Health-related quality of life and patient burden in patients with split-thickness skin graft donor site wounds.

Split-thickness skin grafting is a common procedure to treat different kinds of wounds. This systematic, multicentre, observational, cross-sectional study of adult patients with split-thickness skin graft (STSG) donor site wounds was conducted to evaluate quality of life (QoL) impairments caused by donor site wounds following split-thickness skin grafting. Therefore, 112 patients from 12 wound centres in Germany were examined based on patient and physician questionnaires as well as a physical examination of the donor site wound. Most indications for skin grafting were postsurgical treatment (n = 51; 42.5%) and chronic wounds (n = 47; 39.2%). European QoL visual analoque scale (EQ VAS) averaged 64.7 ± 23.3, European QoL 5 dimensions (EQ-5D) averaged 77.4 ± 30.0. Wound-QoL (range: 0-4) was rated 0.8 ± 0.8 post-surgery and 0.4 ± 0.6 at the time of survey (on average 21 weeks between the time points). Compared to averaged Wound-QoL scores of chronic wounds donor site-related QoL impairments in split-thickness skin-graft patients were less pronounced. There were significant differences in patient burden immediately after surgery compared to the time of the survey, with medium effect sizes. This supports the hypothesis that faster healing of the donor site wound leads to more favourable patient-reported outcomes.

The definition and role of quality of life in Germany's early assessment of drug benefit: a qualitative approach.

PURPOSE: In 2011, Germany introduced a new form of drug benefit assessment, linking reimbursement prices to drug benefit and making quality of life (QoL) one of the main benefit criteria. Thus, QoL outcomes co-determine drug prices in Germany. QoL has, however, not been defined in the regulations. This study analyzed the definition and role of QoL in Germany's drug benefit assessment. It serves as a case study on the complexity of QoL as a parameter of health technology and drug assessments, which have become mandatory in almost all industrialized countries. METHODS: In a qualitative analysis, the publicly available dossiers (summaries), dossier evaluations, protocols of the oral hearings, the final resolutions of the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA) and its rationale of all benefit assessments completed by 2013 (n = 66) were processed. Additionally, quantitative data on the decision outcomes were collected. RESULTS: Only two decisions drew on QoL outcomes as "main justifications" for additional benefit. It was due to a lack of valid and statistically significant QoL results, a deficient presentation of QoL data, or differing understandings of QoL, that QoL benefit was not demonstrated in more than two cases. While manufacturers applied wider definitions of QoL, the assessment institutions questioned evidence if it was not reported with the help of validated QoL questionnaires or deviated from their definition of QoL. CONCLUSIONS: The German experience with QoL as a drug benefit criterion highlights the importance of a clear QoL definition and according methodological regulations.

Four years of early benefit assessment of new drugs in Germany: a qualitative study on methodological requirements for quality of life data.

BACKGROUND: Since 2011, an early benefit assessment (EBA) of new drugs constricts free price setting in Germany. According to the Pharmaceutical Market Restructuring Act (AMNOG), pharmaceutical companies are obliged to demonstrate added benefit of new drugs over comparative treatment. Benefit is usually evaluated by the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG). The final appraisal is made by the Federal Joint Committee, Germany's highest-ranking decision body in the health sector, triggering drug prize negotiations between companies and statutory health insurance funds. One of four evaluation criteria is quality of life (QoL). QoL outcomes have, however, only rarely been pivotal in EBAs. OBJECTIVE: This study determined methodological requirements for QoL measurement and data presentation in the EBA. DESIGN: In a qualitative content analysis, documents of all EBAs completed by 2014 were searched for the term QoL. Relevant passages of all EBAs of 2011-2013 were independently extracted and reduced to key content by two researchers. Recurring patterns were identified and verified through comparison with EBAs of 2014. RESULTS: We identified a range of requirements regarding QoL assessment, analysis, presentation, and interpretation, which go beyond official regulations. Disease-specific questionnaires are preferred and have to be validated according to certain standards and in the respective patient group. Effects must exceed the minimal important difference, which in turn must be validated in compliance with specific requirements. Often, instruments were not accepted as QoL measures, sometimes inconsistently across EBAs. Another frequent reason for non-acceptance of QoL data was that more than 30 % of randomized patients could not be analyzed due to missing data. CONCLUSIONS: Non-compliance with methodological requirements for QoL evidence impairs chances for positive benefit evaluation.

Development and validation of the Patient Benefit Index for the dermatocosmetic treatment of aged skin.

This study aimed to develop and validate an instrument for the assessment of patient-relevant benefit in dermatocosmetic treatment, i.e., skin care, of aged skin. Based on an open item collection with 33 elderly persons, items on patient-relevant treatment goals were collected. An expert panel selected 20 items to be most relevant and feasible for the questionnaire named Patient Benefit Index for Aged Skin (PBI-AS). The instrument, which assesses goal importance and achievement, was tested in a cognitive debriefing and validated in a longitudinal study (n = 80) along with the Dry Skin Area and Severity Index (DASI) and the Dermatology Quality of Life Index (DLQI) as convergent validation criteria. The cognitive debriefing showed the good practicability and feasibility of the instrument. Significant correlation with change in DASI (r = -0.527; p < 0.001) supports convergent validity of the PBI-AS. By contrast, correlation with DLQI was poor, indicating the different constructs. The PBI-AS is a valid and feasible tool for the patient-centered assessment of dermatocosmetic treatment benefit in aged skin.