Measurement properties of the Inclusion Body Myositis Functional Rating Scale.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the validity, reliability, responsiveness and meaningful change threshold of the Inclusion Body Myositis (IBM) Functional Rating Scale (FRS). METHODS: Data from a large 20-month multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in IBM were used. Convergent validity was tested using Spearman correlation with other health outcomes. Discriminant (known groups) validity was assessed using standardised effect sizes (SES). Internal consistency was tested using Cronbach's alpha. Intrarater reliability in stable patients and equivalence of face-to-face and telephone administration were tested using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and Bland-Altman plots. Responsiveness was assessed using standardised response mean (SRM). A receiver operator characteristic (ROC) curve anchor-based approach was used to determine clinically meaningful IBMFRS change. RESULTS: Among the 150 patients, mean (SD) IBMFRS total score was 27.4 (4.6). Convergent validity was supported by medium to large correlations (rs modulus: 0.42-0.79) and discriminant validity by moderate to large group differences (SES=0.51-1.59). Internal consistency was adequate (overall Cronbach's alpha: 0.79). Test-retest reliability (ICCs=0.84-0.87) and reliability of telephone versus face-to-face administration (ICCs=0.93-0.95) were excellent, with Bland-Altman plots showing good agreement. Responsiveness in the worsened group defined by various external constructs was large at both 12 (SRM=-0.76 to -1.49) and 20 months (SRM=-1.12 to -1.57). In ROC curve analysis, a drop in at least two IBMFRS total score points was shown to represent a meaningful decline. CONCLUSIONS: When administered by trained raters, the IBMFRS is a reliable, valid and responsive tool that can be used to evaluate the impact of IBM and its treatment on physical function, with a 2-point reduction representing meaningful decline. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02753530.

Admission avoidance hospital at home.

BACKGROUND: Admission avoidance hospital at home provides active treatment by healthcare professionals in the patient's home for a condition that would otherwise require acute hospital inpatient care, and always for a limited time period. This is the fourth update of this review. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and cost of managing patients with admission avoidance hospital at home compared with inpatient hospital care. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, and CINAHL on 24 February 2022, and checked the reference lists of eligible articles. We sought ongoing and unpublished studies by searching ClinicalTrials.gov and WHO ICTRP, and by contacting providers and researchers involved in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials recruiting participants aged 18 years and over. Studies comparing admission avoidance hospital at home with acute hospital inpatient care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group. We performed meta-analysis for trials that compared similar interventions, reported comparable outcomes with sufficient data, and used individual patient data when available. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the body of evidence for the most important outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We included 20 randomised controlled trials with a total of 3100 participants; four trials recruited participants with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; two trials recruited participants recovering from a stroke; seven trials recruited participants with an acute medical condition who were mainly older; and the remaining trials recruited participants with a mix of conditions. We assessed the majority of the included studies as at low risk of selection, detection, and attrition bias, and unclear for selective reporting and performance bias. For an older population, admission avoidance hospital at home probably makes little or no difference on mortality at six months' follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 0.88, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.68 to 1.13; P = 0.30; I2 = 0%; 5 trials, 1502 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); little or no difference on the likelihood of being readmitted to hospital after discharge from hospital at home or inpatient care within 3 to 12 months' follow-up (RR 1.14, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.34; P = 0.11; I2 = 41%; 8 trials, 1757 participants; moderate-certainty evidence); and probably reduces the likelihood of living in residential care at six months' follow-up (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.41 to 0.69; P < 0.001; I2 = 67%; 4 trials, 1271 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Hospital at home probably results in little to no difference in patient's self-reported health status (2006 patients; moderate-certainty evidence). Satisfaction with health care received may be improved with admission avoidance hospital at home (1812 participants; low-certainty evidence); few studies reported the effect on caregivers. Hospital at home reduced the initial average hospital length of stay (2036 participants; low-certainty evidence), which ranged from 4.1 to 18.5 days in the hospital group and 1.2 to 5.1 days in the hospital at home group. Hospital at home length of stay ranged from an average of 3 to 20.7 days (hospital at home group only). Admission avoidance hospital at home probably reduces costs to the health service compared with hospital admission (2148 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), though by a range of different amounts and using different methods to cost resource use, and there is some evidence that it decreases overall societal costs to six months' follow-up. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Admission avoidance hospital at home, with the option of transfer to hospital, may provide an effective alternative to inpatient care for a select group of older people who have been referred for hospital admission. The intervention probably makes little or no difference to patient health outcomes; may improve satisfaction; probably reduces the likelihood of relocating to residential care; and probably decreases costs.

The Validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (vIGA-AD™): a clinical outcome measure for the severity of atopic dermatitis.

BACKGROUND: The validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (vIGA-AD™) is a standardized severity assessment for use in clinical trials and registries for atopic dermatitis (AD). OBJECTIVES: To investigate the reliability, validity, responsiveness and within-patient meaningful change of the vIGA-AD. METHODS: Data were analysed from adult patients with moderate-to-severe AD in the BREEZE-AD1 (N = 624 patients; NCT03334396), BREEZE-AD2 (N = 615; NCT03334422) and BREEZE-AD5 (N = 440; NCT03435081) phase III baricitinib clinical studies. RESULTS: Across studies, test-retest reliability for stable patients showed moderate-to-good agreement [range of Kappa values for Patient Global Impression of Severity-Atopic Dermatitis (PGI-S-AD), 0·516-0·639; for Eczema Area and Severity Index (EASI), 0·658-0·778]. Moderate-to-large correlations between vIGA-AD and EASI or body surface area (range at baseline, 0·497-0·736; Week 16, 0·716-0·893) supported convergent validity. Known-groups validity was demonstrated vs. EASI and PGI-S-AD (vIGA-AD for severe vs. moderate EASI categories at baseline, P < 0·001). Responsiveness was demonstrated vs. EASI (P < 0·001 for much improved vs. improved and improved vs. stable). Anchor- and distribution-based methods supported a vIGA-AD change of -1·0 as clinically meaningful. These findings are limited to populations defined by the studies' inclusion and exclusion criteria. CONCLUSIONS: The vIGA-AD demonstrated sufficient reliability, validity, responsiveness and interpretation standards for use in clinical trials. What is already known about this topic? A description of the development of the validated Investigator Global Assessment for Atopic Dermatitis (vIGA-AD™) has been published previously. What does this study add? The current study validates the vIGA-AD by demonstrating appropriate test-retest reliability, convergent validity, known-groups validity and responsiveness across three baricitinib clinical studies. In addition, a 1-point change was identified as a clinically meaningful patient-perceived change minimal clinically important difference in the vIGA-AD. What are the clinical implications of the work? The vIGA-AD is a measure for investigator assessment of atopic dermatitis suitable for use in clinical research.

Psychometric properties of the itch numeric rating scale, skin pain numeric rating scale, and atopic dermatitis sleep scale in adult patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis.

BACKGROUND: The Itch Numeric Rating Scale (NRS), Skin Pain NRS, and Atopic Dermatitis Sleep Scale (ADSS) are self-administered patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments developed to assess symptoms in patients with atopic dermatitis (AD). The objective of this study was to evaluate the psychometric properties (reliability, validity, and responsiveness) and interpretability thresholds of these PROs using data from three pivotal Phase 3 studies in adults. METHODS: BREEZE-AD1, BREEZE-AD2, and BREEZE-AD5 evaluated the safety and efficacy of baricitinib in adults with moderate-to-severe AD. Clinician-reported outcomes and other PROs commonly assessed in patients with AD were used to estimate meaningful changes and evaluate test-retest reliability, convergent and divergent validity, known-groups validity, responsiveness, and meaningful change thresholds (MCTs) of the Itch NRS, Skin Pain NRS, and ADSS. RESULTS: The test-retest reliability of the Itch NRS, Skin Pain NRS, and ADSS was evidenced by generally large intraclass correlation coefficients (> 0.7) in stable groups of patients between baseline and Week 1 and Weeks 4 and 8. Moderate-to-large correlations (r > 0.4) at baseline and Week 16 were generally observed between each measure and other PROs measuring the same concept, supporting convergent validity. Small-to-moderate correlations with clinician-reported outcomes demonstrated divergent validity. Each instrument was able to distinguish between known groups of disease severity as assessed using other indicators of AD severity. The responsiveness of the Itch NRS, Skin Pain NRS, and ADSS scales was demonstrated through significant differences in their change scores from baseline to Week 16 between categories of change in another PRO also from baseline to Week 16. Thresholds for interpreting meaningful change were estimated as - 4.0 for the 0-10 Itch and Skin Pain NRS items; - 1.25 for the 0-4 ADSS Items 1 and 3 and; - 1.50 for the 0-29 ADSS Item 2, these equivalent to moderate degrees of change. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study demonstrate that the psychometric properties of the Itch NRS, Skin Pain NRS, and ADSS are good to excellent. These findings support the use of these instruments in daily assessment of AD symptoms in adults with moderate-to-severe AD. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov numbers: NCT03334396, NCT03334422, and NCT03435081.

Rationale and study protocol of ACQUIRE, a prospective, observational study measuring quality of life, treatment preference and treatment satisfaction of autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) patients in Europe.

BACKGROUND: Autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD) is considered the most common inherited renal disease. Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) and patient experience in ADPKD are difficult to quantify and have not been well studied, particularly in the early stages of the disease. There is evidence to suggest that early-stage ADPKD patients have a lower Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) than the general population due to the signs and symptoms of early-stage ADPKD. However, no research has been carried out on the HRQoL of early-stage ADPKD patients using validated ADPKD-specific PRO measures. Additionally, a new disease progression delaying treatment option has recently emerged for ADPKD. Patient preference for this treatment and unmet treatment needs have not yet been investigated. METHODS: The ACQUIRE study is a prospective, observational study investigating the influence of early-stage ADPKD-related symptoms and treatments on PROs. It aims to collect real-world data on patient demographics, treatment patterns, clinical outcomes, and PROs such as HRQoL, treatment satisfaction and treatment preference in early-stage ADPKD. Adult ADPKD patients in stages 1-3 of chronic kidney disease (CKD) with evidence of rapidly progressing disease are being recruited from seven European countries. At baseline and every 3 months, for a follow-up period of 18 months, general and disease-specific questionnaires are completed remotely to capture patients' own assessment of their overall and ADPKD-related HRQoL. A Discrete Choice Experiment (DCE) is also used to investigate the value patients place on different attributes of hypothetical treatment options (e.g. treatment outcomes, side effects) and the role each attribute plays in determining overall patient treatment preference. DISCUSSION: The results of this study will highlight the real-world effects of ADPKD-related challenges on PROs including HRQoL, treatment experience and satisfaction; and help physicians gain greater insight into likely disease outcomes based on early-stage patient symptoms and patients' experience with treatment. Data captured by the DCE may inform ADPKD treatment decision-making from a patient perspective. The DCE will also provide insights into which patients are more likely to perceive benefit from treatments based on the value and trade-offs they place on specific treatment attributes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT02848521 . Protocol Number/Version: 156-303-00096/Final.

Validation of the ANCA-associated vasculitis patient-reported outcomes (AAV-PRO) questionnaire.

OBJECTIVES: To finalise and validate a disease-specific patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure: the ANCA-associated vasculitis patient-reported outcome (AAV-PRO) questionnaire. Using a 35-item candidate questionnaire developed following 50 qualitative interviews in the UK, USA and Canada, a longitudinal survey was conducted to determine the final scale structure and validate the AAV-PRO. METHODS: Participants were recruited via Vasculitis UK and the Vasculitis Patient-Powered Research Network. The 35-item candidate questionnaire was completed at baseline and 3 months; UK participants completed the EuroQol-5D-5L (EQ-5D-5L), while US participants completed a test-retest exercise, 3-5 days after baseline. Scale structure was defined using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and Rasch analysis. Convergent and known groups validity, test-retest reliability and longitudinal construct validity were assessed. RESULTS: There were 626 participants with AAV; >25% reporting 'active disease'. EFA and Rasch analysis supported a 29-item profile measure comprising six domains: 'organ-specific symptoms', 'systemic symptoms', 'treatment side effects', 'social and emotional impact', 'concerns about the future' and 'physical function'. Mean domain scores were higher for participants with 'active disease' versus 'remission' (p<0.001). Construct validity was demonstrated by correlations between domain scores and the EQ-5D-5L (range r=-0.55 to 0.78), all p<0.0001. In participants reporting 'no change' (n=97) during the test-retest, intraclass correlation coefficient values were high (range 0.89-0.96) for each domain. CONCLUSIONS: The AAV-PRO, a new disease-specific PRO measure for AAV, has good face and construct validity, is reliable, feasible and discriminates among disease states.

Evaluation of the Measurement Properties of Four Performance Outcome Measures in Patients with Elective Hip Replacements, Elective Knee Replacements, or Hip Fractures.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the measurement properties of four performance outcome (PerfO) measures (timed up and go, four-step stair climb, long stair climb, and repeated chair stand) in three patient populations(elective total hip replacement [eTHR], elective total knee replacement [eTKR], and hip fracture [HF]). METHODS: A cross-sectional and longitudinal design was used to assess the PerfO measurement properties using the US Food and Drug Administration guidance for industry around patient-reported outcome measures to support labeling claims. Patient-reported outcome measures and patient- and clinician-reported global concept items were completed along with four PerfO measures at visit 1 and two follow-up visits. Measurement properties assessed included reliability, construct validity, ability to detect change, and estimates of meaningful change. RESULTS: A total of 280 patients (100 eTHR, 105 eTKR, and 75 HF) were recruited, with most (n = 276) providing data at visit 1. Most of the patients were female (64%) and retired (64%), and had at least one comorbidity (91%). Inter-rater and test-retest reliability ranged from good to excellent (0.73 ≤ intraclass correlation coefficient ≤ 0.95) for each PerfO measure. Known-groups validity was demonstrated for all PerfO measures, with those reporting less pain better physical functioning and those who did not use an assistive device having quicker mean completion times. Construct validity and ability to detect change were demonstrated and estimates of meaningful change derived. CONCLUSIONS: This study found the measurement properties of four PerfO measures in samples of patients with eTHR, eTKR, and HF to be supported for consideration of future use, and provided estimates for interpretation of change.

Selection of and Evidentiary Considerations for Wearable Devices and Their Measurements for Use in Regulatory Decision Making: Recommendations from the ePRO Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Wearable devices offer huge potential to collect rich sources of data to provide insights into the effects of treatment interventions. Despite this, at the time of writing this report, limited regulatory guidance on the use of wearables in clinical trial programs has been published. OBJECTIVES: To present recommendations from the Critical Path Institute's Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Consortium regarding the selection and evaluation of wearable devices and their measurements for use in regulatory trials and to support labeling claims. METHODS: The evaluation group was composed of Critical Path Institute's clinical outcome assessment (COA) scientists and COA specialists from pharmaceutical trial eCOA solution providers, including COA development and validation specialists. The resulting recommendations were drawn from a broad range of backgrounds, perspectives, and expertise that enriched the development of this report. Recommendations were developed through analysis of existing regulatory guidance relating to COA development and use in clinical trials, medical device certification/clearance regulations, literature-reported best practice, and practical experience of wearable technology application in clinical trials. RESULTS: We identify the essential properties of fit-for-purpose wearables and propose evidence needed to support their use. In addition, we overview the activities required to establish clinical endpoints derived from wearables data. CONCLUSIONS: Using this framework, we believe there is enough current understanding to promote the appropriate use of wearables in study protocols. We hope this will provide a basis for discussion among clinical trial stakeholders and catalyze the development of more robust regulatory guidance.

Measurement Equivalence of Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Response Scale Types Collected Using Bring Your Own Device Compared to Paper and a Provisioned Device: Results of a Randomized Equivalence Trial.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to assess the measurement equivalence of individual response scale types by using a patient reported outcome measure (PROM) collected on paper and migrated into electronic format for use on the subject's own mobile device (BYOD) and on a provisioned device (site device). METHODS: Subjects suffering from chronic health conditions causing daily pain or discomfort were invited to participate in this single-site, single visit, three-way crossover study. Association between individual item and instrument subscale scores was assessed by using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and its CI. Participant attitudes toward the use of BYOD in a clinical trial were assessed through use of a questionnaire. RESULTS: In this study, 155 subjects (females 83 [54%]; males 72 [46%]) ages 19 to 69 years (mean ± SD: 48.6 ± 13.1) were recruited. High association between the modes of administration (paper, BYOD, site device) was shown with analysis of ICCs (0.79-0.98) for each response scale type, including visual analogue scale, numeric rating scale, verbal response scale, and Likert scale. Of the subjects, 94% (146 of 155) stated that they would definitely or probably be willing to download an app onto their own mobile device for a forthcoming clinical trial. Forty-five percent of subjects felt BYOD would be more convenient compared with 15% preferring a provisioned device (40% had no preference). CONCLUSIONS: This study provides strong evidence supporting the use of BYOD for PROM collection in terms of the conservation of instrument measurement equivalence across the most widely used response scale types, and high patient acceptance of the approach.

Early discharge hospital at home.

BACKGROUND: Early discharge hospital at home is a service that provides active treatment by healthcare professionals in the patient's home for a condition that otherwise would require acute hospital inpatient care. This is an update of a Cochrane review. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and cost of managing patients with early discharge hospital at home compared with inpatient hospital care. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the following databases to 9 January 2017: the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care Group (EPOC) register, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and EconLit. We searched clinical trials registries. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised trials comparing early discharge hospital at home with acute hospital inpatient care for adults. We excluded obstetric, paediatric and mental health hospital at home schemes.   DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and EPOC. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the body of evidence for the most important outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We included 32 trials (N = 4746), six of them new for this update, mainly conducted in high-income countries. We judged most of the studies to have a low or unclear risk of bias. The intervention was delivered by hospital outreach services (17 trials), community-based services (11 trials), and was co-ordinated by a hospital-based stroke team or physician in conjunction with community-based services in four trials.Studies recruiting people recovering from strokeEarly discharge hospital at home probably makes little or no difference to mortality at three to six months (risk ratio (RR) 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.57 to 1.48, N = 1114, 11 trials, moderate-certainty evidence) and may make little or no difference to the risk of hospital readmission (RR 1.09, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.66, N = 345, 5 trials, low-certainty evidence). Hospital at home may lower the risk of living in institutional setting at six months (RR 0.63, 96% CI 0.40 to 0.98; N = 574, 4 trials, low-certainty evidence) and might slightly improve patient satisfaction (N = 795, low-certainty evidence). Hospital at home probably reduces hospital length of stay, as moderate-certainty evidence found that people assigned to hospital at home are discharged from the intervention about seven days earlier than people receiving inpatient care (95% CI 10.19 to 3.17 days earlier, N = 528, 4 trials). It is uncertain whether hospital at home has an effect on cost (very low-certainty evidence).Studies recruiting people with a mix of medical conditionsEarly discharge hospital at home probably makes little or no difference to mortality (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.49; N = 1247, 8 trials, moderate-certainty evidence). In people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) there was insufficient information to determine the effect of these two approaches on mortality (RR 0.53, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.12, N = 496, 5 trials, low-certainty evidence). The intervention probably increases the risk of hospital readmission in a mix of medical conditions, although the results are also compatible with no difference and a relatively large increase in the risk of readmission (RR 1.25, 95% CI 0.98 to 1.58, N = 1276, 9 trials, moderate-certainty evidence). Early discharge hospital at home may decrease the risk of readmission for people with COPD (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.66 to 1.13, N = 496, 5 trials low-certainty evidence). Hospital at home may lower the risk of living in an institutional setting (RR 0.69, 0.48 to 0.99; N = 484, 3 trials, low-certainty evidence). The intervention might slightly improve patient satisfaction (N = 900, low-certainty evidence). The effect of early discharge hospital at home on hospital length of stay for older patients with a mix of conditions ranged from a reduction of 20 days to a reduction of less than half a day (moderate-certainty evidence, N = 767). It is uncertain whether hospital at home has an effect on cost (very low-certainty evidence).Studies recruiting people undergoing elective surgeryThree studies did not report higher rates of mortality with hospital at home compared with inpatient care (data not pooled, N = 856, low-certainty evidence; mainly orthopaedic surgery). Hospital at home may lead to little or no difference in readmission to hospital for people who were mainly recovering from orthopaedic surgery (N = 1229, low-certainty evidence). We could not establish the effects of hospital at home on the risk of living in institutional care, due to a lack of data. The intervention might slightly improve patient satisfaction (N = 1229, low-certainty evidence). People recovering from orthopaedic surgery allocated to early discharge hospital at home were discharged from the intervention on average four days earlier than people allocated to usual inpatient care (4.44 days earlier, 95% CI 6.37 to 2.51 days earlier, , N = 411, 4 trials, moderate-certainty evidence). It is uncertain whether hospital at home has an effect on cost (very low-certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Despite increasing interest in the potential of early discharge hospital at home services as a less expensive alternative to inpatient care, this review provides insufficient evidence of economic benefit (through a reduction in hospital length of stay) or improved health outcomes.

Interpreting change from patient reported outcome (PRO) endpoints: patient global ratings of concept versus patient global ratings of change, a case study among osteoporosis patients.

BACKGROUND: Regulatory guidance recommends anchor-based methods for interpretation of treatment effects measured by PRO endpoints. Methodological pros and cons of patient global ratings of change vs. patient global ratings of concept have been discussed but empirical evidence in support of either approach is lacking. This study evaluated the performance of patient global ratings of change and patient global ratings of concept for interpreting patient stability and patient improvement. METHODS: Patient global ratings of change and patient global ratings of concept were included in a psychometric validation study of an osteoporosis-targeted PRO instrument (the OPAQ-PF) to assess its ability to detect change and to derive responder definitions. 144 female osteoporosis patients with (n = 37) or without (n = 107) a recent (within 6 weeks) fragility fracture completed the OPAQ-PF and global items at baseline, 2 weeks (no recent fracture), and 12 weeks (recent fracture) post-baseline. RESULTS: Results differed between the two methods. Recent fracture patients reported more improvement while patients without recent fracture reported more stability on ratings of change than ratings of concept. However, correlations with OPAQ-PF score change were stronger for ratings of concept than ratings of change (both groups). Effect sizes for OPAQ-PF score change increased consistently with level of change in ratings of concept but inconsistently with ratings of change, with the mean AUC for prediction of a one-point change being 0.72 vs. 0.56. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides initial empirical support for methodological and regulatory recommendations to use patient global ratings of concept rather than ratings of change when interpreting change captured by PRO instruments in studies evaluating treatment effects. These findings warrant being confirmed in a purpose-designed larger scale analysis.

Admission avoidance hospital at home.

BACKGROUND: Admission avoidance hospital at home provides active treatment by healthcare professionals in the patient's home for a condition that otherwise would require acute hospital inpatient care, and always for a limited time period. This is the third update of the original review. OBJECTIVES: To determine the effectiveness and cost of managing patients with admission avoidance hospital at home compared with inpatient hospital care. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, two other databases, and two trials registers on 2 March 2016. We checked the reference lists of eligible articles. We sought unpublished studies by contacting providers and researchers who were known to be involved in the field. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials recruiting participants aged 18 years and over. Studies comparing admission avoidance hospital at home with acute hospital inpatient care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed the standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane and the Effective Practice and Organisation of Care (EPOC) Group. We performed meta-analysis for trials that compared similar interventions and reported comparable outcomes with sufficient data, requested individual patient data from trialists, and relied on published data when this was not available. We used the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the body of evidence for the most important outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: We included 16 randomised controlled trials with a total of 1814 participants; three trials recruited participants with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, two trials recruited participants recovering from a stroke, six trials recruited participants with an acute medical condition who were mainly elderly, and the remaining trials recruited participants with a mix of conditions. We assessed the majority of the included studies as at low risk of selection, detection, and attrition bias, and unclear for selective reporting and performance bias. Admission avoidance hospital at home probably makes little or no difference on mortality at six months' follow-up (risk ratio (RR) 0.77, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.60 to 0.99; P = 0.04; I2 = 0%; 912 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), little or no difference on the likelihood of being transferred (or readmitted) to hospital (RR 0.98, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.23; P = 0.84; I2 = 28%; 834 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and may reduce the likelihood of living in residential care at six months' follow-up (RR 0.35, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.57; P < 0.0001; I2 = 78%; 727 participants; low-certainty evidence). Satisfaction with healthcare received may be improved with admission avoidance hospital at home (646 participants, low-certainty evidence); few studies reported the effect on caregivers. When the costs of informal care were excluded, admission avoidance hospital at home may be less expensive than admission to an acute hospital ward (287 participants, low-certainty evidence); there was variation in the reduction of hospital length of stay, estimates ranged from a mean difference of -8.09 days (95% CI -14.34 to -1.85) in a trial recruiting older people with varied health problems, to a mean increase of 15.90 days (95% CI 8.10 to 23.70) in a study that recruited patients recovering from a stroke. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Admission avoidance hospital at home, with the option of transfer to hospital, may provide an effective alternative to inpatient care for a select group of elderly patients requiring hospital admission. However, the evidence is limited by the small randomised controlled trials included in the review, which adds a degree of imprecision to the results for the main outcomes.

The Reliability and Validity of the Clinical Perfectionism Questionnaire in Eating Disorder and Community Samples.

BACKGROUND: Clinical perfectionism is a risk and maintaining factor for anxiety disorders, depression and eating disorders. AIMS: The aim was to examine the psychometric properties of the 12-item Clinical Perfectionism Questionnaire (CPQ). METHOD: The research involved two samples. Study 1 comprised a nonclinical sample (n = 206) recruited via the internet. Study 2 comprised individuals in treatment for an eating disorder (n = 129) and a community sample (n = 80). RESULTS: Study 1 factor analysis results indicated a two-factor structure. The CPQ had strong correlations with measures of perfectionism and psychopathology, acceptable internal consistency, and discriminative and incremental validity. The results of Study 2 suggested the same two-factor structure, acceptable internal consistency, and construct validity, with the CPQ discriminating between the eating disorder and control groups. Readability was assessed as a US grade 4 reading level (student age range 9-10 years). CONCLUSIONS: The findings provide evidence for the reliability and validity of the CPQ in a clinical eating disorder and two separate community samples. Although further research is required the CPQ has promising evidence as a reliable and valid measure of clinical perfectionism.

The Hand-Foot Skin Reaction and Quality of Life Questionnaire: An Assessment Tool for Oncology.

BACKGROUND: Skin toxicity (hand-foot syndrome/hand-foot skin reaction, HFS/R) related to antineoplastic therapy is a significant issue in oncology practice, with potentially large impacts on health-related quality of life (HRQL). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A patient-reported questionnaire, the hand-foot skin reaction and quality of life (HF-QoL) questionnaire was developed to measure the HFS/R symptoms associated with cancer therapeutic agents and their effect on daily activities. The validity and reliability of the HF-QoL questionnaire was tested in a randomized trial of capecitabine with sorafenib/placebo in 223 patients with locally advanced/metastatic breast cancer. Other measures completed included patient ratings of condition severity, the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Breast cancer (FACT-B), and the clinician-rated National Cancer Institute-Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI-CTCAE), version 3.0, hand-foot skin reaction grade. The psychometric properties of the HF-QoL tested included structural validity, internal consistency, construct validity, discriminant validity, and responsiveness. Finally, the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) was estimated. RESULTS: The HF-QoL instrument comprises a 20-item symptom scale and an 18-item daily activity scale. Each scale demonstrated excellent measurement properties and discriminated between NCI-CTCAE grade and patient-rated condition severity with large effect sizes. The daily activity scale had excellent internal consistency and correlated with the FACT-B and HF-QoL symptom scores. Both HF-QoL scale scores increased linearly with increasing patient-rated condition severity. The MCIDs were estimated as 5 units for daily activities and 8 units for symptoms mean scores. CONCLUSION: The HF-QoL was sensitive to symptoms and HRQL issues associated with HFS/R among participants treated with capecitabine with and without sorafenib. The HF-QoL appears suitable for assessing the HRQL impairment associated with HFS/R to cancer therapies. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Skin toxicity related to anticancer therapies is a significant issue in oncology practice. Several newer agents, as well as older therapies, are associated with the skin toxicity known as hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR) or hand-foot syndrome (HFS). This study describes the development and validation of a brief, patient-reported questionnaire (the hand-foot skin reaction and quality of life questionnaire) supporting its suitability for use in clinical research to aid in early recognition of symptoms, to evaluate the effectiveness of agents for HFS/R treatment within clinical trials, and to evaluate the impact of these treatments on HFS/R-associated patients' health-related quality of life.

Damage in the anca-associated vasculitides: long-term data from the European vasculitis study group (EUVAS) therapeutic trials.

OBJECTIVES: To describe short-term (up to 12 months) and long-term (up to 7 years) damage in patients with newly diagnosed antineutrophil-cytoplasm antibody-associated vasculitis (AAV). METHODS: Data were combined from six European Vasculitis Study group trials (n=735). Long-term follow-up (LTFU) data available for patients from four trials (n=535). Damage accrued was quantified by the Vasculitis Damage Index (VDI). Sixteen damage items were defined a priori as being potentially treatment-related. RESULTS: VDI data were available for 629 of 735 patients (85.6%) at baseline, at which time 217/629 (34.5%) had ≥1 item of damage and 32 (5.1%) ≥5 items, reflecting disease manifestations prior to diagnosis and trial enrolment. LTFU data were available for 467/535 (87.3%) at a mean of 7.3 years postdiagnosis. 302/535 patients (56.4%) had VDI data at LTFU, with 104/302 (34.4%) having ≥5 items and only 24 (7.9%) no items of damage. At 6 months and LTFU, the most frequent items were proteinuria, impaired glomerular filtration rate, hypertension, nasal crusting, hearing loss and peripheral neuropathy. The frequency of damage, including potentially treatment-related damage, rose over time (p<0.01). At LTFU, the most commonly reported items of treatment-related damage were hypertension (41.5%; 95% CI 35.6 to 47.4%), osteoporosis (14.1%; 9.9 to 18.2%), malignancy (12.6%; 8.6 to 16.6%), and diabetes (10.4%; 6.7 to 14.0%). CONCLUSIONS: In AAV, renal, otolaryngological and treatment-related (cardiovascular, disease, diabetes, osteoporosis and malignancy) damage increases over time, with around one-third of patients having ≥5 items of damage at a mean of 7 years postdiagnosis.

Glucocorticoid treatment and damage in the anti-neutrophil cytoplasm antibody-associated vasculitides: long-term data from the European Vasculitis Study Group trials.

OBJECTIVE: Granulomatosis with polyangiitis and microscopic polyangiitis are ANCA-associated vasculitides (AAVs). The Vasculitis Damage Index (VDI) quantifies damage. This study aims to determine the factors associated with long-term damage in the AAVs. METHODS: Data from 535 patients from four European Vasculitis Study Group trials were studied. A long-term follow-up (LTFU) questionnaire at 7 years post-diagnosis was completed. The associations between baseline (age, creatinine and BVAS score) and cumulative (number of relapses and duration of glucocorticoid use) factors and damage accrued (total VDI scores and individual treatment-related damage items) during follow-up were explored. Multiple regressions identified independent associations between baseline measures, cumulative factors and VDI scores at LTFU. RESULTS: Two hundred and ninety-six patients had glucocorticoid use and VDI data available at LTFU, with the mean length of glucocorticoid use being 40.4 months (S.D. 16.7). High levels of damage were independently associated with older age at baseline (P = 0.051), lower glomerular filtration rate (P = 0.041), higher BVAS scores (P = 0.046), increased cumulative glucocorticoid use (P = 0.016) and increasing number of relapses. Patients with longer duration of glucocorticoid treatment were more likely to have a total VDI score ≥5 [odds ratio 1.26 per 12 months of glucocorticoid use (95% CI 1.03, 1.53), P = 0.022]. The main limitation is that approximately half of the patients enrolled had no LTFU data available; these patients were older with more severe initial disease. CONCLUSION: Long-term damage in the AAVs may be associated with severity of initial disease, age, number of relapses and duration of glucocorticoid use.

Equivalence of electronic and paper administration of patient-reported outcome measures: a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies conducted between 2007 and 2013.

OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of the equivalence between electronic and paper administration of patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) in studies conducted subsequent to those included in Gwaltney et al's 2008 review. METHODS: A systematic literature review of PROM equivalence studies conducted between 2007 and 2013 identified 1,997 records from which 72 studies met pre-defined inclusion/exclusion criteria. PRO data from each study were extracted, in terms of both correlation coefficients (ICCs, Spearman and Pearson correlations, Kappa statistics) and mean differences (standardized by the standard deviation, SD, and the response scale range). Pooled estimates of correlation and mean difference were estimated. The modifying effects of mode of administration, year of publication, study design, time interval between administrations, mean age of participants and publication type were examined. RESULTS: Four hundred thirty-five individual correlations were extracted, these correlations being highly variable (I2 = 93.8) but showing generally good equivalence, with ICCs ranging from 0.65 to 0.99 and the pooled correlation coefficient being 0.88 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.88). Standardised mean differences for 307 studies were small and less variable (I2 = 33.5) with a pooled standardised mean difference of 0.037 (95% CI 0.031 to 0.042). Average administration mode/platform-specific correlations from 56 studies (61 estimates) had a pooled estimate of 0.88 (95% CI 0.86 to 0.90) and were still highly variable (I2 = 92.1). Similarly, average platform-specific ICCs from 39 studies (42 estimates) had a pooled estimate of 0.90 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.92) with an I2 of 91.5. After excluding 20 studies with outlying correlation coefficients (≥3SD from the mean), the I2 was 54.4, with the equivalence still high, the overall pooled correlation coefficient being 0.88 (95% CI 0.87 to 0.88). Agreement was found to be greater in more recent studies (p < 0.001), in randomized studies compared with non-randomised studies (p < 0.001), in studies with a shorter interval (<1 day) (p < 0.001), and in respondents of mean age 28 to 55 compared with those either younger or older (p < 0.001). In terms of mode/platform, paper vs Interactive Voice Response System (IVRS) comparisons had the lowest pooled agreement and paper vs tablet/touch screen the highest (p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The present study supports the conclusion of Gwaltney's previous meta-analysis showing that PROMs administered on paper are quantitatively comparable with measures administered on an electronic device. It also confirms the ISPOR Taskforce´s conclusion that quantitative equivalence studies are not required for migrations with minor change only. This finding should be reassuring to investigators, regulators and sponsors using questionnaires on electronic devicesafter migration using best practices. Although there is data indicating that migrations with moderate changes produce equivalent instrument versions, hence do not require quantitative equivalence studies, additional work is necessary to establish this. Furthermore, there is the need to standardize migration practices and reporting practices (i.e. include copies of tested instrument versions and screenshots) so that clear recommendations regarding equivalence testing can be made in the future.raising questions about the necessity of conducting equivalence testing moving forward.

Change in health status in long-term conditions over a one year period: a cohort survey using patient-reported outcome measures.

BACKGROUND: Enhancing quality of life for people with long-term conditions by monitoring patient-reported outcome measure scores is a key domain of health care policy. This study investigated the responsiveness of patient-reported outcome measures for long-term conditions. METHODS: A cohort survey was conducted in 33 primary care practices and 4485 patients (1334 asthma, 567 chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, 1121 diabetes, 525 epilepsy, 520 heart failure and 418 stroke) were sent a baseline survey containing a generic (EQ-5D) and a disease-specific measure. Baseline respondents were sent a follow-up after 1 year. Differences in scores for each long-term condition were assessed by paired t-tests. The relationship between scores and self-reported 'change in health' was assessed by analysis of variance. RESULTS: The baseline achieved a 38.4% response rate and the follow-up 71.5%. The only significant difference for the EQ-5D was found for the Visual Analogue Scale in heart failure between baseline and follow-up, and for change in health. Significant differences between baseline and follow-up scores were found on the disease-specific measures for 1 asthma dimension and 1 stroke dimension. No significant differences were found for other conditions. Significant differences between self-reported change in health and the disease-specific measures were found for 4 asthma dimensions and 2 stroke dimensions. CONCLUSIONS: Few significant differences were found between the baseline and follow up or between 'change in health' and PROMs scores. This could be explained by the time frame of one year being too short for change to occur or by the PROMs not being responsive enough to change in a primary care sample. The latter is unlikely as the PROMs were in part chosen for their responsiveness to change. The baseline response rates may mean that the sample is not representative, and stable patients may have been more likely to participate. If PROMs are to be used routinely to monitor outcomes in LTCs, further research is needed to maximize response rates, to ensure that the PROMs used are reliable, valid and sensitive enough to detect change and that the time frame for data collection is appropriate.

Development and validation of a parent-report measure for detection of cognitive delay in infancy.

AIM: To develop a brief, parent-completed instrument (ERIC - Early Report by Infant Caregivers) for detection of cognitive delay in 10- to 24-month-olds born preterm, or of low birthweight, or with perinatal complications, and to establish ERIC's diagnostic properties. METHOD: Scores for ERIC were collected from the parents of 317 children meeting ≥inclusion criterion (birthweight <1500 g, gestational age <34 completed weeks, 5 min Apgar score <7, or presence of hypoxic-ischaemic encephalopathy) and no exclusion criteria. Children were assessed using a criterion score of below 80 on the Bayley Scales of Infant and Toddler Development-III cognitive scale. Items were retained according to their individual associations with delay. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive and negative predictive values were estimated and a truncated ERIC was developed for use in children <14 months old. RESULTS: ERIC correctly detected developmental delay in 17 out of 18 children in the sample, with 94.4% sensitivity, 76.9% specificity, 19.8% positive predictive value, 99.6% negative predictive value, 4.09 likelihood ratio positive, and 0.07 likelihood ratio negative. INTERPRETATION: ERIC has potential value as a quickly administered diagnostic instrument for the absence of early cognitive delay in 10- to 24-month-old preterm infants and as a screen for cognitive delay.

The effect of telecare on the quality of life and psychological well-being of elderly recipients of social care over a 12-month period: the Whole Systems Demonstrator cluster randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: home-based telecare (TC) is utilised to manage risks of independent living and provide prompt emergency responses. This study examined the effect of TC on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), anxiety and depressive symptoms over 12 months in patients receiving social care. DESIGN: a study of participant-reported outcomes [the Whole Systems Demonstrator (WSD) Telecare Questionnaire Study; baseline n = 1,189] was nested in a pragmatic cluster-randomised trial of TC (the WSD Telecare trial), held across three English Local Authorities. General practice (GP) was the unit of randomisation and TC was compared with usual care (UC). METHODS: participant-reported outcome measures were collected at baseline, short-term (4 months) and long-term (12 months) follow-up, assessing generic HRQoL, anxiety and depressive symptoms. Primary intention-to-treat analyses tested treatment effectiveness and were conducted using multilevel models to control for GP clustering and covariates for participants who completed questionnaire measures at baseline assessment plus at least one other assessment (n = 873). RESULTS: analyses found significant differences between TC and UC on Short Form-12 mental component scores (P < 0.05), with parameter estimates indicating being a member of the TC trial-arm increases mental component scores (UC-adjusted mean = 40.52; TC-adjusted mean = 43.69). Additional significant analyses revealed, time effects on EQ5D (decreasing over time) and depressive symptoms (increasing over time). CONCLUSIONS: TC potentially contributes to the amelioration in the decline in users' mental HRQoL over a 12-month period. TC may not transform the lives of its users, but it may afford small relative benefits on some psychological and HRQOL outcomes relative to users who only receive UC. International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register: ISRCTN 43002091.