Responsiveness and convergent validity of QLU-C10D and EQ-5D-3L in assessing short-term quality of life following esophagectomy

Aim: This study assessed the responsiveness and convergent validity of two preference-based measures; the newly developed cancer-specifc EORTC Quality of Life Utility Measure-Core 10 dimensions (QLU-C10D) relative to the generic three-level version of the EuroQol 5 dimensions (EQ-5D-3L) in evaluating short-term health related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes after esophagectomy. Methods: Participants were enrolled in a multicentre randomised controlled trial to determine the impact of preoperative and postoperative immunonutrition versus standard nutrition in patients with esophageal cancer. HRQoL was assessed seven days before and 42 days after esophagectomy. Standardized Response Mean and Efect Size were calculated to assess responsiveness. Ceiling efects for each dimension were calculated as the proportion of the best level responses for that dimension at follow-up/post-operatively. Convergent validity was assessed using Spearman’s correlation and the level of agreement was explored using Bland–Altman plots. Results: Data from 164 respondents (mean age: 63 years, 81% male) were analysed. HRQoL signifcantly reduced on both measures with large efect sizes (>0.80), and a greater mean diference (0.29 compared to 0.16) on QLU-C10D. Both measures had ceiling efects (>15%) on all dimensions at baseline. Following esophagectomy, ceiling efects were observed with self-care (86%), mobility (67%), anxiety/depression (55%) and pain/discomfort (19%) dimensions on EQ-5D-3L. For QLU-C10D ceiling efects were observed with emotional function (53%), physical function (16%), nausea (35%), sleep (31%), bowel problems (21%) and pain (20%). A strong correlation (r=0.71) was observed between EQ-5D-3L anxiety and QLU-C10D emotional function dimensions. Good agreement (3.7% observations outside the limits of agreement) was observed between the utility scores. Conclusion: The QLU-C10D is comparable to the more widely applied generic EQ-5D-3L, however, QLU-C10D was more sensitive to short-term utility changes following esophagectomy. Cognisant of requirements by policy makers to apply generic utility measures in cost efectiveness studies, the disease-specifc QLU-C10D should be used alongside the generic measures like EQ-5D-3L.Norma B. Bulamu, Ravi Vissapragada, Gang Chen, Julie Ratclife, Louise A. Mudge, B. Mark Smithers, Elizabeth A. Isenring, Lorelle Smith, Glyn G. Jamieson, and David I. Watson, on behalf of The Australian Immunonutrition Study Grou

Malnutrition screening tools: Comparison against two validated nutrition assessment methods in older medical inpatients

Objective: Although several validated nutritional screening tools have been developed to "triage" inpatients for malnutrition diagnosis and intervention, there continues to be debate in the literature as to which tool/tools clinicians should use in practice. This study compared the accuracy of seven validated screening tools in older medical inpatients against two validated nutritional assessment methods. Methods: This was a prospective cohort study of medical inpatients at least 65 y old. Malnutrition screening was conducted using seven tools recommended in evidence-based guidelines. Nutritional status was assessed by an accredited practicing dietitian using the Subjective Global Assessment (SGA) and the Mini-Nutritional Assessment (MNA). Energy intake was observed on a single day during first week of hospitalization. Results: In this sample of 134 participants (80 ± 8 y old, 50% women), there was fair agreement between the SGA and MNA (κ = 0.53), with MNA identifying more "at-risk" patients and the SGA better identifying existing malnutrition. Most tools were accurate in identifying patients with malnutrition as determined by the SGA, in particular the Malnutrition Screening Tool and the Nutritional Risk Screening 2002. The MNA Short Form was most accurate at identifying nutritional risk according to the MNA. No tool accurately predicted patients with inadequate energy intake in the hospital. Conclusion: Because all tools generally performed well, clinicians should consider choosing a screening tool that best aligns with their chosen nutritional assessment and is easiest to implement in practice. This study confirmed the importance of rescreening and monitoring food intake to allow the early identification and prevention of nutritional decline in patients with a poor intake during hospitalization