A Content Framework of a Novel Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Detecting Early Adverse Events After Major Abdominal Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Systematic health monitoring with patient-reported outcome instruments may predict post-discharge complications after major surgery. The objective of this study was to conceptualize a novel patient-reported outcome instrument for detecting early adverse events within two weeks of discharge after major emergency abdominal surgery and colorectal cancer surgery. METHODS: This study was conducted in two phases. (1) An exhaustive health concept pool was generated using systematic content analysis of existing patient-reported outcome measures (N = 31) and semi-structured interviews of readmitted patients (N = 49) and health professionals (N = 10). Concepts were categorized into three major domains: 'Symptoms,' 'functional status,' and 'general health perception.' We calculated the frequency of each health concept as the proportion of patients, who experienced the respective concept prior to readmission. (2) Colorectal cancer surgeons (N = 13) and emergency general surgeons (N = 12) rated the relevance of each health concept (1 = irrelevant, 5 = very relevant) in the context of detecting post-discharge adverse events. We selected concepts with either a high mean relevance score (≥ 4) or a combination of moderate mean relevance score and high patient-reported frequency (≥ 3 and ≥ 20% or ≥ 2.5 and ≥ 50%, respectively). RESULTS: Content analysis of existing items with additions from patients and experts resulted in 58 health concepts, of which the majority were distinct symptoms (N = 40). The selection procedure resulted in 29 patient-reported health concepts relevant for detecting adverse events after discharge. CONCLUSION: The outlined framework provides content validity for future patient-reported outcome instruments detecting adverse events in the early post-discharge period after major emergency abdominal surgery and colorectal cancer surgery.

Conversion of standard retrospective patient-reported outcomes to momentary versions: cognitive interviewing reveals varying degrees of momentary compatibility.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to adapt different domains of an existing retrospective questionnaire to momentary versions, to use and assess cognitive interviewing for evaluating the new versions, and to compare momentary compatibility (i.e. an item's potential to be validly converted to a momentary version) across different scales. METHODS: Initial momentary versions of retrospective patient-reported outcomes were produced by converting present perfect tense wording to present tense wording. Cognitive interviews were conducted iteratively with 21 patients to determine which reference period they actually employed, and to identify problems with new, revised versions. A think-aloud interview protocol was supplemented with non-specific concurrent and specific retrospective probing. The momentary compatibility of each item was evaluated by calculating the proportion of interviews wherein momentary reference periods were identified; problems were categorized according to cognitive aspects of survey methodology taxonomy. The efficiency of various cognitive interviewing techniques was determined by evaluating whether applied reference periods were identified by think-aloud alone or by supplementary probes. RESULTS: The momentary compatibility varied from 5 to 100% across items. Cognitive interviews revealed potential problems of various severities in the majority of items. Think-aloud alone was sufficient at determining the applied reference period in one-third of the cases, and the efficiency of additional concurrent and retrospective probing was 50 and 94%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Cognitive interviewing techniques proved useful for developing and evaluating momentary items. Researchers should be aware of the applied reference period and of emerging problems when evaluating adapted momentary items, since not all concepts are suitable. We recommend the proposed method in future adaptations of existing instruments.

Dual-release hydrocortisone improves body composition and the glucometabolic profile in patients with secondary adrenal insufficiency.

PURPOSE: Studies have suggested improved metabolic profiles in patients with adrenal insufficiency treated with dual-release hydrocortisone (DR-HC) compared with conventional hydrocortisone (C-HC). This study investigates the effect of DR-HC compared with C-HC treatment on five health variables: diurnal salivary cortisol/cortisone, body composition, bone health, glucose metabolism, lipids, and blood pressure. METHODS: Prospective study of 27 participants (24 men) with secondary adrenal insufficiency with measurements during stable C-HC and 16 weeks after treatment switch to DR-HC. OUTCOMES: Diurnal salivary-cortisol/cortisone, body composition assessed by Dual-Energy X-ray absorptiometry scan, bone status indices (serum type I N-terminal procollagen [PINP], collagen type I cross-linked C-telopeptide [CTX], osteocalcin, receptor activator kappa-B [RANK] ligand, osteoprotegerin, and sclerostin), lipids, haemoglobin A1c (HbA1c), and 24-hour blood pressure. RESULTS: After the switch to DR-HC, the diurnal salivary-cortisol area under the curve (AUC) decreased non-significantly (mean difference: -55.9 nmol/L/day, P = 0.06). The salivary-cortisone-AUC was unchanged. Late-evening salivary-cortisol and cortisone were lower (-1.6 and -1.7 nmol/L, P = 0.002 and 0.004). Total and abdominal fat mass (-1.5 and -0.5 kg, P = 0.003 and 0.02), HbA1c (-1.2 mmol/mol, P = 0.02), and osteocalcin decreased (-7.0 µg/L, P = 0.03) whereas sclerostin increased (+41.1 pg/mL, P = 0.0001). The remaining bone status indices, lipids, and blood pressure were unchanged. CONCLUSION: This study suggests that switching to DR-HC leads to lower late-evening cortisol/cortisone exposure and a more favourable metabolic profile and body composition. In contrast, decreased osteocalcin with increasing sclerostin might indicate a negative impact on bones. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT201400203932.

Implementation of thyroid-related patient-reported outcomes in routine clinical practice.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in clinical practice to improve clinical care. Multiple studies show that systematic use of PROs can enhance communication with patients and improve patient satisfaction, symptom management and quality of life. Further, such data can be aggregated to examine health levels for patient groups, improve quality of care, and compare patient outcomes at the institutional, regional or national level. However, there are barriers and challenges that should be handled appropriately to achieve successful implementation of PROs in routine clinical practice. This paper briefly overviews thyroid-related PROs, describes unsolved quality of life issues in benign thyroid diseases, provides examples of routine collection of PROs, and summarizes key points facilitating successful implementation of thyroid-related PROs in routine clinical practice. Finally, the paper touches upon future directions of PRO research.

The effect of dual-release versus conventional hydrocortisone on fatigue, measured by ecological momentary assessments.

PURPOSE: Replicating the physiological cortisol secretion is key in the treatment of glucocorticoid insufficient individuals and optimization may enhance quality of life. The study investigates fatigue measured by ecological momentary assessments in patients treated with conventional hydrocortisone compared with once-daily dual-release hydrocortisone (Plenadren). METHODS: A 21-week open-label switch pilot trial included 30 patients with adrenal insufficiency due to hypopituitarism. Fatigue was assessed four times daily for 20 days using a momentary item version of the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory on patients' usual hydrocortisone regimen. Participants switched treatment to an identical daily dose of Plenadren for 16 weeks where fatigue assessments were repeated. Change in fatigue and diurnal variation of fatigue was analyzed using mixed models for repeated measurements. RESULTS: In four out of five fatigue subscales fatigue was significantly reduced 0.7-1.1 points (scales ranging from 4 to 20), when treated with Plenadren compared with conventional hydrocortisone, corresponding to small effect sizes below the scale-specific minimal important changes. However, 33% of the participants completing the study (9/27) experienced reductions in fatigue above the minimal important change. On Plenadren, we found larger between-person variances and smaller within-person variances. Finally, we identified diurnal fatigue curves for both treatments. CONCLUSIONS: The Plenadren-related reduction in fatigue was significant but not necessarily of clinical importance when looking at a group level. However, there was a large interindividual variation in treatment effect, why patients with a large benefit in quality of life should be identified. Future RCTs should be powered to detect the effect magnitudes identified here.

Determining minimal important change for the thyroid-related quality of life questionnaire ThyPRO.

OBJECTIVE: ThyPRO is the standard thyroid patient-reported outcome (PRO). The change in scores that patients perceive as important remains to be ascertained. The purpose of this study was to determine values for minimal important change (MIC) for ThyPRO. METHODS: A total of 435 patients treated for benign thyroid diseases completed ThyPRO at baseline and 6 weeks following treatment initiation. At 6 weeks follow-up, patients also completed Global Rating of Change items. For each 0-100 scale, two MIC values were identified: An MIC for groups, using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve method and an MIC for individual patients, using the Reliable Change Index. RESULTS: ROC analyses provided group-MIC estimates of 6.3-14.3 (score range 0-100). Evaluation of area under the curve (AUC) supported the robustness for 9 of 14 scales (AUC > 0.7). Reliable Change Index estimates of individual-MIC were 8.0-21.1. For all scales but two, the individual-MIC values were larger than the group-MIC values. CONCLUSIONS: Interpretability of ThyPRO was improved by the establishment of MIC values, which was 6.3-14.3 for groups and 8.0-21.1 for individuals. Thus, estimates of which changes are clinically relevant, are now available for future studies. We recommend using MIC values found by ROC analyses to evaluate changes in groups of patients, whereas MIC values identified by a dual criterion, including the reliability of changes, should be used for individual patients, for example, to identify individual responders in clinical studies or practice.

Ecological momentary assessments (EMAs) did not improve responsiveness of patient-reported outcomes on quality of life.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical practice guidelines recommend questionnaires with short recall. We compare responsiveness of ecological momentary assessments (EMAs) and retrospective assessments of thyroid-related quality of life. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Patients with newly diagnosed thyrotoxicosis completed retrospective Thyroid-related Patient-Reported Outcome measures (ThyPROs) with 4-week and 1-week recall, respectively, and three daily EMAs for 4 weeks at time of inclusion and again after treatment (N = 115). Magnitude of change and statistical power (F-test statistics) were compared. Two designs were applied to the same data: Design 1 mimicked the practical realities of clinical trials by comparing 4-week recall ThyPRO administered at time of inclusion with EMA initiated at time of inclusion and collected prospectively for 1 week, thus not covering the same time frame or duration. Design 2 compared assessments covering the same 4 weeks after inclusion. RESULTS: Design 1: the estimated change and statistical power were significantly larger for 4-week ThyPRO compared with EMAs. Design 2: retrospective assessments and EMAs had comparable change and power. Repeated 1-week ThyPRO administrations increased the statistical power. CONCLUSION: Selecting the optimal time frame for evaluation proved crucial for responsiveness. EMAs did not provide higher responsiveness than retrospective measures in either design. Repeated 1-week ThyPRO administrations increased statistical power.

Shorter Recall Period for the Thyroid-Related Patient-Reported Outcome Measure ThyPRO Did Not Change the Accuracy as Evaluated by Repeated Momentary Measurements.

Background: The thyroid-related patient-reported outcome measure ThyPRO has become the gold standard for measuring thyroid-related quality of life and uses a 4-week recall period. The impact of the length of recall is unresolved. To minimize recall bias, the US Food and Drug Administration has argued in favor of short recall periods or measures describing current states. We investigated whether a 1-week recall version of ThyPRO was less prone to recall bias than the original ThyPRO, using averaged momentary ThyPRO measurements as the hypothesized true mean of patients' symptoms. Methods: Patients newly diagnosed with thyrotoxicosis were included (N = 122). During a 28-day study period, participants answered momentary questions three times daily via a smartphone, weekly retrospective surveys with a 1-week recall period, and the original survey with a 4-week recall period on day 28. Twelve ThyPRO items from four multi-item scales were used. Mean momentary ratings for each scale were compared with recall ratings of 1- and 4-week periods, respectively. Results: The mean momentary ratings were highly correlated with retrospective ratings and remained rather constant when altering the reporting period from four weeks to one week. We found consistently lower scores (i.e., better thyroid-related quality of life) on momentary ratings compared with retrospective ratings. The mean differences between momentary ratings and retrospective ratings were similar for both recall periods. The original 4-week ThyPRO accurately summarized the mean of all 1-week ThyPROs. Conclusions: Shortening the recall period of ThyPRO from four weeks to one week was not associated with less recall bias within this subset of items. Nor did 1-week recall seem to compromise the accuracy of ThyPRO. Thus, either version of ThyPRO can be used in future studies.

PlenadrEMA: effect of dual-release versus conventional hydrocortisone on fatigue, measured by ecological momentary assessments: a study protocol for an open-label switch pilot study.

INTRODUCTION: Patients with adrenal insufficiency have impaired health-related quality of life (QoL). The dual-release hydrocortisone preparation, Plenadren, has been developed to mimic the physiological cortisol release more closely than conventional hydrocortisone treatment. Plenadren has been shown to improve QoL, in particular fatigue, in patients with primary adrenal insufficiency. However, the effect has not been investigated in patients with secondary adrenal insufficiency; furthermore, no study has taken the diurnal variation of fatigue into account. To assess diurnal variations, it is necessary to use repeated daily measurements, such as ecological momentary assessments (EMAs). This study aims to evaluate EMAs of fatigue as outcome in future large-scale randomised clinical trials. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The PlenadrEMA trial is an investigator-initiated open-label switch pilot trial of the effect of Plenadren versus conventional hydrocortisone on fatigue in patients with secondary adrenal insufficiency. The trial will include 30 participants. After 5 weeks on their usual hydrocortisone treatment, patients will be shifted to Plenadren for 16 weeks. Fatigue will be assessed using momentary versions of the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI-20). Items will be administered to participants via a smartphone application four times daily during 20 days. Assessments will be performed before treatment shift and repeated after 12.5 weeks on Plenadren. The study will identify the best suited outcome for future randomised clinical trials, and in addition, estimate the variability and difference in fatigue between the two treatments to perform power calculations. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The trial will be conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and has been approved by the Regional Scientific Ethical Committee in Copenhagen (ID: H-1-2014-073). All patients will receive written and verbal information about the trial and will give informed consent before enrolment. Findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: EudraCT201400203932.

How Should Thyroid-Related Quality of Life Be Assessed? Recalled Patient-Reported Outcomes Compared to Here-and-Now Measures.

BACKGROUND: The impact of thyroid disease on quality of life is an important disease aspect that is best investigated by patient-reported outcomes. Recent patient-reported outcomes research has raised concern about the validity of traditional retrospective questionnaires. Therefore, ecological momentary assessments of patients' subjective well-being have been introduced to avoid recall bias and improve contextual validity. Despite theoretical advantages, the measurement properties remain unsubstantiated. This study examines the relationship between the retrospective thyroid-related quality of life patient-reported outcome measure (ThyPRO) and a momentary (here-and-now) version of ThyPRO. METHODS: Eighty-three newly diagnosed hyperthyroid patients expected to undergo treatment completed questions on their thyroid-related quality of life. Head-to-head comparison was performed between 12 momentary items from four multi-item ThyPRO scales administered three times daily via a smartphone application during 28 days and the original retrospective ThyPRO on day 28. The measurement difference between recalled and momentary ratings was quantified for all four scales. Furthermore, correlations between the measures were investigated, and their agreement was explored using Bland-Altman plots. Finally, the study examined whether retrospective ratings were influenced by two forms of recall bias (the peak effect and the end effect). RESULTS: Retrospective and mean momentary ThyPRO ratings were highly correlated (Pearson's correlations: 0.74-0.88). However, retrospective ratings provided significantly higher scores (i.e., worse quality of life) on all scales. Bland-Altman plots showed a skewed distribution, indicating low levels of agreement. Results supported a peak effect for retrospective ratings on tiredness but not for the remaining scales. Further, results supported end effects for retrospective ratings of emotional susceptibility and anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: Retrospective and mean momentary ThyPRO ratings correlated strongly, but retrospective ratings were higher, indicating more disease impact. The differences were of magnitudes normally deemed clinically relevant. Limited evidence supported peak and end effect bias for retrospective assessments. The two measurement modalities did not appear congruent and thus cannot be used interchangeably. When designing clinical studies, whether to use a momentary or retrospective measurement method may depend on the aim of measurement. Further prospective analyses are needed to compare any beneficial effects, for example in terms of higher precision or sensitivity to clinical change, of momentary assessments.