Search

Objective: Pain interference, fatigue, and impaired physical function are common features of idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM). The objective of this study was to evaluate the construct validity and test-retest reliability of the Patient Reported Outcome Information System (PROMIS) Pain Interference 6av1.0, Fatigue 7av1.0, and Physical Function 8bv2.0 instruments. Methods: Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) were deployed to adult IIM patients from OMERACT Myositis Working Group (MWG) international clinic sites via two online surveys (2019, 2021). Internal consistency of each PROM was analyzed by Cronbach's α. Construct validity was determined by a priori hypotheses generated by the MWG with >75% agreement for each hypothesis and calculated with Pearson correlations. Test-retest reliability was assessed using intraclass correlation coefficient with PROMIS instruments administered at time zero and 7 days. Results: Surveys were sent to 368 participants in total; participants who completed each questionnaire varied (n=65 to 263). For construct validity, 10 out of 13 a priori hypotheses were met supporting construct validity of PROMIS instruments (Pain Interference 3/4, fatigue 4/4, and Physical Function 3/5). Test-retest reliability was strong for all PROMIS instruments. All PROMIS instruments demonstrated excellent internal consistency. None of the measures demonstrated any ceiling or floor effects except for a ceiling effect in the Pain Interference instrument. Conclusions: This study presents test-retest reliability and construct validity evidence supporting PROMIS Pain Interference (6a v1.0), Fatigue (7a v1.0), and Physical Function (8b v2.0) using a large international cohort of patients with IIM. Internal consistency of these instruments was excellent. A ceiling effect was noted in the Pain Interference instrument.

Contains fulltext : 287807.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access)

IntroductionThe standard surgical technique for lumbosacral radicular syndrome in the Netherlands is open microdiscectomy (OM). An alternative technique, preferred by some Dutch physicians, is percutaneous transforaminal endoscopic discectomy (PTED). However, in 2006 the Dutch National Health Care Institute (Zorginstituut Netherland [ZIN]) concluded that the available evidence was insufficient, and a high quality randomized controlled trial (RCT) was needed to assess the cost-effectiveness of PTED compared to OM. The relevant physician group agreed with this conclusion, but they were unable to perform this RCT due to lack of funding and high treatment costs.MethodsIn 2012, the Netherlands introduced a conditional reimbursement (CR) program to give patients earlier access to promising treatments. Researchers, in collaboration with physicians and patients, submitted a grant proposal and in 2016 the Dutch Ministry of Health approved the CR of PTED. Due to this decision, insurance companies were obliged to reimburse PTED for patients participating in the PTED-study (NCT02602093). The Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMw) also provided a research grant to fund the PTED-study. In total, 682 adult patients with greater than 10 weeks of radiating pain, or greater than 6 weeks of excessive radiating pain and an indication for surgery were included. After 4 years and 5 months the PTED-study was completed.ResultsOutcomes of published studies and the unpublished PTED-study were used in the HTA reassessment. Results showed that PTED was noninferior to OM with regards to leg pain (Visual Analogue Scale: mean difference (MD) -0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI] -5.04, 3.59), functional status (Oswestry Disability Index: MD -2.07; 95% CI -3.61, -0.53), and rate of complications (relative risk 0.45; 95% CI 0.18, 1.12) after 6 months (GRADE level ‘moderate’). Furthermore PTED was, after the surgeons’ learning-curve, cost-effective.ConclusionsThis CR project was successful and PTED is now reimbursed as part of the Dutch healthcare package. However, in order to maintain high quality care in clinical practice, safeguards should be developed (including the appropriate training of surgeons). This example shows that CR programs are essential for promising treatments without ‘wealthy’ manufacturers. Additionally, all stakeholders are needed to make a CR-study successful.

Objective.To present and vote on a myositis modified patient-reported outcome core domain set in the life impact area at the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 2018.Methods.Based on results from international focus groups and Delphi surveys, a draft core set was developed.Results.Domains muscle symptoms, fatigue, level of physical activity, and pain reached ≥ 70% consensus and were mandatory to assess in all trials. Domains lung, joint, and skin symptoms were mandatory in specific circumstances. This core set was endorsed by > 85% at OMERACT 2018.Conclusion.We propose a life impact core set for patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies and will proceed with instrument selections.

Objective To investigate the content validity of several patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in patients with idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM). Methods Seven individual PROM instruments were selected by the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Myositis Working Group relating to the following domains: pain, fatigue, physical function and physical activity. Twenty patients from the Johns Hopkins Myositis Center were selected for one-on-one face-to-face or phone interviews for cognitive interviewing of individual PROMs to assess comprehension and content validity. Additionally, patients were asked if they thought muscle symptoms, an area originally identified in qualitative studies, were encapsulated by the other four domains. Results The majority of patients (>70%) felt that each of the instruments was clear, easy to read and understand, and could be used for assessment of its domain. Two-thirds (66%) of patients felt that ‘muscle symptoms’ were captured by the other domains. Conclusions We provided evidence to support adequate content validity for several PROMs. Further research is needed to determine whether ‘muscle symptoms’ warrant a separate domain.

Objective.Patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) that incorporate the patient perspective have not been well established in idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM). As part of our goal to develop IIM-specific PROM, the Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) Myositis special interest group sought to determine which aspects of disease and its effects are important to patients and healthcare providers (HCP).Methods.Based on a prior qualitative content analysis of focus groups, an initial list of 24 candidate domains was constructed. We subsequently conducted an international survey to identify the importance of each of the 24 domains to be assessed in clinical research. Patients with IIM, their caregivers, and HCP treating IIM completed the survey.Results.In this survey, a total of 638 respondents completed the survey, consisting of 510 patients, 101 HCP, and 27 caregivers from 48 countries. Overall, patients were more likely to rank “fatigue,” “cognitive impact,” and “difficulty sleeping” higher compared with HCP, who ranked “joint symptoms,” “lung symptoms,” and “dysphagia” higher. Both patients and providers rated muscle symptoms as their top domain. In general, patients from different countries were in agreement on which domains were most important. One notable exception was that patients from Sweden and the Netherlands ranked lung symptoms significantly higher compared to other countries including the United States and Australia (mean weighted rankings of 2.86 and 2.04 vs 0.76 and 0.80, respectively; p < 0.0001).Conclusion.Substantial differences exist in how IIM is perceived by patients compared to HCP, with different domains prioritized. In contrast, patients’ ratings across the world were largely similar.

Objective.To define a set of core patient-reported domains and respective instruments for use in idiopathic inflammatory myopathies (IIM). Previously, we reported a systematic literature review on patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in IIM followed by conducting international focus groups to elicit patient perspectives of myositis symptoms and effects.Methods.Based on qualitative content analysis of focus groups, an initial list of 26 candidate domains was constructed. We subsequently conducted an international modified Delphi survey to identify the importance of each of the 26 domains. Participants were asked to rate each domain on a scale of 0–10 (0 = not important, 10 = very important).Results.In this first round of the Delphi survey, 643 patients participated from the United States (n = 543), Sweden (n = 49), and South Korea (n = 51). Of the 26 domains, 19 (73%) were rated of high importance (≥ 7/10). The top 5 domains were muscle symptoms, fatigue, interactions with healthcare, medication side effects, and pain. During Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) 2016, we discussed the goal for ultimate reduction in the number of domains and the importance of considering representation of healthcare providers from other specialties, caregivers, representatives of pharmaceutical industries, and regulatory authorities in the next rounds of Delphi to represent broader perspectives on IIM.Conclusion.Further prioritization and a reduction in the number of domains will be needed for the next Delphi. At the next biennial OMERACT meeting, we aim to present and seek voting on a Myositis Preliminary PRO Core Set to enable ultimate measure selection and development.

Objectives: The HTA Core Model is a framework for producing health technology assessments (HTAs) in a structured format. The Model splits the content of a HTA into assessment elements. The objective is to explore the adaptability of these assessment elements in national report production in a pilot case study comparing a national HTA report and the HTA Core Model.Methods: An on-going Dutch HTA report on endovascular repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm (EVAR) was chosen as a typical representative of a national report on medical interventions. The author of the EVAR report assessed the relevance and comprehensiveness of the assessment elements of the HTA Core Model for her work. Another researcher annotated the Core Model specific content in the EVAR report. Matching and missing content, as well as the distribution of information in the EVAR report were tabulated and analysed in joint deliberations.Results: Forty percent of the assessment elements of the Core Model were considered relevant for the EVAR report. Some issues relevant for EVAR but missing from the Core Model were identified: they were about re-interventions, secondary prevention, subpopulations that benefit most, and the length of the hospital stay. The distribution of information differed substantially between the Code Model and the national report.Conclusions: The assessment elements of the HTA Core Model covered most relevant questions of the national report. In order to facilitate easy adaptation of information, the distribution of information should be more consistent in the national report and the Core model.