Minimally Important Difference for Patient-reported Outcomes in Psoriatic Arthritis: Health Assessment Questionnaire and Pain, Fatigue, and Global Visual Analog Scales

Schulich School of Medicine, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada.
The Journal of Rheumatology (Impact Factor: 3.19). 03/2010; 37(5):1024-8. DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.090832
Source: PubMed


To determine the minimally important difference (MID) for the Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), pain, fatigue, sleep, and global visual analog scale (VAS; 0-100 mm) in patients with psoriatic arthritis (PsA) using a patient-reported overall health status anchor. Patient-reported outcomes are often used to gauge the effect of PsA in clinical trials. There is currently no knowledge about the MID for patient-reported outcomes in PsA.
Patients with a diagnosis of PsA who had answered questions about outcomes at 2 consecutive visits and an overall health status question ("How would you describe your overall status since your last visit: much better, better, the same, worse, much worse?") were included. MID was calculated as the mean change between visits for those who rated their disease as "better" or "worse."
Two hundred patients met inclusion criteria, of whom 17.5% rated their status as "better" and 25.0% rated their status as "worse" than the previous visit. MID estimates for improvement/worsening (SD) respectively were -0.131 (0.411)/0.131 (0.309) for HAQ-DI, -9.37 (24.37)/13.96 (22.05) for pain VAS, -8.15 (23.52)/3.63 (27.62) for fatigue VAS, -10.97 (29.74)/13.81 (27.32) for sleep VAS, and -8.41 (21.17)/11.53 (21.03) for global VAS. Spearman's r correlation coefficients between the anchor and mean change were 0.374 (HAQ-DI), 0.448 (pain VAS), 0.239 (fatigue VAS), 0.326 (sleep VAS), 0.490 (global VAS); p < 0.01.
This is the first study investigating MID of patient-reported outcomes in PsA. MID for HAQ-DI, pain, and global VAS were shown to be the best predictors for a patient's perception of overall changes in disease status.

28 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The recent health policy imperatives in the United States have consequentially called to attention the absence of dermatologic evaluations in the health outcome and quality measures that will ultimately grade the success of providers. Psoriasis, in particular, represents a patient cohort with a chronic, complex and debilitating skin disorder commonly encountered in dermatology clinics that can have insufferable consequences from disease progression and comorbidities if it is not properly evaluated and managed. In order to have the appropriate compensation to the providers and the availabilities of the correct treatments to the patients, the presence of psoriasis-specific outcome measures are necessary. Incorporating the concepts employed by the rheumatology group, Outcome Measures for Rheumatoid Arthritis Clinical Trials (OMERACT), that created outcomes for several musculoskeletal diseases, initiatives in dermatology have already begun to create standardized, validated psoriasis outcome measures.
    09/2013; 2(3). DOI:10.1007/s13671-013-0051-0
  • Source
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The PRIMUS is a Multiple Sclerosis (MS)-specific suite of outcome measures including assessments of QoL (PRIMUS QoL, scored 0-22) and activity limitations (PRIMUS Activities, scored 0-30). The U-FIS is a measure of fatigue impact (scored 0-66). These measures have been fully validated previously using an MS sample with mixed diagnoses. The aim of the present study was to validate the measures further in a specifically Relapse Remitting MS (RRMS) sample and to provide preliminary evidence of the responder definitions (RD; also known as minimal important difference) for these instruments. Data were derived from a multi-country efficacy trial of MS patients with assessments at baseline and 12 months. Baseline data were used to assess the internal reliability and validity of the measures. Both anchor-based and distribution-based approaches were employed for estimating RD. Anchor-based estimates were based on published RD values for the EQ-5D and were assessed for those improving and deteriorating separately. Distribution-based estimates were based on standard error of measurement (SEM), change score equivalent to 0.30, and change score equivalent to 0.50, effect sizes (ES). The sample included 911 RRMS patients (67.3% female, age mean (SD) 36.2 (8.4) years, duration of MS mean (SD) 4.8 (5.2) years). Results showed that the PRIMUS and U-FIS had good internal consistency. Appropriate correlations were observed with comparator instruments and both measures were able to distinguish between participants based on Expanded Disability Status Scale scores and time since diagnosis. The anchor-based and distribution-based RD estimates were: PRIMUS Activities range = 1.2-2.3, PRIMUS QoL range = 1.0-2.2, and U-FIS range = 2.4-7.0. The results show that the PRIMUS and U-FIS are valid instruments for use with RRMS patients. The analyses provide preliminary information on how to interpret scores on the scales. These data will be useful for assessing treatment efficacy and for powering clinical studies. TRIAL REFERENCE NUMBER: Identifier NCT00340834.
    Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 10/2010; 8(1):117. DOI:10.1186/1477-7525-8-117 · 2.12 Impact Factor
Show more