Top

Quality of Life Research

Gepubliceerd in:

13-11-2022 | Special Section: Methodologies for Meaningful Change

Comparison of anchor-based methods for estimating thresholds of meaningful within-patient change using simulated PROMIS PF 20a data under various joint distribution characteristic conditions

Auteurs: Shanshan Qin, Lauren Nelson, Nicole Williams, Valerie Williams, Randall Bender, Lori McLeod

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 5/2023

Abstract

Purpose

To compare the performance of anchor-based methods for estimating thresholds of meaningful within-patient change (i.e., individual change) of clinical outcome assessments in conditions reflecting data characteristics of small- to medium-sized clinical trials.

Methods

Datasets were generated from the joint distributions of the PROMIS PF 20a T-score changes and a seven-point global change anchor measure. The 108 simulation conditions (1000 replications per condition) included combinations of three marginal distributions of T-score changes, three improvement percentages in the anchor measure, four levels of responsiveness correlations, and three sample sizes. Threshold estimation methods included mean change, median change, ROC curve, predictive modeling, half SD, and SEM. Relative bias, precision, accuracy, and measurement significance of the estimates were evaluated based on comparison with true thresholds and IRT-based individual reliable changes of PROMIS scores. Quantile regression models were applied to select and interpret effects of simulation conditions on estimation bias.

Results

When PROMIS T-score changes were distributed normally, the predictive modeling method performed best with 50% or more responders identified by the anchor; the mean and median methods were preferred with 30% responders. For skewed distributions, the median method and ROC method gained more advantages. Among the evaluated study conditions, the improvement percentage condition had the most obvious effects on estimation bias.

Conclusion

To establish accurate and precise thresholds, clinical researchers are recommended to prioritize study designs with at least 50% anchor-defined responders and strongly responsive target endpoints with highly reliable scoring calibration and to select optimal anchor-based methods given the data characteristics.

vorige artikel Establishing thresholds for meaningful within-individual change using longitudinal item response theory

volgende artikel Transitions in depression: if, how, and when depressive symptoms return during and after discontinuing antidepressants

Alleen toegankelijk voor geautoriseerde gebruikers

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. (2009). Guidance for industry: Patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Retrieved November 25, 2021, from https://www.fda.gov/media/77832/download

Food and Drug Administration. (2018). Patient-focused drug development guidance public workshop: methods to identify what is important to patients & select, develop or modify fit-for-purpose clinical outcomes assessments. Guidance 3 discussion document. Retrieved November 25, 2021, from https://www.fda.gov/media/116277/download

Food and Drug Administration. (2019). Patient-focused drug development guidance public workshop: incorporating clinical outcome assessments into endpoints for regulatory decision making. Guidance 4 discussion document. Retrieved April 18, 2021, from https://www.fda.gov/media/132505/download

Chan, E. K. H., Edwards, T. C., Haywood, K., Mikles, S. P., & Newton, L. (2019). Implementing patient-reported outcome measures in clinical practice: A companion guide to the ISOQOL user’s guide. Quality of Life Research, 28(3), 621–627. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-2048-4CrossRefPubMed

Cappelleri, J. C., & Bushmakin, A. G. (2014). Interpretation of patient-reported outcomes. Statistical methods in medical research, 23(5), 460–483. https://doi.org/10.1177/0962280213476377CrossRefPubMed

McLeod, L. D., Coon, C. D., Martin, S. A., Fehnel, S. E., & Hays, R. D. (2011). Interpreting patient-reported outcome results: US FDA guidance and emerging methods. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 11(2), 163–169. https://doi.org/10.1586/erp.11.12CrossRef

Coon, C. D. (2016). Telling the interpretation story: The case for strong anchors and multiple methods. Plenary presentation at the ISOQOL 23rd Annual Conference; October 19, 2016. Copenhagen, Denmark

Coon, C. D., & Cook, K. F. (2018). Moving from significance to real-world meaning: Methods for interpreting change in clinical outcome assessment scores. Quality of Life Research, 27(1), 33–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-017-1616-3CrossRefPubMed

Terluin, B., Eekhout, I., & Terwee, C. (2017). The anchor-based minimal important change, based on receiver operating characteristic analysis or predictive modeling, may need to be adjusted for the proportion of improved patients. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 83, 90–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.12.015CrossRefPubMed

10.

Norman, G. R., Sloan, J. A., & Wyrwich, K. W. (2003). Interpretation of changes in health-related quality-of-life: The remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Medical Care, 4, 582–592. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.MLR.0000062554.74615.4CCrossRef

11.

Wyrwich, K. W., Tierney, W. M., & Wolinsky, F. D. (1999). Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 52, 861–873. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-4356(99)00071-2CrossRefPubMed

12.

Hays, R. D., Brodsky, M., Johnston, M. F., Spritzer, K. L., & Hui, K. K. (2005). Evaluating the statistical significance of health-related quality-of-life change in individual patients. Evaluation and the Health Professions, 28(2), 160–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163278705275339CrossRefPubMed

13.

Crosby, R. D., Kolotkin, R. L., & Williams, G. R. (2003). Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 56(5), 395–407. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0895-4356(03)00044-1CrossRefPubMed

14.

Revicki, D., Hays, R. D., Cella, D., & Sloan, J. (2008). Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61(2), 102–109. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.012CrossRefPubMed

15.

Hays, R. D., Farivar, S. S., & Liu, H. (2005). Approaches and recommendations for estimating minimally important differences for health-related quality of life measures. COPD: Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease, 2, 63–67. https://doi.org/10.1081/copd-200050663CrossRefPubMed

16.

de Vet, H. C., Terluin, B., Knol, D. L., Roorda, L. D., Mokkink, L. B., Ostelo, R. W., Hendriks, E. J. M., Bouter, L. M., & Terwee, C. B. (2010). Three ways to quantify uncertainty in individually applied “minimally important change” values. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(1), 37–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.03.011CrossRefPubMed

17.

Health Measures. (2022). PROMIS® Score Cut Points. Retrieved April 18, 2022, from: www.healthmeasures.net/score-and-interpret/interpret-scores/promis

18.

Cella, D., Riley, W., Stone, A., Rothrock, N., Reeve, B., Yount, S., Amtmann, D., Bode, R., Buysse, D., Choi, S., Cook, K., Devellis, R., DeWalt, D., Fries, J. F., Gershon, R., Hahn, E. A., Lai, J. S., Pilkonis, P., Revicki, D., … PROMIS Cooperative Group. (2010). The patient-reported outcomes measurement information system (PROMIS) developed and tested its first wave of adult self-reported health outcome item banks: 2005–2008. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(11), 1179–1194. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.011CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

19.

Iman, R. L., & Conover, W.-J. (1982). A distribution-free approach to inducing rank correlation among input variables. Communications in Statistics—Simulation and Computation, 11(3), 311–334. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610918208812265CrossRef

20.

Wicklin, R. (2013). Simulating Data with SAS®. SAS Institute Inc.

21.

Coles, T. M., Chen, W., Nelson, L. M., Williams, V. S., Williams, N. J., & McLeod L. D. Current sample size practices in the psychometric evaluation of patient-reported outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Poster presented at the 2014 ISPOR 17th Annual European Congress; November 8-12, 2014. Amsterdam

22.

SAS Institute Inc. (2012). SAS proprietary software, version 9.4. SAS Institute Inc.

23.

Froud, R., & Abel, G. (2014). Using ROC curves to choose minimally important change thresholds when sensitivity and specificity are valued equally: the forgotten lesson of Pythagoras. Theoretical considerations and an example application of change in health status. PLoS ONE, 9(12), e114468. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0114468CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

24.

Sully, K., Trigg, A., Bonner, N., Moreno-Koehler, A., Trennery, C., Shah, N., Yucel, E., Panjabi, S., & Cocks, K. (2019). Estimation of minimally important differences and responder definitions for EORTC QLQ-MY20 scores in multiple myeloma patients. European Journal of Haematology, 103(5), 500–509. https://doi.org/10.1111/ejh.13316CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

25.

Musoro, J. Z., Bottomley, A., Coens, C., Eggermont, A. M., King, M. T., Cocks, K., Sprangers, M. A., Groenvold, M., Velikova, G., Flechtner, H. H., Brandberg, Y., EORTC Melanoma Group and EORTC Quality of Life Group. (2018). Interpreting European Organisation for Research and Treatment for Cancer Quality of life Questionnaire core 30 scores as minimally importantly different for patients with malignant melanoma. European Journal of Cancer, 104, 169–181. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2018.09.005CrossRefPubMed

26.

Webster, K. E., & Feller, J. A. (2021). Evaluation of the responsiveness of the Anterior Cruciate Ligament Return to Sport After Injury (ACL-RSI) scale. Orthopedic Journal of Sports Medicine, 9(8), 23259671211031240. https://doi.org/10.1177/23259671211031240CrossRef

27.

Zou, H. (2006). The adaptive LASSO and its oracle properties. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 101(476), 1418–1429. https://doi.org/10.1198/016214506000000735CrossRef

28.

Morozova, O., Levina, O., Uusküla, A., et al. (2015). Comparison of subset selection methods in linear regression in the context of health-related quality of life and substance abuse in Russia. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 15, 71. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-015-0066-2CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

29.

Mehta, L., McNeill, M., Hobart, J., Wyrwich, K. W., Poon, J. L., Auguste, P., Zhong, J., & Elkins, J. (2015). Identifying an important change estimate for the Multiple Sclerosis Walking Scale-12 (MSWS-12v1) for interpreting clinical trial results. Multiple Sclerosis Journal—Experimental, Translational, and Clinical, 1, 2055217315596993. https://doi.org/10.1177/2055217315596993CrossRefPubMed

30.

Symonds, T., Spino, C., Sisson, M., Soni, P., Martin, M., Gunter, L., & Patrick, D. L. (2007). Methods to determine the minimum important difference for a sexual event diary used by postmenopausal women with hypoactive sexual desire disorder. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 4(5), 1328–1335. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2007.00562.xCrossRefPubMed

31.

Fayers, P. M., & Hays, R. D. (2014). Don’t middle your MIDs: Regression to the mean shrinks estimates of minimally important differences. Quality of Life Research, 23(1), 1–4. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-013-0443-4CrossRefPubMed

32.

Hopkins, C., Gillett, S., Slack, R., Lund, V. J., & Browne, J. P. (2009). Psychometric validity of the 22-item sinonasal outcome test. Clinical Otolaryngology, 34, 447–454. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-4486.2009.01995.xCrossRefPubMed

33.

Spearman, C. (1904). The proof and measurement of association between two things. American Journal of Psychology, 15(1), 72–101. https://doi.org/10.2307/1412159CrossRef

Titel: Comparison of anchor-based methods for estimating thresholds of meaningful within-patient change using simulated PROMIS PF 20a data under various joint distribution characteristic conditions
Auteurs: Shanshan Qin
Lauren Nelson
Nicole Williams
Valerie Williams
Randall Bender
Lori McLeod
Publicatiedatum: 13-11-2022
Uitgeverij: Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 5/2023
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-022-03285-x

Bohn Stafleu van Loghum

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

Abstract

Purpose

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Log in om toegang te krijgen

Andere artikelen Uitgave 5/2023

Correction: Likely change indexes improve estimates of individual change on patient‑reported outcomes

Comparison of raw and regression approaches to capturing change on patient-reported outcome measures

Predictors of change in asthma-related quality of life: a longitudinal real-life study in adult asthmatics

Lived experience of patients with sleep apnea: a systematic synthesis of qualitative evidence

Introduction to the special section: “Methodologies and considerations for meaningful change”

Measuring individual true change with PROMIS using IRT-based plausible values