Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES IN RARE LYSOSOMAL STORAGE DISEASES: KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS AND A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL

  • Patricia A. Miller (a1), Sohail M. Mulla (a2), Thomasin Adams-Webber (a3), Yasmin Sivji (a4), Gordon H. Guyatt (a2) and Bradley C. Johnston (a3)...

Abstract

Objectives: To investigate the use, challenges and opportunities associated with using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in studies with patients with rare lysosomal storage diseases (LSDs), we conducted interviews with researchers and health technology assessment (HTA) experts, and developed the methods for a systematic review of the literature. The purpose of the review is to identify the psychometrically sound generic and disease-specific PROs used in studies with patients with five LSDs of interest: Fabry, Gaucher (Type I), Niemann-Pick (Type B) and Pompe diseases, and mucopolysaccharidosis (Types I and II).

Methods: Researchers and HTA experts who responded to an email invitation participated in a telephone interview. We used qualitative content analysis to analyze the anonymized transcripts. We conducted a comprehensive literature search for studies that used PROs to investigate burden of disease or to assess the impact of interventions across the five LSDs of interest.

Results: Interviews with seven researchers and six HTA experts representing eight countries revealed five themes. These were: (i) the importance of using psychometrically sound PROs in studies with rare diseases, (ii) the paucity of disease-specific PROs, (iii) the importance of having PRO data for economic analyses, (iv) practical and psychometric limitations of existing PROs, and (v) suggestions for new PROs. The systematic review has been completed.

Conclusions: The interviews highlight current challenges and opportunities experienced by researchers and HTA experts involved in work with rare LSDs. The ongoing systematic review will highlight the experience, opportunities, and limitations of PROs in LSDs and provide suggestions for future research.

Copyright

References

Hide All
1. Guyatt, G, Montori, V, Devereaux, PJ, Schunemann, H, Bhandari, M. Patients at the center: In our practice, and in our use of language. ACP J Club. 2004;140:A11A12.
2. Johnston, BC, Donen, R, Pooni, A, et al. Conceptual framework for health-related quality of life assessment in acute gastroenteritis. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 2013;56:280289.
3. Fayers, P, Machin, D. Quality of life: The assessment, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 2013.
4. US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: Patient-reported outcome measures. Use in medical product development to support labeling claims; 2009. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidances/ucm193282.pdf (accessed February 4, 2016).
5. Rahimi, K, Malhotra, A, Banning, AP, Jenkinson, C. Outcome selection and role of patient reported outcomes in contemporary cardiovascular trials: Systematic review. BMJ. 2010;341:c5707.
6. Kalyoncu, U, Dougados, M, Daures, JP, Gossec, L. Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in recent trials in rheumatoid arthritis: A systematic literature review. Ann Rheum Dis. 2009;68:183190.
7. European Network for Health Technology Assessment. Endpoints used for relative effectiveness assessment of pharmaceuticals: Health-related quality of life and utility measures; 2013. http://www.eunethta.eu/sites/5026.fedimbo.belgium.be/files/Health-related%20quality%20of%20life.pdf (accessed February 4, 2016).
8. Reeve, BB, Wyrwich, KW, Wu, AW, et al. ISOQOL recommends minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures used in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research. Qual Life Res. 2013;22:18891905.
9. Magasi, S, Ryan, G, Revicki, D, et al. Content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: Perspectives from a PROMIS meeting. Qual Life Res. 2012;21:739746.
10. Richardson, J, Chen, G, Khan, MA, Iezzi, A. Subjective wellbeing versus utility: Incommensurable or mismeasured construct. Working Paper 04-14; 2014. http://www.aqol.com.au/papers/workingpaper04-14.pdf (accessed February 4, 2016).
11. Hsieh, HF, Shannon, SE. Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qual Health Res. 2005;15:12771288.
12. Creswell, JW. Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among the five traditions. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, Inc; 1998.
13. Wiebe, S, Guyatt, G, Weaver, B, Matijevic, S, Sidwell, C. Comparative responsiveness of generic and specific quality-of-life instruments. J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56:5260.
14. Schunemann, HJ, Guyatt, GH. Commentary–goodbye M(C)ID! Hello MID, where do you come from? Health Serv Res. 2005;40:593597.
15. Guyatt, GH, Osoba, D, Wu, AW, Wyrwich, KW, Norman, GR. Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clin Proc. 2002;77:371383.
16. Guyatt, GH, Juniper, EF, Walter, SD, Griffith, LE, Goldstein, RS. Interpreting treatment effects in randomised trials. BMJ. 1998 Feb 28;316:690693.
17. Norman, GR, Sloan, JA, Wyrwich, KW. Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: The remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care. 2003;41:582592.
18. Ware, JE Jr. SF-36 health survey update. Spine. 2000;25:31303139.
19. Sullivan, M, Karlsson, J, Ware, JE Jr. The Swedish SF-36 Health Survey–I. Evaluation of data quality, scaling assumptions, reliability and construct validity across general populations in Sweden. Soc Sci Med. 1995;41:13491358.
20. Schermuly, I, Muller, MJ, Muller, KM, et al. Neuropsychiatric symptoms and brain structural alterations in Fabry disease. Eur J Neurol. 2011;18:347353.
21. Kosinski, M, Zhao, SZ, Dedhiya, S, Osterhaus, JT, Jr, Ware JE. Determining minimally important changes in generic and disease-specific health-related quality of life questionnaires in clinical trials of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2000;43:14781487.
22. Szende, A, Oppe, M, Devlin, NJ, editors. EQ-5D value sets: Inventory, comparative review and user guide. Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer; 2007.
23. Kind, P, Hardman, G, Macran, S. UK population norms for EQ-5D; 1999. http://www.york.ac.uk/media/che/documents/papers/discussionpapers/CHE%20Discussion%20Paper%20172.pdf (accessed February 4, 2016).
24. Walters, SJ, Brazier, JE. Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual Life Res. 2005;14:15231532.
25. Cleeland, CS, Ryan, KM. Pain assessment: Global use of the Brief Pain Inventory. Ann Acad Med Singapore. 1994;23:129138.
26. Dworkin, RH, Turk, DC, Wyrwich, KW, et al. Interpreting the clinical importance of treatment outcomes in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. J Pain. 2008;9:105121.
27. Melzack, R. The short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire. Pain. 1987;30:191197.
28. Ro, LS, Chen, CM, Chang, HS, et al. Contribution of clinical screening to carrier detection in a large Chinese family with Fabry disease due to a novel alpha-galactosidase A gene deletion. Eur J Neurol. 2007;14:493497.
29. Krupp, LB, LaRocca, NG, Muir-Nash, J, Steinberg, AD. The fatigue severity scale. Application to patients with multiple sclerosis and systemic lupus erythematosus. Arch Neurol. 1989;46:11211123.
30. Merkies, IS, Schmitz, PI, Samijn, JP, van der Meche, FG, van Doorn, PA. Fatigue in immune-mediated polyneuropathies. European Inflammatory Neuropathy Cause and Treatment (INCAT) Group. Neurology. 1999;53:16481654.
31. Singh, G, Athreya, B, Fries, JF, Goldsmith, DP. Measurement of health status in children with juvenile rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 1994;37:17611769.
32. Nugent, J, Ruperto, N, Grainger, J, et al. The British version of the Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire (CHAQ) and the Child Health Questionnaire (CHQ). Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2001;19 (Suppl 23):S163S167.
33. Dempster, H, Porepa, M, Young, N, Feldman, BM. The clinical meaning of functional outcome scores in children with juvenile arthritis. Arthritis Rheum. 2001;44:17681774.
34. Merkies, IS, Schmitz, PI, Van Der Meche, FG, Samijn, JP, Van Doorn, PA. Psychometric evaluation of a new handicap scale in immune-mediated polyneuropathies. Muscle Nerve. 2002;25:370377.
35. Hagemans, ML, Laforet, P, Hop, WJ, et al. Impact of late-onset Pompe disease on participation in daily life activities: Evaluation of the Rotterdam Handicap Scale. Neuromuscul Disord. 2007; 17:537543.
36. Johnston, BC, Miller, PA, Agarwal, A, et al. Limited responsiveness related to the minimal important difference of patient-reported outcomes in rare diseases. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016; Jul 2. pii: S0895-4356(16)30187-1. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.06.010. [Epub ahead of print]

Keywords

Related content

Powered by UNSILO
Type Description Title
WORD
Supplementary materials

Miller supplementary material
Miller supplementary material 1

 Word (108 KB)
108 KB
WORD
Supplementary materials

Miller supplementary material
Miller supplementary material 2

 Word (109 KB)
109 KB
WORD
Supplementary materials

Miller supplementary material
Miller supplementary material 3

 Word (36 KB)
36 KB
WORD
Supplementary materials

Miller supplementary material
Miller supplementary material 4

 Word (25 KB)
25 KB

PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES IN RARE LYSOSOMAL STORAGE DISEASES: KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS AND A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW PROTOCOL

  • Patricia A. Miller (a1), Sohail M. Mulla (a2), Thomasin Adams-Webber (a3), Yasmin Sivji (a4), Gordon H. Guyatt (a2) and Bradley C. Johnston (a3)...

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.