Adaptive behavior in autism: Minimal clinically important differences on the Vineland-II.

Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) is associated with persistent impairments in adaptive abilities across multiple domains. These social, personal, and communicative impairments become increasingly pronounced with development, and are present regardless of IQ. The Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Second Edition (Vineland-II) is the most commonly used instrument for quantifying these impairments, but minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) on Vineland-II scores have not been rigorously established in ASD. We pooled data from several consortia/registries (EU-AIMS LEAP study, ABIDE-I, ABIDE-II, INFOR, Simons Simplex Collection and Autism Treatment Network [ATN]) and clinical investigations and trials (Stanford, Yale, Roche) resulting in a data set of over 9,000 individuals with ASD. Two approaches were used to estimate MCIDs: distribution-based methods and anchor-based methods. Distribution-based MCID [d-MCID] estimates included the standard error of the measurement, as well as one-fifth and one-half of the covariate-adjusted standard deviation (both cross-sectionally and longitudinally). Anchor-based MCID [a-MCID] estimates include the slope of linear regression of clinician ratings of severity on the Vineland-II score, the slope of linear regression of clinician ratings of longitudinal improvement category on Vineland-II change, the Vineland-II change score maximally differentiating clinical impressions of minimal versus no improvement, and equipercentile equating. Across strata, the Vineland-II Adaptive Behavior Composite standardized score MCID estimates range from 2.01 to 3.2 for distribution-based methods, and from 2.42 to 3.75 for sample-size-weighted anchor-based methods. Lower Vineland-II standardized score MCID estimates were observed for younger and more cognitively impaired populations. These MCID estimates enable users of Vineland-II to assess both the statistical and clinical significance of any observed change. Autism Res 2018, 11: 270-283. © 2017 International Society for Autism Research, Wiley Periodicals, Inc. LAY SUMMARY: The Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (2nd edition; Vineland-II) is the most widely used scale for assessing day-to-day "adaptive" skills. Yet, it is unknown how much Vineland-II scores must change for those changes to be regarded as clinically significant. We pooled data from over 9,000 individuals with ASD to show that changes of 2-3.75 points on the Vineland-II Composite score represent the "minimal clinically-important difference." These estimates will help evaluate the benefits of potential new treatments for ASD.

Development and psychometric evaluation of a novel tool for assessing patient perception and preference for haemophilia treatment (HaemoPREF).

Prophylactic use of treatment is important for good outcomes in haemophilia, yet adherence can be suboptimal. To better understand the relationship between treatment adherence and patients' beliefs about treatment there is a need to quantify patients' treatment attitudes. The aim of this study was to develop a brief, clinically relevant, patient-reported outcome (PRO) to measure ease of use and patients' preference for haemophilia treatment. A 40-item questionnaire was completed by male adults with haemophilia A from Austria, Germany, Italy, Spain and the UK. Robust statistical methods for item evaluation including item-level statistics, dimensionality analyses and input from clinical and outcomes experts were used to inform item reduction. Retained items were subjected to psychometric evaluation including exploratory factor analysis (EFA), known-groups validity and internal consistency reliability. 273 patients completed the questionnaire. Of the 40 items, 28 items were flagged for possible deletion based on item-level statistics, three of which were retained due to clinical relevance. Two items had acceptable statistical performance but were deleted based on low clinical relevance. A total of 13 items were retained. EFA produced a conceptually defined 5-factor solution. The survey had acceptable known-groups validity and internal consistency. Refinements were made to wording and scoring, and one new item was added to assess general ease of use, resulting in a 14-item questionnaire - the HaemoPREF. Preliminary measurement properties of the HaemoPREF support the instrument to evaluate patient perception and preference for haemophilia treatment. Further psychometric evaluation is required to examine and confirm the measurement properties of the scale.

Depression and anxiety in chronic heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: prevalence, relevance, clinical implications and management principles.

OBJECTIVE: To review evidence regarding the prevalence, causation, clinical implications, aspects of healthcare utilisation and management of depression and anxiety in chronic heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. DESIGN: A critical review of the literature (1994-2009). FINDINGS: The prevalence of depression and anxiety is high in both chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (8-80% depression; 6-74% anxiety) and chronic heart failure (10-60% depression; 11-45% anxiety). However, methodological weaknesses and the use of a wide range of diagnostic tools make it difficult to reach a consensus on rates of prevalence. Co-morbid depression and anxiety are associated with increased mortality and healthcare utilisation and impact upon functional disability and quality of life. Despite these negative consequences, the identification and management of co-morbid depression and anxiety in these two diseases is inadequate. There is some evidence for the positive role of pulmonary/cardiac rehabilitation and psychotherapy in the management of co-morbid depression and anxiety, however, this is insufficient to guide recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: The high prevalence and associated increase in morbidity and mortality justifies future research regarding the management of anxiety and depression in both chronic heart failure and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Current evidence suggests that multi-faceted interventions such as pulmonary and cardiac rehabilitation may offer the best hope for improving outcomes for depression and anxiety.