Electronic versus paper questionnaires: a further comparison in persons with asthma.

The use of electronic data capture (EDC) to assess health-related quality of life (HRQOL) using validated questionnaires is increasing; however, it must be determined how data collected electronically correlate with the original mode of administration used in validation. Our objective was to compare paper and electronic administration of the standardized Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ(S)), Pediatric Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (PAQLQ(S)), and Pediatric Asthma Caregiver's Quality of Life Questionnaire (PACQLQ). Using a crossover design, adults and children with asthma and caregivers of children with asthma were recruited from clinics. Subjects were asked to complete both forms of the appropriate HRQOL measures at enrollment and 24-48 hours later. In addition, 30 subjects from each group were asked to participate in a 1-week reproducibility assessment of the electronic versions of the three questionnaires. Psychometric properties were assessed for each of the EDC versions. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) and Pearson correlations were calculated to compare EDC and paper versions. A total of 51 adults (mean age 37, 73% females), 52 children (mean age 13, 38% females), and 51 caregivers (mean age 43, 92% females) were evaluated. Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha) for the overall score of each questionnaire was: 0.96 for the AQLQ(S) and the PAQLQ(S), and 0.92 for the PACQLQ. Overall ICCs comparing paper with EDC were: 0.96 for the AQLQ(S), 0.91 for the PAQLQ(S), and 0.82 for the PACQLQ. Pearson's correlations were identical. One-week reproducibility (ICC) of the EDC versions was: 0.88 for the AQLQ(S), 0.78 for the PAQLQ(S), and 0.85 for the PACQLQ. When asked which method subjects preferred, the electronic version was chosen by 69% of adults, 77% of children, and 73% of caregivers. Additionally, 14% of adults, 14% of children, and 18% of caregivers reported no difference in preference. As in previous studies comparing electronic with paper questionnaires, this study revealed statistical evidence to support the use of EDC of the AQLQ(S), PAQLQ(S), and PACQLQ for populations with asthma.

An economic evaluation of levofloxacin versus cefuroxime axetil in the outpatient treatment of adults with community-acquired pneumonia.

OBJECTIVE: To examine treatment costs of community-acquired pneumonia (CAP) in adult outpatients given oral (p.o.) levofloxacin or cefuroxime axetil as initial therapy. STUDY DESIGN: Patients with a primary diagnosis of CAP were enrolled in a multicenter, prospective, randomized, open-label, active-controlled Phase III clinical trial. Both inpatients and outpatients were assigned to 1 of 2 treatment groups: (1) intravenous (i.v.) or p.o. levofloxacin; or (2) i.v. ceftriaxone and/or p.o. cefuroxime axetil. METHODS: To make legitimate and meaningful cost comparisons between similar types of patients receiving drugs via the same route of administration (i.e., orally), this outpatient economic study examined the resource utilization of the 211 patients enrolled as outpatients who received oral formulations as initial treatment (levofloxacin, 103 patients; cefuroxime axetil, 108 patients). Resource utilization data and clinical trial data were collected concurrently. To generate cost estimates, Medicare cost estimates for resources were multiplied by the resource units used by patients in each treatment arm. RESULTS: Cost estimates indicated a total cost difference that favored the levofloxacin group (base case: $169; sensitivity analysis: $223 [P = .008]). The results for the base case were not significant (P = .094). In addition, within the cost categories, there was a statistically significant study drug cost differential favoring levofloxacin ($86; P = .0001 for both the base case and sensitivity analysis). CONCLUSION: Oral levofloxacin is less costly than oral cefuroxime axetil in the outpatient treatment of adults with CAP.