Hemoglobin modulation affects physiology and patient reported outcomes in anemic and non-anemic subjects: An umbrella review

Background: An abnormal hemoglobin concentration has a substantial effect on a person's quality of life and physiology. Lack of tools that effectively evaluate hemoglobin-related outcomes leads to uncertainty regarding optimal hemoglobin levels, transfusion thresholds and treatment targets. We therefore aim to summarize reviews that assess the effects of hemoglobin modulation on the human physiology at various baseline hemoglobin levels, and identify gaps in existing evidence. Methods: We conducted an umbrella review of systematic reviews. PubMed, MEDLINE (OVID), Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library and Emcare were searched from inception to the 15th of April 2022 for studies that reported on physiological and patient reported outcomes following a hemoglobin change. Results: Thirty-three reviews were included of which 7 were scored as of high quality and 24 of critically low quality using the AMSTAR-2 tool. The reported data generally show that an increase in hemoglobin leads to improvement of patient reported and physical outcomes in anaemic and non-anaemic subjects. At lower hemoglobin levels, the effect of a hemoglobin modulation on quality of life measures appears more pronounced. Conclusion: This overview has revealed many knowledge gaps due to a lack of high-quality evidence. For chronic kidney disease patients, a clinically relevant benefit of increasing the hemoglobin levels up until 12 g/dL was found. However, a personalized approach remains necessary due to the many patient-specific factors that affect outcomes. We strongly encourage future trials to incorporate physiological outcomes as objective parameters together with subjective, but still very important, patient reported outcome measures.

Defining a Patient-Centred Core Outcome Domain Set for the Assessment of Hearing Rehabilitation With Clients and Professionals

Background

A variety of outcome domains are currently measured for the assessment of hearing rehabilitation. To date, there is no consensus about which outcome domains should be measured, when they should be measured, and how they should be measured. In addition, most studies seeking to develop core outcome sets and measures for hearing rehabilitation services have primarily focussed on the opinions and expertise of researchers, and, to a lesser extent, clinicians, rather than also involving clients of those services. The principles of experience-based co-design suggest that health services, researchers, and policymakers should come together with clients and their families to design health services and define what metrics should be used for their success.

Objectives

This study aimed to seek views and consensus from a range of key stakeholders to define which client-centred self-report outcome domains should be measured, when they should be measured, and how they should be measured, in a national publicly funded hearing rehabilitation scheme. In addition, the study aimed to identify current and future potential mechanisms and systems to standardise the collection of data and reporting of outcomes, to enable comparison across clients and hearing service providers.

Methods

Two stakeholder groups participated in a three-round online Delphi process: (1) 79 professional stakeholders involved in the delivery of hearing services in Australia, and (2) 64 hearing rehabilitation services’ clients identified by not-for-profit consumer organisations. An initial set of in-person workshops scoped the key issues upon which to develop the initial open-ended questions and subsequent Likert-scale statements addressing these issues. These statements were then distributed to both groups in an online survey. The respondent ratings were summarised, and the summary was returned to respondents along with a second round of the survey. This process was then repeated once more. The five most important outcome domains from both groups were then combined, and a consensus workshop of seven professionals and three client advocates agreed on the top four ranked domains.

Results

A range of potential outcome domains were identified as relevant indicators of successful hearing rehabilitation. Communication ability, personal relationships, wellbeing, and participation restrictions were identified as a core outcome domain set that should be measured as a minimum for patients receiving hearing rehabilitation. There was little agreement on the preferred timepoints for collection of outcome measures, with respondents expressing the view that this should be established by research once a set of outcome measures has been selected. However, there was broad agreement that measurements of these domains should be collected at baseline (before the provision of hearing rehabilitation) and no earlier than 3 months following the completion of rehabilitation. Potential benefits and issues with the development of a national outcomes database/collection system were also identified and prioritised, with participants highlighting the importance of valid, high-quality, trustworthy, and comprehensive data collection.

Conclusion

These results provide a Core Outcome Domain Set for the self-reported evaluation of hearing rehabilitation and provide important background information for the design of methods to implement them across hearing healthcare systems. However, the wide range of outcome domains identified as potentially providing important additional information and the lack of specific measures to address these domains strongly suggest that there is still more research to be done. Ongoing stakeholder engagement will continue to be vital for future implementation. In addition, further research is required to determine the optimal time following hearing rehabilitation to utilise any particular outcome measure.

Clinical Performance of Implant Crown Retained Removable Partial Dentures for Mandibular Edentulism-A Retrospective Study

The studies on implant-crown-retained removable partial dentures (IC-RPDs) for edentulism are scarce. The purpose of this study was to evaluate survival rates and marginal bone loss (MBL) of IC-RPDs compared to implant overdentures (IODs) in mandibular edentulism. Variables that influenced survival and marginal bone loss (MBL) of implants in both treatment modalities were analyzed and the functional/esthetic satisfaction of patients as well as prosthetic complications were also observed. Eighteen IC-RPDs with a total of 60 implant-supported survey crowns and 24 IODs with a total 94 implants retained with magnet attachments were observed. After a median observation period of 46.6 months (up to 149 months), we observed 98.3% implant survival rates for IC-RPDs and 92.5% for IODs. Kaplan–Meier survival curves based on the treatment modality showed that, at 96 months, cumulative survival rates were 98.3% in IC-RPD and 83.1% in IOD. For implant survival rates, no statistical differences were observed according to age, sex, opposing dentition, or implant positions (p = 0.515, 0.666, 0.201, 0.749, respectively). The implant MBL measurements for IC-RPD and IOD groups at the final recall check were 0.93 ± 1.22 mm and 2.12 ± 2.09 mm, respectively. Additionally, there were no significant differences between groups (p = 0.554). The implants with peri-implantitis at year 1 showed significantly higher MBL at final check-up (p < 0.001). The MBL of implants showed significant differences based on age (p = 0.008) and opposing dentition (p = 0.003). No significant differences of implant MBL were observed for the position of placed implants (p = 0.621) or sex (p = 0.666). Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) on functional and esthetic satisfaction were significantly improved after IC-RPD or IOD treatment (p < 0.001). The most frequent prosthetic complication of IC-RPD was clasp loosening, while for IOD group, it was attachment dislodgement. Within the limitations of this retrospective study, we concluded that IC-RPDs could be considered as a viable treatment option for edentulous patients who need few fixed abutments for satisfaction.

[The importance of patient reported outcome measures in Pompe disease]

Background and purpose

In recent decades it has become increasingly important to involve patients in their diagnostic and treatment process to improve treatment outcomes and optimize compliance. By their involvement, patients can become active participants in therapeutic developments and their observations can be utilized in determining the unmet needs and priorities in clinical research. This is especially true in rare diseases such as Pompe disease. Pompe disease is a genetically determined lysosomal storage disease featuring severe limb-girdle and axial muscle weakness accompanied with respiratory insufficiency, in which enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) now has been available for 15 years.

Methods

In our present study, patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) for individuals affected with Pompe disease were developed which included questionnaires assessing general quality of life (EuroQoL, EQ-5D, SF36), daily activities and motor performance (Fatigue Severity Score, R-PAct-Scale, Rotterdam and Bartel disability scale). Data were collected for three subsequent years. The PROM questionnaires were a good complement to the physician-recorded condition assessment, and on certain aspects only PROMs provided information (e.g. fatigue in excess of patients' objective muscle weakness; deteriorating social activities despite stagnant physical abilities; significant individual differences in certain domains). The psychological effects of disease burden were also reflected in PROMs.

Results

In addition to medical examination and certain endpoints monitored by physicians, patient perspectives need to be taken into account when assessing the effectiveness of new, innovative treatments. With involvement of patients, information can be obtained that might remain uncovered during regular medical visits, although it is essential in determining the directions and priorities of clinical research.

Conclusion

For all orphan medicines we emphasize to include patients in a compulsory manner to obtain general and disease-specific multidimensional outcome measures and use them as a quality indicator to monitor treatment effectiveness.

Choosing the right survey-patient reported outcomes in esophageal surgery

Patient reported outcomes (PROs) fulfill a crucial and unique niche in patient management, providing health-care providers a glimpse into their patients’ health experience. This is of utmost importance in patients with benign and malignant disorders of esophagus requiring surgery, which carries significant morbidity, in part due to a high burden of symptoms affecting health-related quality of life (HRQOL). There are a variety of generic and disease-specific patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) available for use in esophageal surgery. This article provides a broad overview of commonly used HRQOL instruments in esophageal surgery, including their utility in comparative effectiveness research, prognostication and shared decision-making for patients undergoing surgery for benign and malignant disorders of the esophagus.

Development of a Questionnaire to Assess Patient Priorities in Hip Fracture Care

Background:

Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are becoming well recognized as an important component of health care outcomes and determinants of value in patient-centered care. Yet, there is emerging recognition that guidance is lacking in the utilization of PROMs in hip fracture patients. The aim of this study was to collect input from hip fracture patients and their health care advocates as proxies to identify outcomes that are important and to gain insight into which ones are of greatest importance.

Methods:

A cross-section of patients aged 65 and older treated for hip fractures at a single level 1 trauma center within the previous 3 to 9 months was identified. Semistructured telephone interviews of patients and/or health care proxies were performed in 2 phases: (1) concept identification and conceptual framework development and (2) item generation and assessment of relative importance of health care outcomes. Each phase was completed by separate patient cohorts.

Results:

Sixty-four interviews were completed. Eighteen interviews with 13 patients and 5 proxies were completed for framework development. Forty-six interviews with 33 patients and 13 proxies were completed for the assessment of relative importance. Care team and communication were reported as important in hip fracture patients. Physical outcomes were ranked as most important by only 9% of respondents. “Having confidence that I/my loved one received the best care possible” was perceived as very important by 98% of respondents and “Having access to the surgeon” was perceived as very important by 76% of the respondents.

Conclusions:

In our study, communication between patients and care providers as well as collaboration among patients’ care providers ranked as the most important postoperative preferences in our cohort. Notably, physical outcomes were ranked as most important by only 9% of respondents.

A systematic review of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) and quality of life reporting in patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy

Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) provide a valuable means of measuring outcomes subjectively from a patient's perspective, facilitating the assessment of service quality across healthcare providers, and assisting patients and clinicians in shared decision making. The primary aim of this systematic review was to critically appraise all historic studies evaluating patient reported quality of life, in adult patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy for symptomatic gallstones. The secondary aim was to perform a quality assessment of cholecystectomy-specific PROM-validation studies. A literature review was performed in PubMed, Google ScholarTM, the Cochrane Library, Medline, CINAHL, EMBASE and PsychINFO databases up to September 2017. Study characteristics, PROM-specific details and a bias assessment were summarised for non-validation studies. A COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) analysis was performed to assess the methodological quality of identified PROM-validation studies. Fifty one studies were found to evaluate health-related quality of life (HRQoL) after laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Although 94.1% of these studies included PROMs as a primary outcome measure, <20% provided level 1 evidence through randomised controlled trials (RCTs). There was significant variation in the selection and reporting of PROMs, with no studies declaring patient involvement in PROM selection, and 88.2% of studies failing to document the management of missing data points, or non-returned surveys (33.3%). In the 6 PROM-validation studies identified, only 5 psychometric properties were evaluated, the findings of which were limited due to the small number of studies. This systematic review identifies a lack in consistency of study design and PRO reporting in clinical trials. Whilst an increasing number of studies are being performed to evaluate PROs, a lack of adherence to existing PRO administration and reporting guidelines is continuing to negatively affect study quality. We recommend that future clinical trials utilizing PROs should adhere to established comprehensive guidelines as described.

Development of an International Standard Set of Value-Based Outcome Measures for Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease: A Report of the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) CKD Working Group

Value-based health care is increasingly promoted as a strategy for improving care quality by benchmarking outcomes that matter to patients relative to the cost of obtaining those outcomes. To support the shift toward value-based health care in chronic kidney disease (CKD), the International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM) assembled an international working group of health professionals and patient representatives to develop a standardized minimum set of patient-centered outcomes targeted for clinical use. The considered outcomes and patient-reported outcome measures were generated from systematic literature reviews. Feedback was sought from patients and health professionals. Patients with very high-risk CKD (stages G3a/A3 and G3b/A2-G5, including dialysis, kidney transplantation, and conservative care) were selected as the target population. Using an online modified Delphi process, outcomes important to all patients were selected, such as survival and hospitalization, and to treatment-specific subgroups, such as vascular access survival and kidney allograft survival. Patient-reported outcome measures were included to capture domains of health-related quality of life, which were rated as the most important outcomes by patients. Demographic and clinical variables were identified to be used as case-mix adjusters. Use of these consensus recommendations could enable institutions to monitor, compare, and improve the quality of their CKD care.

Quality of life after lung resection for lung cancer

Radical and palliative treatments for non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) have been reported to have a significant impact on the patient quality of life (QoL). The increasing improvements in lung cancer diagnosis and cures in recent years have changed the perspectives of quantity and quality of the life after cancer in these patients. However, despite a growing interest about patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in surgical oncology, we are quite distant from a routine collection of QoL data after pulmonary resection for NSCLC. The presence of this gap is due to several reasons: the lack of validated surgical-specific questionnaires, the inappropriate consideration of traditional objective parameters as surrogates of QoL outcomes and the difficulties in dealing with missing items in this type of research. However, a recent the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons (ESTS) survey exploring the use of QoL data in our field has revealed that almost half of the units responding to the questionnaire collect QoL informations from their patients. Increased consensus and collaboration between surgeons are needed to include routinely PROMs in randomized controlled trials. The objective of this paper is to review the best available evidence published in the literature and regarding QoL after lung resection for cancer, aiming at identifying topics deserving further investigations.

Total knee arthroplasty and the unforeseen impact on return to work: a cross-sectional multicenter survey

The number of patients receiving a TKA during working life is increasing but little is known about the impact of TKA on patients' reintegration into the workplace. In this cross-sectional survey it was found that 173 of 480 responders worked within 2 years prior to surgery. Sixty-three percent of the working patients stopped within two weeks prior to surgery and 102 patients returned within 6 months. One third never returned to work. Activities that most improved were operating foot pedals, operating vehicles, standing and walking on level terrain. Activities that least improved were kneeling, crouching and clambering. Fifty patients scored 5 or less on the Work Ability Index. Thirty patients were dissatisfied. TKA significantly, but unequally, reduces difficulties in carrying out knee-burdening work activities.

Using patient-reported outcome measures to estimate cost-effectiveness of hip replacements in English hospitals

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the average cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) gained from hip surgery, and to examine the variation in that between hospitals.

DESIGN

The transformation of patient-reported outcome measures (EQ-5D data) into QALYs, covering 25,463 NHS patient episodes between April 2009 and August 2010 from hospitals in England, using a model of future health change arising from a hip operation compared to a counterfactual of no operation. Hospital-level costs for hip procedures from the National Reference Costs data-set was used to calculate the hospitals' cost per QALY.

SETTING

English hospitals treating NHS-funded patients undergoing hip replacement.

PARTICIPANTS

NHS-funded patients undergoing primary hip replacement.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Cost per QALY.

RESULTS

Assuming some degradation in patients' health over the lifetime of the hip prosthesis, average health gain arising from a hip operation was 2.77 QALYs. For procedures paid for by the NHS but carried out in the independent sector the average gain was 2.97 QALYs. Average NHS hospital hip procedure costs were estimated to be £5844. The unweighted average cost per QALY for NHS hospitals was £2128. There were significant variations in cost per QALY between hospitals; most of this variation appears to be driven by variations in cost, not QALYs.

CONCLUSIONS

Using the new patient-assessed health-related quality of life data combined with routine hospital-level cost data it is possible to estimate a procedure-based measure of efficiency for hospitals. The fact that variations in cost per QALY are strongly driven by variations in cost suggests that further work is needed to investigate the causes of cost variations per se--especially the quality of routine NHS cost data.