnaire Mood and Sleep (PIQ-MS), Sleep Disturbance (SD), Sleep-Related Impairment (SRI), and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) in adults with AD., Methods: A prospective dermatology practice-based study was performed using questionnaires and evaluation by a dermatologist (n=611)., Results: PIQ-MS, PROMIS SD, SRI, and ESS had good convergent validity with intensity and frequency of sleep disturbance, Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure, Eczema Area and Severity Index, total and objective-Scoring AD, Numerical Rating Scale of worst-itch and average-itch, and Dermatology Life Quality Index. PIQ-MS had significantly better correlations with other severity measures than the other sleep measures (Fisher z-scores, P≤0.007). PIQ-MS, and to lesser extent PROMIS SD, PROMIS SRI and ESS had good discriminant validity. All four sleep assessments showed fair responsiveness to change of severity of sleep-disturbance, AD and itch. PIQ-MS had the best reliability. PIQ-MS, PROMIS SD, SRI and ESS showed good internal consistency and were feasible for use in clinical practice., Conclusions: PIQ-MS, followed by PROMIS SD, had the best construct validity and reliability in adult AD.

Background: In CARE-MS II (Comparison of Alemtuzumab and Rebif ® Efficacy in Multiple Sclerosis; NCT00548405), alemtuzumab (12 mg/day; baseline: 5 days; 12 months later: 3 days) significantly improved health-related quality of life (HRQL) outcomes versus subcutaneous interferon beta-1a (SC IFNB-1a) in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) patients over 2 years. Patients completing CARE-MS II could enter a 4-year extension study (NCT00930553)., Objective: The aim of this study is to assess 6-year HRQL outcomes in alemtuzumab-treated CARE-MS II patients, including those with highly active disease (HAD)., Methods: During extension, patients could receive additional alemtuzumab for clinical/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) activity or other disease-modifying therapies per investigator's discretion. Assessments include Functional Assessment of Multiple Sclerosis (FAMS), 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36), and EQ-5D visual analog scale (EQ-VAS)., Results: Alemtuzumab-treated patients improved or stabilized all HRQL measures over 6 years with significant improvements from baseline at all time points on EQ-VAS and for up to 5 years on FAMS, SF-36 MCS, and SF-36 PCS. Alemtuzumab-treated patients with HAD showed significant improvements versus baseline at Year 2 on all HRQL measures, and significant improvements versus SC IFNB-1a on SF-36 PCS and EQ-VAS; however, the improvements did not reach the threshold for clinical relevance., Conclusion: Alemtuzumab-treated CARE-MS II patients improved or stabilized HRQL versus baseline over 6 years. This is the first study to show long-term HRQL benefits in patients with HAD.

Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors report no conflict of interest.

Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors report no conflict of interest.

Importance: Despite the global delivery rate being approximately 259 deliveries per minute in 2018, postpartum recovery remains poorly defined., Objectives: To identify validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used to assess outpatient and inpatient postpartum recovery, evaluate frequency of PROM use, report the proportion of identified PROMs used within each recovery domain, report the number of published studies within each recovery domain, summarize descriptive data (country of origin, year of study, and journal specialty) for published studies using PROMs to evaluate postpartum recovery, and report PROMs used to evaluate global postpartum recovery., Evidence Review: This study followed PRISMA-ScR guidelines. A literature search of 4 databases (MEDLINE through PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and CINAHL) was performed on July 1, 2019, to identify PROMs used to evaluate 12 author-defined domains of postpartum recovery. All psychometrically evaluated PROMs used to evaluate inpatient or outpatient postpartum recovery after all delivery modes were included., Findings: From 8008 screened titles and abstracts, 573 studies (515 outpatient and 58 inpatient) were identified in this review. A total of 201 PROMs were used to assess recovery for outpatient studies and 73 PROMs were used to assess recovery for inpatient studies. The top 5 domains (with highest to lowest numbers of PROMs) used to assess outpatient recovery were psychosocial distress (77 PROMs), surgical complications (26 PROMs), psychosocial support (27 PROMs), motherhood experience (16 PROMs), and sexual function (13 PROMs). Among inpatient studies, the top 5 domains were psychosocial distress (32 PROMs), motherhood experience (7 PROMs), psychosocial support (5 PROMs), fatigue (5 PROMs), and cognition (3 PROMs). The 3 most frequently used PROMs were the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (267 studies), Short-Form 36 Health Questionnaire (global recovery assessment; 40 studies), and Female Sexual Function Index (35 studies). A total of 24 global recovery PROMs were identified among all included studies. Most studies were undertaken in the United States within the last decade and were published in psychiatry and obstetrics and gynecology journals., Conclusions and Relevance: Most PROMs identified in this review evaluated a single domain of recovery. Future research should focus on determining the psychometric properties of individual and global recovery PROMs identified in this review to provide recommendations regarding optimum measures of postpartum recovery.

Current patient-reported outcome measures for itch are limited and may not capture its full impact on health-related quality of life. We sought to develop, calibrate, and validate banks of questions assessing the health-related quality of life impact of itch as part of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System. A systematic process of literature review, content-expert review, qualitative research, testing in a sample of 600 adults, classical test theory methods, and item response theory analyses were applied. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were followed by item response theory model and item fit analyses. Four itch-related item banks were developed: (i) general concerns, (ii) mood and sleep, (iii) clothing and physical activity, and (iv) scratching behavior. Item response theory and expert content review narrowed the item banks to 25, 18, 15, and 5 items, respectively. Validity of the item banks was supported by good convergent and discriminant validity with itch intensity, internal consistency, and no significant floor or ceiling effects. In conclusion, the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Itch Questionnaire banks have excellent measurement properties and efficiently and comprehensively assess the burden of itch., (Copyright © 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Itch Questionnaire (PIQ) was recently developed., Objective: To validate PIQ short forms in adults with AD., Methods: Self-administered questionnaires and skin examinations were performed in 239 adults with atopic dermatitis (AD) in a dermatology practice setting., Results: PIQ items had good content validity. PIQ item bank T-scores strongly correlated with each other, moderately correlated with numeric and verbal rating scales for worst or average itch and with itch frequency, moderately to strongly correlated with patient-oriented eczema measure, and weakly to moderately correlated with the Eczema Area and Severity Index and Objective-Scoring AD (Spearman correlations, P < .0001). There were significant and stepwise increases of T-scores for all item banks with increasing patient-reported global severity (Wilcoxon rank sum test, P < .0001). However, there was limited ability to discriminate between the lowest or highest 2 levels of AD or itch severity. Item banks showed good internal consistency (Cronbach α, 0.91-0.95). No differential item functioning was identified by age, sex, race/ethnicity, or educational level. There were floor effects for total scores, particularly in almost clear/mild AD or itch., Limitations: Single-center study., Conclusions: PIQ item bank short forms showed good content and construct validity and are feasible for potential use in clinical trials and practice., (Copyright © 2019 American Academy of Dermatology, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)