Evaluation and performance of a newly developed patient-reported outcome instrument for diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome in a clinical study population.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the psychometric properties of the newly developed seven-item Irritable Bowel Syndrome - Diarrhea predominant (IBS-D) Daily Symptom Diary and four-item Event Log using phase II clinical trial safety and efficacy data in patients with IBS-D. This instrument measures diarrhea (stool frequency and stool consistency), abdominal pain related to IBS-D (stomach pain, abdominal pain, abdominal cramps), immediate need to have a bowel movement (immediate need and accident occurrence), bloating, pressure, gas, and incomplete evacuation. METHODS: Psychometric properties and responsiveness of the instrument were evaluated in a clinical trial population [ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01494233]. RESULTS: A total of 434 patients were included in the analyses. Significant differences were found among severity groups (p < 0.01) defined by IBS Patient Global Impression of Severity (PGI-S) and IBS Patient Global Impression of Change (PGI-C). Severity scores for each Diary and Event Log item score and five-item, four-item, and three-item summary scores were calculated. Between-group differences in changes over time were significant for all summary scores in groups stratified by changes in PGI-S (p < 0.05), two of six Diary items, and three of four Event Log items; a one-grade change in PGI-S was considered a meaningful difference with mean change scores on all Diary items -0.13 to -0.86 [standard deviation (SD) 0.79-1.39]. Similarly, for patients who reported being 'slightly improved' (considered a clinically meaningful difference) on the PGI-C, mean change scores on Diary items ranged from -0.45 to -1.55 (SD 0.69-1.39). All estimates of clinically important change for each item and all summary scores were small and should be considered preliminary. These results are aligned with the previous standalone psychometric study regarding reliability and validity tests. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses provide evidence of the psychometric properties of the IBS-D Daily Symptom Diary and Event Log in a clinical trial population.

Psychometric assessment of the IBS-D Daily Symptom Diary and Symptom Event Log.

PURPOSE: Diarrhea-predominant irritable bowel syndrome (IBS-D) can considerably impact patients' lives. Patient-reported symptoms are crucial in understanding the diagnosis and progression of IBS-D. This study psychometrically evaluates the newly developed IBS-D Daily Symptom Diary and Symptom Event Log (hereafter, "Event Log") according to US regulatory recommendations. METHODS: A US-based observational field study was conducted to understand cross-sectional psychometric properties of the IBS-D Daily Symptom Diary and Event Log. Analyses included item descriptive statistics, item-to-item correlations, reliability, and construct validity. RESULTS: The IBS-D Daily Symptom Diary and Event Log had no items with excessive missing data. With the exception of two items ("frequency of gas" and "accidents"), moderate to high inter-item correlations were observed among all items of the IBS-D Daily Symptom Diary and Event Log (day 1 range 0.67-0.90). Item scores demonstrated reliability, with the exception of the "frequency of gas" and "accidents" items of the Diary and "incomplete evacuation" item of the Event Log. The pattern of correlations of the IBS-D Daily Symptom Diary and Event Log item scores with generic and disease-specific measures was as expected, moderate for similar constructs and low for dissimilar constructs, supporting construct validity. Known-groups methods showed statistically significant differences and monotonic trends in each of the IBS-D Daily Symptom Diary item scores among groups defined by patients' IBS-D severity ratings ("none"/"mild," "moderate," or "severe"/"very severe"), supporting construct validity. CONCLUSIONS: Initial psychometric results support the reliability and validity of the items of the IBS-D Daily Symptom Diary and Event Log.

Fatigue during treatment for hepatitis C virus: results of self-reported fatigue severity in two Phase IIb studies of simeprevir treatment in patients with hepatitis C virus genotype 1 infection.

BACKGROUND: Fatigue is a common symptom of chronic hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and a frequent side-effect of peginterferon/ribavirin (PR) therapy for HCV. This study evaluated the impact of adding the oral HCV NS3/4A protease inhibitor simeprevir to PR on patient-reported fatigue and health status among patients with chronic HCV genotype 1 infection enrolled in the Phase IIb PILLAR and ASPIRE trials [NCT00882908; NCT00980330]. METHODS: Treatment-naïve patients (PILLAR, n = 386) and treatment-experienced patients (ASPIRE, n = 462) were randomized to simeprevir plus PR (simeprevir/PR) or placebo plus PR (placebo/PR). In PILLAR, duration of PR treatment in the simeprevir/PR groups was determined using response-guided therapy (RGT) criteria. PR could be terminated at Week 24, instead of Week 48, if HCV RNA was <25 IU/mL by Week 4 and then undetectable at Weeks 12, 16, and 20. In both studies, patients completed the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS) and EQ-5D quality-of-life questionnaire in their native language at baseline and throughout the studies up until Week 72. RESULTS: During the first 24 weeks of treatment, mean FSS total score was increased to a similar degree compared with baseline among patients receiving simeprevir/PR or placebo/PR in both studies indicating increased fatigue severity. Mean FSS scores returned to values comparable with baseline among patients receiving simeprevir/PR after Week 24 in PILLAR (after treatment completion for the majority of patients) and in ASPIRE (after Week 48), consistent with RGT enabling early termination of all treatment at Week 24 in 82.2% of simeprevir/PR-treated patients in the PILLAR study. Similar results were observed for EQ-5D, with simeprevir/PR-treated patients experiencing less time with worse health problems according to EQ-5D scores compared with placebo/PR groups in both studies, and more rapid improvement in health status associated with shorter treatment duration in the PILLAR study. CONCLUSIONS: Combination of simeprevir with PR did not increase patient-reported fatigue severity or health status impairments beyond that reported by patients treated with PR alone. Many patients treated with simeprevir/PR returned to pretreatment fatigue and health status levels sooner due to increased treatment efficacy that enabled shorter duration of all therapy, compared with PR alone.

Validation of the Fatigue Severity Scale in chronic hepatitis C.

BACKGROUND: Fatigue is a common symptom of chronic hepatitis C virus (cHCV) infection and a common side effect of interferon-based treatment for cHCV. This study provides confirmatory evidence of the reliability and validity of the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS) to document fatigue in cHCV research and identifies values that indicate clinically important differences in FSS to aid in interpreting fatigue in cHCV clinical trials. METHODS: The study used data from two double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, Phase IIb trials evaluating the efficacy and safety of simeprevir plus peginterferon-α/ribavirin in treatment-naïve (PILLAR, n = 386) and treatment-experienced patients (ASPIRE, n = 462) with cHCV infection. Patients completed the FSS and EuroQoL 5 dimension questionnaire (EQ-5D) at baseline and at regular intervals throughout both trials. Reliability was assessed using Cronbach's coefficient α at Week 24 (internal consistency reliability) and intraclass correlation (ICC) between FSS at Weeks 12 and 24 in stable patients (<0.5 g/dL hemoglobin [Hb] change between Weeks 12/24). Correlation with the EQ-5D visual analog scale (VAS) and "Usual Activity" domain score was used to assess concurrent validity. Clinical validity was evaluated using a case-control method to link spontaneously reported fatigue and anemia adverse events (AEs) during the study to FSS scores. RESULTS: FSS total scores demonstrated good reliability (Cronbach's α: 0.95, 0.96; ICC: 0.74, 0.86 for PILLAR and ASPIRE, respectively) and concurrent validity (correlation with EQ-5D VAS: -0.63, -0.66) with a monotonic relationship between the EQ-5D "Usual Activities" item response and FSS. Clinical validity was confirmed by a significant difference between cases and controls for fatigue AEs (p < 0.05); however, anemia defined by AE or Hb abnormalities was only weakly related to FSS score. Analyses indicate that a change of 0.33-0.82 in mean FSS scores represents a meaningful improvement in fatigue, and a one-point change is a conservative indicator of an important change in individual FSS scores. CONCLUSION: A difference of ≥0.7 in mean FSS scores can be considered a clinically important difference within groups over time or between groups. A one-point change or less in individual FSS scores indicates a clinically relevant change in fatigue.

The Orthostatic Hypotension Questionnaire (OHQ): validation of a novel symptom assessment scale.

BACKGROUND: There is no widely accepted validated scale to assess the comprehensive symptom burden and severity of neurogenic orthostatic hypotension (NOH). The Orthostatic Hypotension Questionnaire (OHQ) was developed, with two components: the six-item symptoms assessment scale and a four-item daily activity scale to assess the burden of symptoms. Validation analyses were then performed on the two scales and a composite score of the OHQ. METHODS: The validation analyses of the OHQ were performed using data from patients with NOH participating in a phase IV, double blind, randomized, cross over, placebo-controlled trial of the alpha agonist midodrine. Convergent validity was assessed by correlating OHQ scores with clinician global impression scores of severity as well as with generic health questionnaire scores. Test-retest reliability was evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficients at baseline and crossover in a subgroup of patients who reported no change in symptoms across visits on a patient global impression scores of change. Responsiveness was examined by determining whether worsening or improvement in the patients' underlying disease status produced an appropriate change in OHQ scores. RESULTS: Baseline data were collected in 137 enrolled patients, follow-up data were collected in 104 patients randomized to treatment arm. Analyses were conducted using all available data. The floor and ceiling effects were minimal. OHQ scores were highly correlated with other patient reported outcome measures, indicating excellent convergent validity. Test-retest reliability was good. OHQ scores could distinguish between patients with severe and patients with less severe symptoms and responded appropriately to midodrine, a pressor agent commonly used to treat NOH. CONCLUSION: These findings provide empirical evidence that the OHQ can accurately evaluate the severity of symptoms and the functional impact of NOH as well as assess the efficacy of treatment.

The Childhood Asthma Control Test: retrospective determination and clinical validation of a cut point to identify children with very poorly controlled asthma.

BACKGROUND: The Childhood Asthma Control Test (C-ACT) has demonstrated validity in classifying children aged 4 to 11 years as having either "well-controlled" or "not well-controlled" asthma. However, new asthma management guidelines distinguish 3 levels of asthma control. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine a second cut point on the C-ACT to identify children with "very poorly controlled" asthma. METHODS: Binomial logistic regression was performed on data from 671 children. The specialist's rating of control was the criterion measure. Specialists' severity ratings, specialists' assessment of therapy, and FEV(1) percent predicted were used to assess the clinical validity of the cut point. RESULTS: A cut point of 12 was selected because it correctly classified the highest percentage of participants (66.3%) as having "very poorly controlled" (vs "not well controlled") asthma and demonstrated high specificity (89.8%) and moderate positive predictive value (69.1%). Children scoring 12 or less versus 13 to 19 had lower mean FEV(1) percent predicted (79.8% vs 92.6%, P = .0002) and were more frequently stepped up in therapy (72.9% vs 53.6%, P = .0131) and rated as having severe asthma (13.6% vs 4.5%, P = .0005). One month later, significant differences in C-ACT scores and lung function between these 2 groups persisted. The mean C-ACT score of participants classified as "very poorly controlled" was significantly lower than that of participants classified as "not well-controlled" (17.2 vs 20.3, respectively; P = .0001). CONCLUSION: A second cut point of 12 or less on the C-ACT identifies children with the lowest level of control, who are at risk for poorer outcomes, and is conceptually consistent with the classification of "very poorly controlled" asthma adopted by asthma management guidelines.

PRO development: rigorous qualitative research as the crucial foundation.

Recently published articles have described criteria to assess qualitative research in the health field in general, but very few articles have delineated qualitative methods to be used in the development of Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs). In fact, how PROs are developed with subject input through focus groups and interviews has been given relatively short shrift in the PRO literature when compared to the plethora of quantitative articles on the psychometric properties of PROs. If documented at all, most PRO validation articles give little for the reader to evaluate the content validity of the measures and the credibility and trustworthiness of the methods used to develop them. Increasingly, however, scientists and authorities want to be assured that PRO items and scales have meaning and relevance to subjects. This article was developed by an international, interdisciplinary group of psychologists, psychometricians, regulatory experts, a physician, and a sociologist. It presents rigorous and appropriate qualitative research methods for developing PROs with content validity. The approach described combines an overarching phenomenological theoretical framework with grounded theory data collection and analysis methods to yield PRO items and scales that have content validity.

Alzheimer's disease treatment: assessing caregiver preferences for mode of treatment delivery.

INTRODUCTION: Management of patients with Alzheimer's Disease (AD) can exert a substantial burden upon caregivers. As new modes of treatment administration are developed, it is important to assess caregiver satisfaction and preference in a standardized manner. This study describes the development of the Alzheimer's Disease Caregiver Preference Questionnaire (ADCPQ) to assess AD caregivers' satisfaction with and preference for patch or capsule treatments in AD patients. METHODS: Twenty-five published articles (1987-2002) were reviewed to identify potential ADCPQ domains. Three caregiver focus groups (n=24) were conducted to develop a first draft of the questionnaire. After evaluating the acceptance of ADCPQ to caregivers through in-depth interviews (n=10), its psychometric properties were assessed using data from 986 patients enrolled in a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, four-arm, placebo- and active-controlled, 24-week trial. RESULTS: Focus groups indicated that caregivers expressed dissatisfaction with current AD treatment routines including limitations related to: efficacy, administration schedule, number of pills, adherence to treatment, side effects, and taking pills. In-depth interviews with caregivers found the ADCPQ to be comprehensible with an acceptable layout. The resultant ADCPQ comprises three modules: A) baseline, 11 items assessing treatment expectations; B) week 8, 33 items on satisfaction and preferences with treatment options; C) week 24, 10 items assessing overall opinions of treatment options. Missing data per item was low (

Development and validation of the Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Assessment Questionnaire (COPD-AQ).

AIMS: To develop a practical patient-completed chronic obstructive pulmonary disease assessment questionnaire (COPD-AQ) to improve COPD assessment and management in primary care, based on the concept of COPD stability. METHODS: An Expert Working Group defined parameters of COPD stability and a 10-item Physician's Global Assessment was established. A 21-item COPD-AQ was developed and validated in a cross-sectional, non-randomised study of patients with COPD (n=395). Items most discriminative of stability status (stable/unstable) were selected to produce a 5-item COPD-AQ, which was then validated. RESULTS: In the development sample, internal consistency reliability of the 5-item COPD-AQ was 0.74 (n=296). The COPD-AQ discriminated between stability groups based on physician assessment (F=44.26; p<0.0001) and post-bronchodilator spirometry measures (F=2.92; p<0.05). A questionnaire score >20 (range: 5.0-25.0) had a specificity of 82.9% and sensitivity of 64.7%. CONCLUSIONS: The 5-item COPD-AQ proved a practical tool for assessing COPD status and was sufficiently simple for routine clinical use. However, overall validation was limited by small numbers of patients in the validation sample. Difficulties also existed over using the term 'stability' to define COPD status. COPD-AQ was not progressed further, but this work will prove valuable in the future development of a global questionnaire to improve COPD management in primary care.

Validation of the sleep impact scale in patients with major depressive disorder and insomnia.

OBJECTIVES: Chronic insomnia and depression are often associated. Measuring the impact on quality of life associated with changes in sleep in co-treatment of insomnia and depression requires a valid and reliable patient reported outcome (PRO) instrument. This study aimed to assess the validity of the Sleep Impact Scale (SIS), a sleep-specific PRO instrument, in a population comorbid with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and insomnia to support its use in clinical or clinical trial applications. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Data from 379 subjects enrolled in a 27 week US, multi-center, phase IV, randomized, double-blind, parallel group, placebo-controlled trial of zolpidem tartrate extended-release taken in combination with escitalopram vs. placebo combined with escitalopram were pooled across treatment groups. Results from multi-trait analyses, tests of internal consistency and test-retest reliability, concurrent validity, known-groups validity, responsiveness, and thresholds for minimal important difference (MID) were examined. RESULTS: Mean baseline scores on the SIS ranged from 22.85 (+/-13.41) on Satisfaction with Sleep to 43.49 (+/-21.12) on Mental Fatigue, reflecting impairments due to sleep problems. The SIS was found to be internally consistent (alpha > or = 0.70 for all domains) and have good construct validity. The item-domain correlations were > or = 0.52 with no instance of an item correlating more highly with a domain other than its own. There were some floor and no ceiling effects. The test-retest reliability of the SIS domains ranged between 0.68 and 0.83. Clinical validity assessed through known groups methods was supported. The SIS was responsive to changes on all domains. Preliminary estimates of minimum important difference (MID) were obtained to interpret changes in SIS domains. LIMITATIONS: Limitations include the need for further qualitative research on content validity and the lack of a patient global assessment of change. CONCLUSIONS: This study yielded adequate evidence of the validity of the SIS for use in clinical trials and research on MDD patients with comorbid insomnia.