Health care utilization and mortality for people with epilepsy during COVID-19: A population study.

OBJECTIVE: This study was undertaken to characterize changes in health care utilization and mortality for people with epilepsy (PWE) during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We performed a retrospective study using linked, individual-level, population-scale anonymized health data from the Secure Anonymised Information Linkage databank. We identified PWE living in Wales during the study "pandemic period" (January 1, 2020-June 30, 2021) and during a "prepandemic" period (January 1, 2016-December 31, 2019). We compared prepandemic health care utilization, status epilepticus, and mortality rates with corresponding pandemic rates for PWE and people without epilepsy (PWOE). We performed subgroup analyses on children (<18 years old), older people (>65 years old), those with intellectual disability, and those living in the most deprived areas. We used Poisson models to calculate adjusted rate ratios (RRs). RESULTS: We identified 27 279 PWE who had significantly higher rates of hospital (50.3 visits/1000 patient months), emergency department (55.7), and outpatient attendance (172.4) when compared to PWOE (corresponding figures: 25.7, 25.2, and 87.0) in the prepandemic period. Hospital and epilepsy-related hospital admissions, and emergency department and outpatient attendances all reduced significantly for PWE (and all subgroups) during the pandemic period. RRs [95% confidence intervals (CIs)] for pandemic versus prepandemic periods were .70 [.69-.72], .77 [.73-.81], .78 [.77-.79], and .80 [.79-.81]. The corresponding rates also reduced for PWOE. New epilepsy diagnosis rates decreased during the pandemic compared with the prepandemic period (2.3/100 000/month cf. 3.1/100 000/month, RR = .73, 95% CI = .68-.78). Both all-cause deaths and deaths with epilepsy recorded on the death certificate increased for PWE during the pandemic (RR = 1.07, 95% CI = .997-1.145 and RR = 2.44, 95% CI = 2.12-2.81). When removing COVID deaths, RRs were .88 (95% CI = .81-.95) and 1.29 (95% CI = 1.08-1.53). Status epilepticus rates did not change significantly during the pandemic (RR = .95, 95% CI = .78-1.15). SIGNIFICANCE: All-cause non-COVID deaths did not increase but non-COVID deaths associated with epilepsy did increase for PWE during the COVID-19 pandemic. The longer term effects of the decrease in new epilepsy diagnoses and health care utilization and increase in deaths associated with epilepsy need further research.

Epilepsy and the risk of COVID-19-related hospitalization and death: A population study.

OBJECTIVE: People with epilepsy (PWE) may be at an increased risk of severe COVID-19. It is important to characterize this risk to inform PWE and for future health and care planning. We assessed whether PWE were at higher risk of being hospitalized with, or dying from, COVID-19. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study using linked, population-scale, anonymized electronic health records from the SAIL (Secure Anonymised Information Linkage) databank. This includes hospital admission and demographic data for the complete Welsh population (3.1 million) and primary care records for 86% of the population. We identified 27 279 PWE living in Wales during the study period (March 1, 2020 to June 30, 2021). Controls were identified using exact 5:1 matching (sex, age, and socioeconomic status). We defined COVID-19 deaths as having International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision (ICD-10) codes for COVID-19 on death certificates or occurring within 28 days of a positive SARS-CoV-2 polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test. COVID-19 hospitalizations were defined as having a COVID-19 ICD-10 code for the reason for admission or occurring within 28 days of a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test. We recorded COVID-19 vaccinations and comorbidities known to increase the risk of COVID-19 hospitalization and death. We used Cox proportional hazard models to calculate hazard ratios. RESULTS: There were 158 (.58%) COVID-19 deaths and 933 (3.4%) COVID-19 hospitalizations in PWE, and 370 (.27%) deaths and 1871 (1.4%) hospitalizations in controls. Hazard ratios for COVID-19 death and hospitalization in PWE compared to controls were 2.15 (95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.78-2.59) and 2.15 (95% CI = 1.94-2.37), respectively. Adjusted hazard ratios (adjusted for comorbidities) for death and hospitalization were 1.32 (95% CI = 1.08-1.62) and 1.60 (95% CI = 1.44-1.78). SIGNIFICANCE: PWE are at increased risk of being hospitalized with, and dying from, COVID-19 when compared to age-, sex-, and deprivation-matched controls, even when adjusting for comorbidities. This may have implications for prioritizing future COVID-19 treatments and vaccinations for PWE.

Quality-of-life issues and symptoms reported by patients living with haematological malignancy: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Our aim was to identify health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) issues and symptoms in patients with haematological malignancies (HMs) and develop a conceptual framework to reflect the inter-relation between them. METHODS: A total of 129 patients with HMs were interviewed in a UK multicentre qualitative study. All interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and analysed using NVivo-11. RESULTS: Overall, 34 issues were reported by patients and were grouped into two parts: quality of life (QoL) and symptoms. The most prevalent HRQoL issues were: eating and drinking habits; social life; physical activity; sleep; and psychological well-being. Furthermore, most prevalent disease-related symptoms were: tiredness; feeling unwell; breathlessness; lack of energy; and back pain. The most prevalent treatment side effects were: tiredness; feeling sick; disturbance in sense of taste; and breathlessness. CONCLUSIONS: Both HMs and their treatments have a significant impact on patients' HRQoL, in particular on issues such as job-role change, body image and impact on finances.

Development of a Novel Hematological Malignancy Specific Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (HM-PRO): Content Validity.

BACKGROUND: The quality of life of patients at all stages of hematological malignancy is greatly affected by the disease and its treatment. There is a wide range of health-related quality of life (HRQoL) issues important to these patients. Any new instrument developed to measure HRQoL of such patients should be content valid, i.e., the items should be comprehensively relevant to the patients and their health condition. The aim of the present study was to examine content validity of a hematological malignancy specific patient reported outcome measure (HM-PRO) developed for use in routine clinical practice. METHODS: Following literature review and semi-structured interviews, the generated themes and sub-themes were discussed to develop the prototype version of the HM-PRO. A 4-step approach was used for content validation: initial testing and cognitive interviewing; item rating; content validity panel meeting; final field testing and cognitive interviewing. Additional questions related to patients' perception of recall period and preferred sentence structure (i.e., question or statement) of the items were also asked during cognitive interviews. RESULTS: The content analysis of 129 transcribed semi-structured interviews resulted in the prototype version of the instrument consisting of 58 items grouped into two parts: Part A (impact/HRQoL - 34 items) and Part B (signs and symptoms - 24 items). The initial testing showed intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) of >0.8 for both Part A and Part B. Item rating for language clarity, completeness, relevance, and response scale by experts and patients showed content validity index for scales average >0.8 for both Part A and Part B, except 0.64 for relevance for Part A by the patient panel. The final testing of the revised version of the instrument showed the Cronbach's alpha value of 0.91 for Part A and 0.76 for Part B, suggesting high internal consistency, and ICC of 0.91 for Part A and 0.76 for Part B. The recall period of "today" for Part-A and "last 3 days" for Part-B were the patients' preferred "recall period." Furthermore, the patients expressed preference to the HM-PRO items as statements. CONCLUSION: The findings of this study confirm that the HM-PRO possesses a strong content validity, includes all the issues important to patients and is easy to read, understand and respond to spontaneously.

Reliability of a Novel Hematological Malignancy Specific Patient-Reported Outcome Measure: HM-PRO.

BACKGROUND: Patients' experience of symptoms often goes undetected during consultation in an outpatient clinic, and the use of a patient-reported outcome measure (PRO) in such a setting could be useful to aid treatment decision-making. A new PRO measure, the HM-PRO (Hematological Malignancy Specific Patient-Reported Outcome Measure) has been recently developed to evaluate hematological malignancy (HM) patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and their symptom experience in daily clinical practice as well as in research. The objectives of the study were to assess: the internal consistency of the scores for Part A (impact) and its four domains (physical behavior; social well-being; emotional behavior; and eating and drinking habits) and Part B (signs and symptoms); and the test-retest reliability of the individual items of the newly developed hematological malignancy specific composite measure, the HM-PRO. METHODS: This was a prospective longitudinal observational study where 150 patients with different HMs and different stage of disease (male n = 98 (65.3%); mean age 64.9 ± 14.4 years, range 17.9-89.2 years; mean time since diagnosis 3.7 ± 4.9 years, range 0.04-25.8 years) completed the HM-PRO at baseline (assessment 1 at t1) and after 7 days (assessment 2 at t2). Data analysis was performed using IBMSPSS 23 statistical software. RESULTS: The Cronbach's alpha estimates of the HM-PRO for both assessment points (t1 and t2) were above 0.9 for Part A, and above 0.8 for Part B, showing strong stability of the measurement. The level of agreement for the reproducibility between the two assessments, using intra-class correlation coefficients (ICC), was very strong with Part A: ICC = 0.93 (95% CI = 0.90-0.95), and Part B: ICC = 0.91 (0.88-0.93). The ICC for the four domains of Part A ranged from 0.85-0.91. The ICC was greater than 0.8 for overall score of Part A and Part B for all the 10 diagnoses, confirming strong reliability. CONCLUSION: This study clearly indicates that the HM-PRO possesses strong test-retest reliability for both Part A and Part B. The Cronbach's alpha confirmed acceptable internal consistency. The extensive reliability testing described in this study supports the generic nature of the HM-PRO for use in hematological malignancies in both routine clinical practice, to aid treatment decisions, as well as in research.

Hematological Malignancy Specific Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (HM-PRO): Construct Validity Study.

BACKGROUND: Validity is the ability of an instrument to measure what it claims to measure. It means the degree to which the empirical evidence supports the trustworthiness of interpretations based on the calculated scores. The hematological malignancy (HM) specific patient reported outcome measure (HM-PRO), is a newly developed instrument for use in daily clinical practice as well as in research. This study, provides the evidence for construct validity of the HM-PRO, specifically focusing on the convergent and divergent validity compared to the other established instruments used in hematology. METHODS: This validation study adopted a prospective cross-sectional design where a heterogeneous group of patients diagnosed with different HMs and different disease state were recruited. A total of 905 patients were recruited from seven secondary care hospitals in the UK and online through five patient organizations. Patients were asked to complete the HM-PRO and other cancer specific PRO's, FACT-G and EORTC QLQ C-30. Data analysis was performed using IBM SPSS 23 statistical software. RESULTS: A total of 486 males (53.7%) and 419 females (46.3%), with a mean age of 64.3 (± 12.4) years and mean time since diagnosis of 4.6 ( ± 5.2) were recruited. The total score of Part A of the HM-PRO highly correlated with the five functional scales of the EORTC QLQ-C30 (Physical = -0.71, Role = -0.72, Emotional = -0.64, Cognitive = -0.58, Social = -0.74-p < 0.001). With respect to correlation with FACT-G, the total score of Part A of the HM-PRO highly correlated with Physical (-0.74), Emotional (-0.57), Functional (-0.66) domains and overall score of FACT-G (-0.74). Similarly, the total score of Part B of the HM-PRO highly correlated with three symptoms scales of EORTC QLQ-C30 (Fatigue scale = -0.74, Nausea and Vomiting = -0.52, Pain = -0.59-p < 0.001) and individual symptom items (Dyspnea = 0.51, Insomnia= 0.43, Appetite loss = 0.54-p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The construct validity evidence presented in this research is a testimony to the HM-PRO's ability to measure HRQoL issues which it intends to measure. This is of utmost importance when a PRO is used in routine clinical practice so that the interpretation of the scores or response to an individual item is understood by the clinicians/nurses as intended by the patients.

Paper and electronic versions of HM-PRO, a novel patient-reported outcome measure for hematology: an equivalence study.

Aim: To determine measurement equivalence of paper and electronic application of the hematological malignancy-patient-reported outcome (HM-PRO), a specific measure for the evaluation of patient-reported outcomes in HMs. Patients & methods: Following International Society of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research ePRO Good Research Practice Task Force guidelines, a total of 193 adult patients with different HMs were recruited into a multicenter prospective study. The paper and the electronic version of the instrument were completed in the outpatient clinics in a randomized crossover design with a 30 min time interval to minimize the learning effect. Those who completed the paper version first, completed the electronic version after 30 min and vice versa. Instrument version and order effects were tested on total score of the two parts of the HM-PRO (Part A: quality of life and Part B: signs & symptoms) in a two-way ANOVA with patients as random effects. Intraclass correlation coefficients (95% CI) and Spearman's rank correlation coefficients were used to evaluate test-retest reliability and reproducibility. The effects of instrument version and order were tested on total score of the two parts of HM-PRO. Results: The questionnaire version and administration order effects were not significant at the 5% level. There were no interactions found between these two factors for HM-PRO (Part A [quality of life]; p = 0.95); and (part B [signs and symptoms]; p = 0.72]. Spearman's rank correlation coefficients were greater than 0.9, and intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.94 to 0.98; furthermore, the scores were not statistically different between the two versions, showing acceptable reliability indexes. Noteworthy, the difference between the completion time for both paper (mean = 6:38 min) and electronic version (mean = 7:29 min) was not statistically significant (n = 100; p = 0.11). Patients did not report any difficulty in completing the electronic version during cognitive interviews and were able to understand and respond spontaneously. Conclusion: Measurement equivalence has been demonstrated for the paper and electronic application of the HM-PRO.