Patient-reported outcome measures in severe asthma: an expert consensus.

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: The study aimed to reach a consensus on the most relevant patient-reported outcomes (PROs), the corresponding measures (PROMs), and measurement frequency during severe asthma patient follow-up. METHODS: Two Delphi rounds were conducted. The questionnaire was developed based on a systematic literature review, a focus group with patients, and a nominal group with experts. It assessed PROs' relevance and the appropriateness (A) and feasibility (F) of PROMs using a Likert scale (1=totally agree; 9=totally disagree). The consensus was established when ≥75% of participants agreed (1-3) or disagreed (7-9). RESULTS: Sixty-three professionals (25 hospital pharmacists, 14 allergists, 13 pulmonologists, and 11 nurses) and 5 patients answered the Delphi questionnaire. A consensus was reached on all PROs regarding their relevance. Experts agreed on the use of ACT (A95.24%; F95.24%), mini AQLQ (A93.65; F79.37%), mMRC dyspnea scale (A85.71%; F85.71%), TAI (A92.06%; F85.71%), MMAS (A75.40%; F82%), and the dispensing register (A96.83%; F92.06%). Also considered suitable were SNOT-22 (A90.48%; F73.80%), PSQI (A82.54; F63.90%), HADS (A82.54; F64%), WPAI (A77.78%; F49.20%), TSQM-9 (A79.37; F70.50%) and knowledge of asthma questionnaire (A77%; F68.80%); however, their use in clinical practice was considered unfeasible. Panelists also agreed on the appropriateness of EQ-5D, which was finally included despite being considered unfeasible (A 84.13%; F67.20%) in clinical practice. Agreement was reached on using ACT, TAI, mMRC, and a dispensing register every three months; mini-AQLQ and MMAS every six months; and EQ-5D every twelve months. CONCLUSION: This consensus paves the way toward patient-centered care, promoting the development of strategies supporting routine assessment of PROs in severe asthma management.