Using a novel concept to measure outcomes in solid organ recipients provided promising results

Measuring health-related quality of life in cardiovascular disease using a novel patient-centred and disease-specific patient-reported outcome measure

Background

Assessment of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD) is impaired by limitations of current patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). We developed the first cardiovascular disease (CVD) specific electronic PROM for which health items were derived by a fully patient-centered method. This paper reports on the measurement of HRQoL in CVD patients by a novel developed electronic patient-centred PROM based on a preference-based measurement model.

Methods and results

In an earlier patient-based study nine health items were selected as most important to CVD patients. These items were assessed in the novel preference-based PROM of this study. CVD patients registered with a Dutch patient organization were asked to rate their health state. We compared HRQoL between subgroups of age, gender and CVD. A total of 554 patients participated in this study. The patient reported health items "worry", "self-reliance" and "sexuality" had the highest impact on HRQoL of CVD patients. Median HRQoL was better for men compared to woman (-17.04, IQR: 31.47 to -3.91 vs. -25.22; IQR: 42.06 to -9.53, p = 0.003). Best and worst HRQoL were observed in patients with an unknown or other CVD disease (-15.61, IQR: 28.52 to -3.91) followed by individuals with coronary artery disease (-16.99, IQR: 38.08 - 0.00) and heart failure (-24.27, IQR: 42.64 to -12.98).

Conclusions

This novel patient-centred, preference-based, CVD-specific PROM accurately measures HRQoL by taking individual health preferences into account and tackling limitations of current PROMs. This PROM is therefore promising to evaluate interventions and optimize personalized therapies.

Effect of an exercise intervention or combined exercise and diet intervention on health-related quality of life-physical functioning after kidney transplantation: the Active Care after Transplantation (ACT) multicentre randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Robust evidence for interventions to improve health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in people who receive a kidney transplant is scarce. We aimed to assess the effects of a lifestyle intervention in this context.

METHODS

We conducted a multicentre, open-label, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial among people who have received a kidney transplant. Participants from six hospitals across the Netherlands were randomly assigned 1:1:1 by an independent company into: usual care, exercise, and exercise plus diet. The exercise intervention encompassed two phases, a 3-month supervised exercise programme (twice weekly) followed by 12 months of lifestyle coaching, with 15 months of additional dietary counselling (12 sessions) for the exercise plus diet group. The primary outcome was HRQoL-domain physical functioning, assessed using the 36-item Short Form Survey at 15 months.

FINDINGS

From Oct 12, 2010 to Nov 18, 2016, 221 participants who had received a kidney transplant (138 [62%] male and 83 [38%] female, with a mean age of 52·5 [SD 13·5] years, who were a median of 5·5 [IQR 3·6-8·4] months post-transplant) were included and randomly assigned to usual care (n=74), exercise intervention (n=77), and exercise plus diet intervention (n=70). In the intention-to-treat analyses, at 15 months post-baseline, no significant differences in HRQoL-domain physical functioning were found for the exercise group (5·3 arbitrary units, 95% CI -4·2 to 14·9; p=0·27), and the exercise plus diet group (5·9 arbitrary units, -4·1 to 16·0; p=0·25) compared with control. Safety outcomes showed no safety concerns. After 3 months of supervised exercise intervention, HRQoL-domain physical functioning improved in the exercise group (7·3 arbitrary units, 95% CI 1·2 to 13·3; p=0·018) but not in the exercise plus diet group (5·8 arbitrary units, -0·5 to 12·1; p=0·072).

INTERPRETATION

A lifestyle intervention is safe and feasible in people who have received kidney transplants, paving the way for lifestyle intervention studies in other multimorbid populations with polypharmacy. However, improving HRQoL for people who have received a kidney transplant is challenging. The lifestyle interventions in the current study did not show significant improvements in HRQoL at the end of the study at the total group level.

FUNDING

Dutch Kidney Foundation, Innovation Fund of the Dutch Medical Insurance Companies, and University Medical Center Groningen.

Assessing quality of life in solid organ transplant recipients: A systematic review of the development, content, and quality of available condition- and transplant-specific patient-reported outcome measures

PURPOSE

We aimed to identify the condition- and transplant-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) available to measure quality of life (QoL) in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients, examine their development and content, and critically appraise the quality of their measurement properties, to inform recommendations for clinical and research use.

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane CENTRAL, and Scopus from inception to 27th January 2023. Search hits were screened for eligibility by two independent reviewers; papers reporting the development and/or validation of condition- and transplant-specific PROMs measuring QoL in adult SOT recipients were considered eligible. We abstracted and synthesised data on PROM characteristics, development (item generation and/or reduction), and content (QoL dimensions). Quality appraisal and synthesis were informed by the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) guidelines, and included methodological and quality assessment of measurement properties, GRADE levels of evidence, feasibility and interpretability.

RESULTS

We identified 33 papers reporting 26 QoL PROMs validated in SOT recipients (kidney n = 10 PROMs; liver n = 6; lung n = 3; heart n = 2; pancreas n = 1; multiple organs n = 4). Patient discussions (n = 17 PROMs) and factor analysis (n = 11) were the most common item generation and reduction techniques used, respectively. All PROMs measured ≥3 of nine QoL dimensions (all measured emotional functioning); KDQoL-SF and NIDDK-QA measured all nine. Methodological quality was variable; no PROM had low evidence or better for all measurement properties. All PROMs were COSMIN recommendation category 'B', primarily because none had sufficient content validity.

CONCLUSIONS

There are many condition- and transplant-specific QoL PROMs validated in SOT recipients, particularly kidney. These findings can help inform PROM selection for clinicians and researchers. However, caution is required when adopting measures, due to the substantial heterogeneity in development, content, and quality. Each PROM has potential but requires further research to be recommendable. Greater consideration of patient and professional involvement in PROM development in this setting is needed to ensure sufficient content validity.

From simple to even simpler, but not too simple: a head-to-head comparison of the Better-Worse and Drop-Down methods for measuring patient health status

BACKGROUND

We recently developed a novel, preference-based method (Better-Worse, BW) for measuring health status, expressed as a single metric value. We have since expanded it by developing the Drop-Down (DD) method. This article presents a head-to-head comparison of these two methods. We explored user feasibility, interpretability and statistics of the estimated coefficients, and distribution of the computed health-state values.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional online survey among patients with various diseases in the USA. The BW and DD methods were applied in the two arms of the study, albeit in reverse order. In both arms, patients first performed a descriptive task (Task 1) to rate their own health status according to the 12 items (each with 4 levels) in the CS-Base health-outcome instrument. They then performed Task 2, in which they expressed preferences for health states by the two methods. We then estimated coefficients for all levels of each item using logistic regression and used these to compute values for health states.

RESULTS

Our total sample comprised 1,972 patients. Completion time was < 2 min for both methods. Both methods were scored as easy to perform. All DD coefficients were highly significant from the reference level (P < 0.001). For BW, however, only the second-level coefficient of "Cognition" was significantly different (P = 0.026). All DD coefficients were more precise with narrower confidence intervals than those of the BW method.

CONCLUSIONS

Both the BW and DD are novel methods that are easy to apply. The DD method outperformed the BW method in terms of the precision of produced coefficients. Due to its task, it is free from a specific distorting factor that was observed for the BW method.

Economic evaluation of upper limb prostheses in the Netherlands including the cost-effectiveness of multi-grip versus standard myoelectric hand prostheses

PURPOSE

To investigate the costs, quality of life, and user experiences associated with upper limb prosthesis use, and to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of multi-grip compared to standard myoelectric hand prostheses (MHPs/SHPs).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The EQ-5D-5L to assess the quality of life, the patient-reported outcome measure to assess the preferred usage features of upper limb prosthesis (PUF-ULP), and a cost questionnaire (societal perspective) were completed by 242 prosthesis users (57% men; mean age = 58 years). Incremental cost-utility and cost-effectiveness ratios (ICUR/ICER) with respectively the EQ-5D-5L and PUF-ULP were calculated to compare MHPs with SHPs. Statistical uncertainty was estimated using bootstrapping. Netherlands Trial Registry number: NL7682.

RESULTS

The mean yearly total costs related to prosthesis use of MHPs (€54 112) and SHPs (€23 501) were higher compared to prostheses with tools/accessories (€11 977), body-powered (€11 298), and cosmetic/passive prostheses (€10 132). EQ-5D-5L and PUF-ULP scores did not differ between prosthesis types. ICUR was €-728 833 per quality-adjusted life year; ICER was €-187 798 per PUF-ULP point gained.

CONCLUSIONS

Myoelectric prostheses, especially MHPs, were most expensive compared to other prostheses, while no differences in quality of life and user experiences were apparent. MHPs were not cost-effective compared to SHPs. When prescribing MHPs, careful consideration of advantages over SHPs is recommended.

Models of Quality Management Systems Applied in Specialized Services for the Donation and Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues

BACKGROUND

Quality management tools and models are used to improve processes and products, including those related to organ and tissue donation and transplantation protocols. This study aims to map, discuss, and disseminate models/tools of quality management systems applied in health services, specializing in the donation and/or transplantation of human organs and tissues.

METHODS

This is an integrative literature review over the last 10 years, operationalized through searches carried out on the PubMed portal and the databases: SciVerse Scopus (SCOPUS), Scielo, Latin American and Caribbean Literature on Health Sciences (LILACS), Nursing Database (BDENF), and the Virtual Health Library (BVS). The organization of search results in the databases and the election of articles compatible with the guiding question and the inclusion and exclusion criteria for this study took place through the online and free application platform Rayyan.

RESULTS

Six hundred seventy-eight records were found, of which, after careful analysis, 18 articles were considered relevant to the theme. We identified 17 quality management models and/or tools that emphasize using scientifically proven and/or validated techniques to reduce or eliminate the possibility of risks in the processes that permeate the stages of donation and transplantation of organs and tissues.

CONCLUSION

This review brought the possible tools used and published, which can be perceived, reproduced, and improved, through the role of the multidisciplinary team in specialized centers for the donation and transplantation of human organs and tissues, aiming to offer a process of continuous improvement management to deliver better products and services.

The multi-grip and standard myoelectric hand prosthesis compared: does the multi-grip hand live up to its promise?

BACKGROUND

Multi-grip myoelectric hand prostheses (MHPs), with five movable and jointed fingers, have been developed to increase functionality. However, literature comparing MHPs with standard myoelectric hand prostheses (SHPs) is limited and inconclusive. To establish whether MHPs increase functionality, we compared MHPs with SHPs on all categories of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health-model (ICF-model).

METHODS

MHP users (N = 14, 64.3% male, mean age = 48.6 years) performed physical measurements (i.e., Refined Clothespin Relocation Test (RCRT), Tray-test, Box and Blocks Test, Southampton Hand Assessment Procedure) with their MHP and an SHP to compare the joint angle coordination and functionality related to the ICF-categories 'Body Function' and 'Activities' (within-group comparisons). SHP users (N = 19, 68.4% male, mean age = 58.1 years) and MHP users completed questionnaires/scales (i.e., Orthotics and Prosthetics Users' Survey-The Upper Extremity Functional Status Survey /OPUS-UEFS, Trinity Amputation and Prosthesis Experience Scales for upper extremity/TAPES-Upper, Research and Development-36/RAND-36, EQ-5D-5L, visual analogue scale/VAS, the Dutch version of the Quebec User Evaluation of Satisfaction with assistive technology/D-Quest, patient-reported outcome measure to assess the preferred usage features of upper limb prostheses/PUF-ULP) to compare user experiences and quality of life in the ICF-categories 'Activities', 'Participation', and 'Environmental Factors' (between-group comparisons).

RESULTS

'Body Function' and 'Activities': nearly all users of MHPs had similar joint angle coordination patterns with an MHP as when they used an SHP. The RCRT in the upward direction was performed slower in the MHP condition compared to the SHP condition. No other differences in functionality were found. 'Participation': MHP users had a lower EQ-5D-5L utility score; experienced more pain or limitations due to pain (i.e., measured with the RAND-36). 'Environmental Factors': MHPs scored better than SHPs on the VAS-item holding/shaking hands. The SHP scored better than the MHP on five VAS-items (i.e., noise, grip force, vulnerability, putting clothes on, physical effort to control) and the PUF-ULP.

CONCLUSION

MHPs did not show relevant differences in outcomes compared to SHPs on any of the ICF-categories. This underlines the importance of carefully considering whether the MHP is the most suitable option for an individual taking into account the additional costs of MHPs.

What really matters: a patient-centered instrument to evaluate health-related quality of life in cardiovascular disease

Aims

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL) are increasingly used to guide decision-making in cardiovascular care. However, many of the existing PROMs are developed with limited patient involvement and overlook personal health preferences. We aim to develop a cardiovascular disease (CVD)-specific patient-centred preference-based PROM to assess and monitor HRQoL in CVD patients.

Methods and results

A mixed-methods study consisting of several phases was conducted to identify important health items: (i) a scoping literature review, (ii) first- and second-round expert group meetings, (iii) interviews with CVD patients, and (iv) an online survey asking CVD patients to indicate from a large set those health items that are considered the most important. The literature review, expert group meetings, and patient interviews resulted in a list of 55 items potentially important to CVD patients. In total, 666 CVD patients responded to the survey. The following nine items were considered the most important by CVD patients: mobility, activities, self-reliance, fatigue, shortness of breath, chest pain, palpitations, anxiety/worrying, and sexual limitations. An electronic preference-based PROM consisting of these nine items was developed within a cloud-based environment for clinical implementation.

Conclusion

Nine items considered the most important for health by CVD patients were identified and included in a new preference-based patient-centred PROM. This new CVD-specific PROM can be easily implemented using the electronic application and has the potential to improve quality of care for CVD patients.