Patient-reported measures: how useful in health economics?

Voices that matter: The impact of patient-reported outcome measures on clinical decision-making

The critical role of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in enhancing clinical decision-making and promoting patient-centered care has gained a profound significance in scientific research. PROMs encapsulate a patient's health status directly from their perspective, encompassing various domains such as symptom severity, functional status, and overall quality of life. By integrating PROMs into routine clinical practice and research, healthcare providers can achieve a more nuanced understanding of patient experiences and tailor treatments accordingly. The deployment of PROMs supports dynamic patient-provider interactions, fostering better patient engagement and adherence to treatment plans. Moreover, PROMs are pivotal in clinical settings for monitoring disease progression and treatment efficacy, particularly in chronic and mental health conditions. However, challenges in implementing PROMs include data collection and management, integration into existing health systems, and acceptance by patients and providers. Overcoming these barriers necessitates technological advancements, policy development, and continuous education to enhance the acceptability and effectiveness of PROMs. The paper concludes with recommendations for future research and policy-making aimed at optimizing the use and impact of PROMs across healthcare settings.

[Translated article] Patient-reported outcome measures for assessing atopic dermatitis in clinical practice

Atopic dermatitis is a chronic skin condition that affects up to 20% of children and 10% of adults worldwide. Due to the high burden of dermatological signs and symptoms, atopic dermatitis has a significant impact on the quality of life of patients and their families. In the absence of objective measures to accurately assess severity and symptom burden, patient-reported outcome measures are essential to monitor the impact and progression of the disease, as well as the efficacy of treatments. Although there are currently no standardised guidelines for their use in clinical practice, there are some initiatives, such as the Harmonise Outcome Measures for Eczema and Vivir con Dermatitis Atópica, that can provide guidance. As healthcare systems move toward value-based healthcare models, patient-reported measures are becoming increasingly important for incorporating the patient perspective and improving the quality of healthcare services. The use of these measures can help monitor disease activity and guide treatment decisions. This article discusses the impact of atopic dermatitis and describes the patient-reported outcome measures commonly used in atopic dermatitis and the recommendations of the initiatives that have selected a core set of measures to best assess atopic dermatitis in clinical practice. Considering the recommendations of these initiatives and based on our experience in clinical practice, we propose the use of the Dermatology Life Quality Index to assess the impact of the disease on quality of life, the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure to assess symptom severity, and the Numerical Rating Scale or the Visual Analogue Scale to measure itch intensity. To systematise the administration of these measures and to integrate them into hospital information systems and medical records, we emphasise the importance of telemedicine platforms that allow the electronic administration of these instruments.

Patient-reported outcome measures for assessing atopic dermatitis in clinical practice

Atopic dermatitis is a chronic skin condition that affects up to 20% of children and 10% of adults worldwide. Due to the high burden of dermatological signs and symptoms, atopic dermatitis has a significant impact on the quality of life of patients and their families. In the absence of objective measures to accurately assess severity and symptom burden, patient-reported outcome measures are essential to monitor the impact and progression of the disease, as well as the efficacy of treatments. Although there are currently no standardised guidelines for their use in clinical practice, there are some initiatives, such as the Harmonise Outcome Measures for Eczema and Vivir con Dermatitis Atópica, that can provide guidance. As healthcare systems move towards value-based healthcare models, patient-reported measures are becoming increasingly important for incorporating the patient perspective and improving the quality of healthcare services. The use of these measures can help monitor disease activity and guide treatment decisions. This article discusses the impact of atopic dermatitis and describes the patient-reported outcome measures commonly used in atopic dermatitis and the recommendations of the initiatives that have selected a core set of measures to best assess atopic dermatitis in clinical practice. Considering the recommendations of these initiatives and based on our experience in clinical practice, we propose the use of the Dermatology Life Quality Index to assess the impact of the disease on quality of life, the Patient-Oriented Eczema Measure to assess symptom severity, and the Numerical Rating Scale or the Visual Analogue Scale to measure itch intensity. To systematize the administration of these measures and to integrate them into hospital information systems and medical records, we emphasise the importance of telemedicine platforms that allow the electronic administration of these instruments.

Current challenges in focal epilepsy treatment: An Italian Delphi consensus

BACKGROUND

Epilepsy, a globally prevalent neurological condition, presents distinct challenges in management, particularly for focal-onset types. This study aimed at addressing the current challenges and perspectives in focal epilepsy management, with focus on the Italian reality.

METHODS

Using the Delphi methodology, this research collected and analyzed the level of consensus of a panel of Italian epilepsy experts on key aspects of focal epilepsy care. Areas of focus included patient flow, treatment pathways, controlled versus uncontrolled epilepsy, follow-up protocols, and the relevance of patient-reported outcomes (PROs). This method allowed for a comprehensive assessment of consensus and divergences in clinical opinions and practices.

RESULTS

The study achieved consensus on 23 out of 26 statements, with three items failing to reach a consensus. There was strong agreement on the importance of timely intervention, individualized treatment plans, regular follow-ups at Epilepsy Centers, and the role of PROs in clinical practice. In cases of uncontrolled focal epilepsy, there was a clear inclination to pursue alternative treatment options following the failure of two previous therapies. Divergent views were evident on the inclusion of epilepsy surgery in treatment for uncontrolled epilepsy and the routine necessity of EEG evaluations in follow-ups. Other key findings included concerns about the lack of pediatric-specific research limiting current therapeutic options in this patient population, insufficient attention to the transition from pediatric to adult care, and need for improved communication. The results highlighted the complexities in managing epilepsy, with broad consensus on patient care aspects, yet notable divergences in specific treatment and management approaches.

CONCLUSION

The study offered valuable insights into the current state and complexities of managing focal-onset epilepsy. It highlighted many deficiencies in the therapeutic pathway of focal-onset epilepsy in the Italian reality, while it also underscored the importance of patient-centric care, the necessity of early and appropriate intervention, and individualized treatment approaches. The findings also called for continued research, policy development, and healthcare system improvements to enhance epilepsy management, highlighting the ongoing need for tailored healthcare solutions in this evolving field.

Navigating Choices in Nephrology: The Role of Patient-Reported Outcomes and Preferences in Economic Evaluations and Decisions in Health Care

The increasing burden of chronic kidney disease (CKD) on the health care system highlights the need to prioritize services and manage the use of resources efficiently. Amid these financial constraints, key decision makers must weigh the impact of an intervention or program on health care expenditure when determining the allocation of limited resources. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are relevant in health economic decision-making within nephrology. Health-related quality of life, a patient-reported outcome, can provide data that inform economic evaluations of treatments for patients with CKD. PROMs help determine the value of different therapies by assessing their impact on patients' daily lives beyond clinical outcomes and can help policymakers make decisions about funding and reimbursement that consider the priorities and preferences of patients. Economic evaluations often employ cost-utility analyses, which use quality-adjusted life years as a key metric. Quality-adjusted life years combine both the quality and quantity of life lived, allowing for comparison of the effectiveness of different interventions in a standardized manner. By integrating utilities derived from PROMs, these analyses quantify the benefits of CKD treatments in terms of how patients feel and function. Furthermore, PROMs contribute to quality improvement initiatives by identifying areas where patient care can be enhanced, guiding the implementation of programs that improve health-related quality of life while maintaining cost-effectiveness. In value-based financing environments, the integration of PROMs ensures that patient-centered outcomes are prioritized, leading to more effective and equitable health care delivery. In this article, we discuss the role of PROMs in economic evaluations in CKD and provide an overview of approaches for using PROMs in economic evaluations to inform decision-making in nephrology.

Comparison of quality of life, symptom and functional outcomes following surgical treatment for colorectal neoplasia

BACKGROUND

Colorectal surgical procedures can have a significant impact on quality-of-life (QoL), functional and symptom outcomes. This retrospective study conducted in a tertiary care center evaluated the influence of four colorectal surgical procedures on patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

METHODS

512 patients undergoing colorectal neoplasia surgery between June 2015 and December 2017 were identified via the Cabrini Monash Colorectal Neoplasia database. Primary outcomes measured were the mean changes in PROMs following surgery utilizing the International Consortium of Health Outcome Measures colorectal cancer (CRC) PROMs.

RESULTS

242 patients from 483 eligible patients responded (50% participation rate). Responders and non-responders were comparable in median age (72 vs. 70 years), gender (48% vs. 52% male), time from surgery (<1 and >1 year), overall stage at diagnosis and type of surgery. Respondents underwent either a right hemicolectomy, ultra-low anterior resection, abdominoperineal resection or a transanal endoscopic microsurgery/transanal minimally invasive surgery. Right hemicolectomy patients reported the best post-operative function and reduced symptoms, significantly better (P < 0.01) than ultra-low anterior resection patients who reported the worst outcomes in multiple areas (body image, embarrassment, flatulence, diarrhoea, stool frequency). Furthermore, patients undergoing an abdominoperineal resection reported the worst scores for body image, urinary frequency, urinary incontinence, buttock pain, faecal incontinence and male impotence.

CONCLUSIONS

The differences in PROMs in CRC surgical procedures is demonstrable. The worst post-operative functional and symptom scores were reported after either an ultra-low anterior resection or an abdominoperineal resection. Implementation of PROMs will identify and aid early patient referral to allied health and support services.