Measurement properties of painDETECT: Rasch analysis of responses from community-dwelling adults with neuropathic pain

© 2017 The Author(s). Background: painDETECT (PD-Q) is a self-reported assessment of pain qualities developed as a screening tool for pain of neuropathic origin. Rasch analysis is a strategy for examining the measurement characteristics of a scale using a form of item response theory. We conducted a Rasch analysis to consider if the scoring and measurement properties of PD-Q would support its use as an outcome measure. Methods: Rasch analysis was conducted on PD-Q scores drawn from a cross-sectional study of the burden and costs of NeP. The analysis followed an iterative process based on recommendations in the literature, including examination of sequential scoring categories, unidimensionality, reliability and differential item function. Data from 624 persons with a diagnosis of painful diabetic polyneuropathy, small fibre neuropathy, and neuropathic pain associated with chronic low back pain, spinal cord injury, HIV-related pain, or chronic post-surgical pain was used for this analysis. Results: PD-Q demonstrated fit to the Rasch model after adjustments of scoring categories for four items, and omission of the time course and radiating questions. The resulting seven-item scale of pain qualities demonstrated good reliability with a person-separation index of 0.79. No scoring bias (differential item functioning) was found for this version. Conclusions: Rasch modelling suggests the seven pain-qualities items from PD-Q may be used as an outcome measure. Further research is required to confirm validity and responsiveness in a clinical setting

Psychometric properties of a single-item scale to assess sleep quality among individuals with fibromyalgia

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Sleep disturbances are a common and bothersome symptom of fibromyalgia (FM). This study reports psychometric properties of a single-item scale to assess sleep quality among individuals with FM.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Analyses were based on data from two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of pregabalin (studies 1056 and 1077). In a daily diary, patients reported the quality of their sleep on a numeric rating scale ranging from 0 ("best possible sleep") to 10 ("worst possible sleep"). Test re-test reliability of the Sleep Quality Scale was evaluated by computing intraclass correlation coefficients. Pearson correlation coefficients were computed between baseline Sleep Quality scores and baseline pain diary and Medical Outcomes Study (MOS) Sleep scores. Responsiveness to treatment was evaluated by standardized effect sizes computed as the difference between least squares mean changes in Sleep Quality scores in the pregabalin and placebo groups divided by the standard deviation of Sleep Quality scores across all patients at baseline.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Studies 1056 and 1077 included 748 and 745 patients, respectively. Most patients were female (study 1056: 94.4%; study 1077: 94.5%) and white (study 1056: 90.2%; study 1077: 91.0%). Mean ages were 48.8 years (study 1056) and 50.1 years (study 1077). Test re-test reliability coefficients of the Sleep Quality Scale were 0.91 and 0.90 in the 1056 and 1077 studies, respectively. Pearson correlation coefficients between baseline Sleep Quality scores and baseline pain diary scores were 0.64 (p < 0.001) and 0.58 (p < 0.001) in the 1056 and 1077 studies, respectively. Correlations between the Sleep Quality Scale and the MOS Sleep subscales were statistically significant (p < 0.01), except for the MOS Snoring subscale. Across both studies, standardized effect sizes were generally moderate (0.46 to 0.52) for the 300 mg group and moderate (0.59) or moderate-to-large (0.70) for the 450 mg group. In study 1056, the effect size for the 600 mg group was moderate-to-large (0.73). In study 1077, the effect size for the 600 mg group was large (0.82).</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>These results provide evidence of the reproducibility, convergent validity, and responsiveness to treatment of the Sleep Quality Scale and provide a foundation for its further use and evaluation in FM patients.</p

Hierarchical Construct Validity of the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM Version II) among Outpatient Pharmacy Consumers

AbstractObjectivesThe objectives of this study were twofold: 1) to evaluate the construct validity of the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM v. II) using structural equation modeling (SEM); and 2) to assess its concurrent validity using medication adherence criteria.MethodsPharmacy patients filling a new medication prescription (n = 342) were recruited from 14 Michigan pharmacies to participate in a 4-week treatment satisfaction study. The TSQM v. II was tested for model fit against an established theoretical model (the Decisional Balance Model of Treatment Satisfaction) using hierarchical confirmatory factor analysis (HCFA). Regression and discriminant analytic models were used to examine the criterion-related validity of the measure.ResultsAn exploratory factor analysis, used for TSQM v. II item reduction, revealed a strongly dimensional instrument (Effectiveness, Side Effects, and Convenience) and explained 88% of total pooled variance. Results of an HCFA using the final TSQM v. II items suggested a good model fit with the data (P > 0.54). In support of concurrent validity, the TSQM scales explained between 9% and 20% of the variance in dosing adherence and 60% of the variance in the likelihood of future use. Discriminant analysis demonstrated the superior classification power of the hierarchical model of treatment satisfaction over the discrete attribute model when predicting medication discontinuation.ConclusionsThe TSQM v. II has equivalent measurement characteristics as the TSQM v. I, yet uses four fewer items and more consistent wording. The value of the Decisional Balance Model for estimation of dosing adherence and medication persistence over time is discussed

Relationships between changes in pain severity and other patient-reported outcomes: an analysis in patients with posttraumatic peripheral neuropathic pain

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The objective of this study is to use the pain numeric rating scale (NRS) to evaluate associations between change in pain severity and changes in sleep, function, and mood assessed via patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with posttraumatic pain.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This is a secondary analysis of a clinical trial evaluating pregabalin in patients with posttraumatic peripheral neuropathic pain (N = 254). Regression models were used to determine associations between changes in pain (0-10 NRS) as the predictor and scores on the following PRO measures as the outcome: Pain Interference Index; Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale anxiety and depression subscales; Medical Outcomes Study-Sleep Scale 9-item Sleep Problems Index and Sleep Disturbance subscale; and Daily Sleep Interference Scale (0-10 NRS).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Change in pain severity showed clear, direct relationships with changes in function, anxiety, depression, and sleep PROs, all of which were statistically significant (<it>P </it><.001). Results from subgroup analyses (≥30% or ≥50% pain responders, pregabalin or placebo treatment, age ≤ 51 years or > 51 years) tended to be consistent with results from the overall sample.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Overall, a direct relationship exists between pain and various aspects of patient's well-being and functioning, which can provide a quantitative assessment of how improvements in pain may be expected to relate to other patient outcomes. (<url>http://ClinicalTrials.gov</url> Identifier number NCT00292188; EudraCT #2005-003048-78).</p

Impact of Electronic Chronic Pain Questions on patient-reported outcomes and healthcare utilization, and attitudes toward eCPQ use among patients and physicians: prospective pragmatic study in a US general practice setting

OBJECTIVE: The Electronic Chronic Pain Questions (eCPQ) has been developed to help healthcare providers systematically capture chronic pain data. This study evaluated the impact of using the eCPQ on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and healthcare resource utilization (HCRU) in a primary care setting, and patient and physician perceptions regarding use of, and satisfaction with, the eCPQ. METHODS: This was a prospective pragmatic study conducted at the Internal Medicine clinic within the Henry Ford Health (HFH) Detroit campus between June 2017 and April 2020. Patients (aged ≥18 years) attending the clinic for chronic pain were allocated to an Intervention Group to complete the eCPQ in addition to regular care, or a control group to receive regular care only. The Patient Health Questionnaire-2 and a Patient Global Assessment were assessed at baseline, 6-months, and 12-months study visits. HCRU data were extracted from the HFH database. Telephone qualitative interviews were conducted with randomly selected patients and physicians who used the eCPQ. RESULTS: Two hundred patients were enrolled, 79 in each treatment group completed all 3 study visits. No significant differences (p \u3e 0.05) were found in PROs and HCRU between the 2 groups. In qualitative interviews, physicians and patients reported the eCPQ as useful, and using the eCPQ improved patient-clinician interactions. CONCLUSION: Adding the eCPQ to regular care for patients with chronic pain did not significantly impact the PROs assessed in this study. However, qualitative interviews suggested that the eCPQ was a well-accepted and potentially useful tool from a patient and physician perspective. By using the eCPQ, patients were better prepared when they attended a primary care visit for their chronic pain and the quality of patient-physician communication was increased

Effect of tofacitinib on patient-reported outcomes in patients with active psoriatic arthritis and an inadequate response to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors in the phase III, randomised controlled trial: OPAL Beyond.

Objectives: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were evaluated in patients with PsA with inadequate responses to tumour necrosis factor inhibitors (TNFi-IR) in a 6-month, phase III randomised controlled trial (OPAL Beyond [NCT01882439]). Methods: Patients (N=394) received tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily or placebo (advancing to tofacitinib 5 or 10 mg twice daily at month 3). Least squares mean changes from baseline and percentages of patients reporting improvements ≥minimum clinically important differences and scores ≥normative values were determined in Patient Global Assessment of disease activity (PtGA), Pain, Patient Global Joint and Skin Assessment (PGJS), Short Form-36 Health Survey version 2 (SF-36v2), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue), EuroQol 5-Dimensions-3-level (EQ-5D-3L), EQ-VAS and Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life (ASQoL). Nominal p values are without multiple comparison adjustments. Results: At month 3, PtGA, Pain, PGJS, SF-36v2 Physical Component Summary (PCS), physical functioning (PF), bodily pain (BP), vitality and social functioning (SF) domains, FACIT-Fatigue Total score, EQ-5D-3L pain/discomfort, EQ-VAS and ASQoL scores exceeded placebo with both tofacitinib doses (role physical [RP] with 10 mg twice daily only; p≤0.05). Patients reporting improvements ≥MCID (%) in PtGA, PGJS, Pain, ASQoL and SF-36v2 PCS, PF, RP, BP, SF (both tofacitinib doses) exceeded placebo (p≤0.05). Conclusion: TNFi-IR patients with PsA receiving tofacitinib reported statistically and clinically meaningful improvements in PROs versus placebo over 3 months, which were maintained to month 6. Despite lower baseline scores, these improvements were similar to the csDMARD-IR TNFi-naive OPAL Broaden trial

Tofacitinib or adalimumab versus placebo: patient-reported outcomes from OPAL Broaden-a phase III study of active psoriatic arthritis in patients with an inadequate response to conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs.

Objectives: Tofacitinib is an oral Janus kinase inhibitor for treatment of psoriatic arthritis (PsA). We evaluated patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients with PsA refractory to ≥1 conventional synthetic disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (csDMARD-IR) and tumour necrosis factor inhibitor-naïve in a 12-month, phase III randomised controlled trial (OPAL Broaden [NCT01877668]). Methods: Patients (N=422) received tofacitinib 5 mg or 10 mg twice daily, adalimumab 40 mg subcutaneously every 2 weeks or placebo advancing to tofacitinib 5 mg or 10 mg twice daily at month 3. Least squares mean changes from baseline and percentages of patients reporting improvements ≥minimum clinically important differences (MCID); and scores ≥normative values in: Patient Global Assessment of disease activity (PtGA), Pain, Patient Global Joint and Skin Assessment (PGJS), Short Form-36 Health Survey version 2 (SF-36v2), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue), EuroQol 5-Dimensions-3-level questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) and Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life (ASQoL) were determined. Nominal p values were cited without multiple comparison adjustments. Results: At month 3, PtGA, Pain, PGJS, FACIT-Fatigue, EQ-5D-3L, ASQoL and SF-36v2 Physical Component Summary (PCS), physical functioning (PF), bodily pain (BP) and vitality domain scores exceeded placebo with both tofacitinib doses (p≤0.05); SF-36v2 social functioning with 5 mg twice daily (p≤0.05). Percentages reporting improvements ≥MCID in PtGA, Pain, PGJS, FACIT-Fatigue, ASQoL and SF-36v2 PCS, PF, BP and general health scores exceeded placebo with both tofacitinib doses (p≤0.05) and were similar with adalimumab. Conclusion: csDMARD-IR patients with active PsA reported statistically and clinically meaningful improvements in PROs with tofacitinib compared with placebo at Month 3

Overall survival of glasdegib in combination with low-dose cytarabine, azacitidine, and decitabine among adult patients with previously untreated AML: comparative effectiveness using simulated treatment comparisons.

BACKGROUND: Until recently, treatments for older patients with AML ineligible to receive intensive chemotherapies were limited to hypomethylating agents, low-dose cytarabine (LDAC), or clinical trials. In 2018, the FDA approved combination glasdegib (GLAS) plus LDAC based on Phase II results demonstrating improved overall survival (OS) versus LDAC alone in previously untreated AML. However, no randomized clinical trials have directly compared GLAS + LDAC with other AML treatments. OBJECTIVE: Using both indirect treatment comparison (ITC) and simulated treatment comparison (STC), which adjusts for baseline differences between trials, the comparative effectiveness of GLAS + LDAC was compared with hypomethylating agent azacitidine (AZA) or decitabine (DEC). METHODS: A systematic literature review identified published trials of AZA or DEC versus LDAC among older AML patients ineligible for high-intensity chemotherapy. In addition to standard and covariate-adjusted ITC, STC was performed following guidance from the NICE Decision Support Unit (DSU). Using individual patient data from the Phase II GLAS + LDAC study, population-specific OS hazard ratios (HR) for GLAS + LDAC versus AZA or DEC were compared. Furthermore, covariate-adjusted ITC (Cox multivariate models) and STC were repeated using GLAS + LDAC versus LDAC data propensity-weighted for within-trial mean cytogenetic risk. As this initial step was not specified in the DSU, results from this second method were compared to the first STC following DSU guidance only. RESULTS: Standard ITC and STC both demonstrated significantly improved OS for GLAS + LDAC versus either AZA or DEC. Adjusting for key covariates, STC stepwise exponential models demonstrated GLAS + LDAC superiority to both AZA (HR=0.424; 95% CI: 0.228, 0.789) and DEC (HR=0.505; 95% CI: 0.269, 0.949). These significant results held using full or step-wise approaches, following DSU guidance only or the weighted STC approach. CONCLUSION: Using ITC and STC, GLAS + LDAC demonstrated superior OS to AZA or DEC in an adult population with previously untreated AML for whom intensive chemotherapy is not an option