An observational, patient-reported outcome study of sleep quality and depression among individuals with overactive bladder syndrome.

INTRODUCTION: Overactive bladder (OAB) can adversely affect health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) and adherence to treatments; however, the extent of their association is unknown. This study sought to characterize Sleep Disturbance, Depression, Fatigue, and patient-reported medication adherence among adults with OAB in the United States. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this descriptive, observational study, patients completed patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures of urinary symptoms, anxiety, depression, fatigue, sleep quality, and medication adherence. PRO scores were compared across age, sex, body mass index, and sleep and antidepressant medication-taking subgroups. Exploratory analyses compared PRO scores between groups and estimated the effect size of differences. RESULTS: Of 1013 patients contacted, 159 completed the assessments (female: 67.3%; ≥65 years of age: 53.5%; most severe OAB symptom: nocturia). Scale scores for Sleep Disturbance, Fatigue, and Depression were consistent with US population norms. No correlations of moderate or greater magnitude were observed between the severity of lower urinary tract symptoms and Sleep Disturbance, Fatigue, or Depression. When comparing individuals receiving antidepressants with those who were not, almost all outcomes including urinary symptoms, anxiety, and depression were significantly worse. Patients taking antidepressants also had poorer adherence to their OAB medications. CONCLUSION: In this cohort of individuals with OAB, Sleep Disturbance, Fatigue, and Depression scores were in line with general population reference values; however, among the subgroups analyzed, patients on antidepressants had worse HRQoL and more substantial impacts on medication adherence, highlighting the importance of the assessment and management of depression in this population.

[Special issue PRO] Considering endpoints for comparative tolerability of cancer treatments using patient report given the estimand framework.

Regulatory agencies are advancing the use of systematic approaches to collect patient experience data, including patient-reported outcomes (PROs), in cancer clinical trials to inform regulatory decision-making. Due in part to clinician under-reporting of symptomatic adverse events, there is a growing recognition that evaluation of cancer treatment tolerability should include the patient experience, both in terms of the overall side effect impact and symptomatic adverse events. Methodologies around implementation, analysis, and interpretation of "patient" reported tolerability are under development, and current approaches are largely descriptive. There is robust guidance for use of PROs as efficacy endpoints to compare cancer treatments, but it is unclear to what extent this can be relied-upon to develop tolerability endpoints. An important consideration when developing endpoints to compare tolerability between treatments is the linkage of trial design, objectives, and statistical analysis. Despite interest in and frequent collection of PRO data in oncology trials, heterogeneity in analyses and unclear PRO objectives mean that design, objectives, and analysis may not be aligned, posing substantial challenges for the interpretation of results. The recent ICH E9 (R1) estimand framework represents an opportunity to help address these challenges. Efforts to apply the estimand framework in the context of PROs have primarily focused on efficacy outcomes. In this paper, we discuss considerations for comparing the patient-reported tolerability of different treatments in an oncology trial context.

Massive Irreparable Rotator Cuff Tears Treated With a Tuberoplasty Yield Favorable Clinical Outcomes With Variable Rates of Complications: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: To systematically review the patient-reported outcomes and postoperative complications following tuberoplasty for the treatment of massive irreparable rotator cuff tears. METHODS: A literature search was conducted using PubMed and EMBASE computerized databases from database inception to June 2023 in accordance with the 2020 Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis guidelines. Included studies evaluated clinical outcomes, postoperative complications, and reoperation rates following tuberoplasty for the treatment of massive irreparable rotator cuff tears. Exclusion criteria consisted of non-English language, cadaveric studies, case reports, animal studies, studies with overlapping cohorts, letters to editors, and review articles. Study quality was assessed using the Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies criteria. Clinical outcome scores included the visual analog scale for pain, University of California Los Angeles score, and Constant score. RESULTS: Seven studies from 2002 to 2023 consisting of 123 patients with a mean age of 66.5 years (mean range, 63-70.4 years) were included. The mean follow-up time ranged from 18 to 98 months. The mean Methodological Index for Non-Randomized Studies score was 13.5 (range, 13-15). At final follow-up, the mean postoperative visual analog scale pain scores ranged from 2.3 to 2.5, University of California-Los Angeles shoulder score from 27.2 to 27.7, and Constant scores from 59.2 to 90.6. Postoperative active forward flexion and abduction ranged from 131° to 165°, and 123° to 160°, respectively. The change in acromiohumeral distance postoperatively ranged from -1 mm to -0.6 mm. The rate of postoperative complications ranged from 0% to 19% of patients, while 0% to 19% of patients underwent revision surgery to reverse shoulder arthroplasty. CONCLUSIONS: Tuberoplasty for the treatment of massive irreparable rotator cuff tears results in good clinical outcomes with significant pain relief in select populations. However, the variable reoperation rates should be considered when counseling patients. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: Level IV, systematic review of Level IV studies.

Assessing Fatigue in Patients Receiving Kidney Replacement Therapy Using PROMIS Computer Adaptive Testing.

RATIONALE & OBJECTIVE: Fatigue is a debilitating symptom for many patients receiving kidney replacement therapy (KRT). Patient-reported outcome measures can help clinicians identify and manage fatigue efficiently. We assessed the measurement characteristics of the Patient Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS)-Fatigue Computer Adaptive Test (PROMIS-F CAT) in patients receiving KRT using the previously validated Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) questionnaire. STUDY DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: 198 adults treated with dialysis or recipients of a kidney transplant in Toronto, Canada. PREDICTORS: Demographic data, FACIT-F scores, KRT type. OUTCOME: Measurement properties of PROMIS-F CAT T scores. ANALYTICAL APPROACH: Reliability and test-retest reliability were assessed using standard errors of measurement and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), respectively. Construct validity was assessed using correlation and comparisons across predefined groups expected to have different levels of fatigue. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves were used to assess the discrimination of PROMIS-F CAT, with clinically relevant fatigue defined by a FACIT-F score of≤30. RESULTS: Of the 198 participants, 57% were male, the mean±SD age was 57±14 years; 65% had received a kidney transplant. Based on the FACIT-F score, 47 patients (24%) had clinically relevant fatigue. PROMIS-F CAT and FACIT-F were strongly correlated (ρ =-0.80, P<0.001). PROMIS-F CAT had excellent reliability (>0.90 for 98% of sample), and good test-retest reliability (ICC=0.85). The ROC analysis demonstrated outstanding discrimination (area under ROC=0.93 [95%, CI 0.89-0.97]). A PROMIS-F CAT cutoff score of≥59 accurately identified most patients with clinically relevant fatigue (sensitivity=0.83; specificity=0.91). LIMITATIONS: A convenience sample of clinically stable patients. FACIT-F items are a part of the PROMIS-F item bank, although there was minimal overlap with only 4 FACIT-F items completed in PROMIS-F CAT. CONCLUSIONS: PROMIS-F CAT has robust measurement properties with low question burden to assess fatigue among patients with KRT.

Patient-reported outcomes of maintenance rucaparib in patients with recurrent ovarian carcinoma in ARIEL3, a phase III, randomized, placebo-controlled trial.

PURPOSE: To compare NFOSI-18 Disease Related Symptoms - Physical (DRSP), Total score, and side effect bother between maintenance rucaparib (600 mg twice daily) vs. placebo in the phase III ARIEL3 trial. METHODS: ARIEL3 (NCT01968213) included patients with ovarian carcinoma who responded to second-line or later platinum-based chemotherapy. The NFOSI-18 DRS-P and Total scales were secondary endpoints. The NFOSI-18 contains a side effect impact item (GP5): "I am bothered by side effects of treatment." We compared treatment arms on change from baseline of DRS-P and Total scores using mixed models with repeated measures (MRMM). Time to first and confirmed deterioration of NFOSI-18 DRS-P and Total scales were analyzed using Cox regression. We also calculated the proportion of patients reporting moderate to high side effect bother on GP5. RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat (ITT) cohort, mean change from baseline favored the placebo. Compared to placebo, rucaparib was associated with higher risk of deterioration [e.g., 4-point deteriorator definition hazard ratio (HR): 1.85; 95% CI: 1.46, 2.36; median time to first deterioration on DRSP: 1.9 vs. 7.0 months]. Confirmed deterioration results resembled those for first deterioration. Proportions of patients reporting moderate/high side effect bother on GP5 fluctuated around 20% across treatment cycles. Results in BRCA mutant and homologous recombination deficient cohorts were generally similar to those from the ITT cohort. CONCLUSION: This placebo-controlled study in the maintenance therapy setting provides a unique view of the impact of PARP inhibition on the patient-reported outcomes that are commonly used in ovarian cancer clinical trials. Information regarding the adverse side effect impact of PARP inhibitors should be weighed against their clinical benefit.

Two-step screening for depressive symptoms in patients treated with kidney replacement therapies: a cross-sectional analysis.

BACKGROUND: Systematic screening for depressive symptoms may identify patients who may benefit from clinical assessment and psychosocial support. Here we assess a two-step screening using ultrabrief pre-screeners [Edmonton Symptom Assessment Survey-revised Depression item (ESASr-D) or Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2)] followed by the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Depression questionnaire (PROMIS-D) to identify depressive symptoms in patients on kidney replacement therapies. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of adults (kidney transplant recipients or treated with dialysis) in Toronto, ON, Canada. We simulated various two-step screening scenarios where only patients above a pre-screening cut-off score on the ESASr-D or PHQ-2 would move to step 2 (PROMIS-D). Screening performance was evaluated by sensitivity, specificity and positive and negative predictive values using the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) as the referent. The average number of items completed by patients in different scenarios was reported. RESULTS: Of 480 participants, 60% were male with a mean age of 55 years. Based on PHQ-9, 19% of patients had moderate or severe depressive symptoms. Pre-screening with a PHQ-2 score ≥1 combined with a PROMIS-D score of ≥53 provided the best two-step results (sensitivity 0.81, specificity 0.84, NPV 0.95). Two-step screening also reduces question burden. CONCLUSIONS: A two-step screening using a PHQ-2 score ≥1 followed by a PROMIS-D score ≥53 has good sensitivity and specificity for identifying potentially significant depressive symptoms among patients on kidney replacement therapies. This approach has lower question burden. Screened-in patients will need further clinical assessment to establish a diagnosis.

A viewpoint describing the American Society of Transplantation rationale to conduct a comprehensive patient survey assessing unmet immunosuppressive therapy needs.

This viewpoint aims to "set the stage" and provide the rationale for the proposed development of a large-scale, comprehensive survey assessing transplant patients' perceived unmet immunosuppressive therapy needs. Research in organ transplantation has historically focused on reducing the incidence and impact of rejection on allograft survival and minimizing or eliminating the need for chronic immunosuppressive therapies. There has been less emphasis and investment in therapies to improve patient-reported outcomes including health-related quality of life and side-effects. Patient-focused drug development (PFDD) is a new and important emphasis of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) that provides a guiding philosophy for incorporating the patient experience into drug development and evaluation. The American Society of Transplantation (AST) Board of Directors commissioned this working group to prepare for the conduct of a comprehensive patient survey assessing unmet immunosuppressive therapy needs. This paper aims to describe the basis for why it is important to conduct this survey and briefly outline the plan for broad stakeholder engagement to ensure the information gained is diverse, inclusive, and relevant for advancing PFDD in organ transplant recipients.

Does Scoring Method Impact Estimation of Significant Individual Changes Assessed by Patient-Reported Outcome Measures? Comparing Classical Test Theory Versus Item Response Theory.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to examine the ability of classical test theory (CTT) and item response theory (IRT) scores assessed by Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System® (PROMIS®) measures to identify significant individual changes in the setting of clinical studies, using both simulated and empirical data. METHODS: We used simulated data to compare the estimation of significant individual changes between CTT and IRT scores across different conditions and a clinical trial data set to verify the simulation results. We calculated reliable change indexes to estimate significant individual changes. RESULTS: For small true change, IRT scores showed a slightly higher rate of classifying change groups than CTT scores and were comparable with CTT scores for a shorter test length. Additionally, IRT scores were found to have a prominent advantage in the classification rates of change groups for medium to high true change over CTT scores. Such an advantage became prominent in a longer test length. The empirical data analysis results using an anchor-based approach further supported the above findings that IRT scores can more accurately classify participants into change groups than CTT scores. CONCLUSIONS: Given that IRT scores perform better, or at least comparably, in most conditions, we recommend using IRT scores to estimate significant individual changes and identify responders to treatment. This study provides evidence-based guidance in detecting individual changes based on CTT and IRT scores under various measurement conditions and leads to recommendations for identifying responders to treatment for participants in clinical trials.

Likely change indexes improve estimates of individual change on patient-reported outcomes.

PURPOSE: Individual change on a patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure can be assessed by statistical significance and meaningfulness to patients. We explored the relationship between these two criteria by varying the confidence levels of the coefficient of repeatability (CR) on the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (R) Physical Function (PF) 10a (PF10a) measure. METHODS: In a sample of 1129 adult cancer patients, we estimated individual-change thresholds on the PF10a from baseline to 6 weeks later with the CR at 50%, 68%, and 95% confidence. We also assessed agreement with group- and individual-level thresholds from anchor-based methods [mean change and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve] using a PF-specific patient global impression of change (PGIC). RESULTS: CRs at 50%, 68%, and 95% confidence were 3, 4, and 7 raw score points, respectively. The ROC- and mean-change-based thresholds for deterioration were -4 and -6; for improvement they were both 2. Kappas for agreement between anchor-based thresholds and CRs for deterioration ranged between κ = 0.65 and 1.00, while for improvement, they ranged between 0.35 and 0.83. Agreement between the PGIC and all CRs always fell below "good" (κ < 0.40) for deterioration (0.30-0.33) and were lower for improvement (0.16-0.28). CONCLUSIONS: In comparison to the CR at 95% confidence, CRs at 50% and 68% confidence (considered likely change indexes) have the advantage of maximizing the proportion of patients appropriately classified as changed according to statistical significance and meaningfulness.

International Society for Quality of Life Research commentary on the US Food and Drug Administration draft guidance for industry on core patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials.

In June 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a draft guidance for industry on core patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and related considerations for instrument selection and trial design in registrational cancer clinical trials, building on prior communications about the use of PROs to assess efficacy and tolerability in oncology drug development. The International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) Standards and Best Practices Committee led an initiative to draft a commentary about the guidance, focusing on its positive aspects and areas that would benefit from additional clarification and consideration. For comprehensiveness, the authors reviewed existing public comments on the draft guidance, and the commentary underwent a thorough review process through three ISOQOL Special Interest Groups (Psychometrics, Clinical Practice, and Regulatory and Health Technology Assessment Engagement) followed by the ISOQOL Board. The goal of this commentary is to situate this new and relevant guidance document within the context of recent regulatory efforts on PROs and highlight areas in which further work may ultimately benefit the field.

Are cultural or psychosocial factors associated with patient-reported outcomes at the conclusion of kidney transplant evaluation?

BACKGROUND: Kidney transplant evaluation (KTE) is a period marked by many stressors for patients, which may lead to poorer patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Research on the association of cultural and psychosocial factors with PROs during KTE is lacking, even though cultural and psychosocial variables may mitigate the relationship between acceptance status and PROs. METHODS: Using a prospective cohort study of 955 adults referred for KTE, we examined whether cultural factors and psychosocial characteristics, assessed at the initiation of KTE, are associated with PROs at KTE completion, controlling for demographics and medical factors. Also, we analyzed whether these factors moderate the relationship between transplant acceptance status and PROs. RESULTS: In multivariable regression models, a stronger sense of mastery was associated with higher physical and mental QOL. A stronger sense of self-esteem was associated with higher kidney-specific QOL. Depression was associated with a lower mental QOL, but only in those who were accepted for transplant. Having low levels of external locus of control was associated with better mental QOL in those who were not accepted for transplant. Higher anxiety was associated with poorer kidney-specific QOL among those who were not accepted for KT, but trust in physician was only associated with greater satisfaction in transplant clinic service for those who were accepted for KT. CONCLUSIONS: Targeting interventions to increase patient mastery and external locus of control, and reduce depression and anxiety in patients undergoing kidney transplant evaluation may be useful approaches to improve their experience during this stressful period.

Do You Recall?: Results From a Within-Person Recall Study of the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Short Form v2.0 - Physical Function 8c.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine whether responses to Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Short Form v2.0 - Physical Function 8c (PROMIS PF8c) items differed when the use of a 7-day recall period was compared with no specified recall period. METHODS: Using a within-subject design, we surveyed 1810 individuals from the US general population, administering PROMIS PF8c at survey beginning and end. The order of measure presentation was randomly assigned. We calculated recall difference scores (RDSs) as no recall score minus 7-day recall score using both item response theory-based T scores and raw summed scores. We examined the distribution and created Bland-Altman plots for both RDSTscore and RDSRaw. We also calculated correlations between no recall versus 7-day recall T score and raw scores. Finally, we determined whether differences in no recall versus 7-day recall scores were associated with patient-reported PF. RESULTS: RDSTscore and RDSRaw had means (root mean square differences) of 0.00 (5.43) and -0.04 (3.79), respectively. The vast majority (%) of RDSTscore and RDSRaw values fell between the Bland-Altman limits of agreement (-10.65 to 10.66 and -7.46 to 7.38, respectively). Pearson's correlations between no recall and 7-day recall for T scores and raw scores were 0.88 and 0.87, respectively. Effect sizes for mean RDSTscore and RDSRaw compared across level of Eastern Oncology Cooperative Group performance status, patient global impression of PF severity, and single PF items were near 0. CONCLUSIONS: We did not find any significant recall period effect on PF8c responses. Therefore, we recommend the use of the PROMIS physical function standard, with no specified recall time period.

Validity of a single-item indicator of treatment side effect bother in a diverse sample of cancer patients.

PURPOSE: With higher efficacy of cancer therapies, the numbers and types of side effects experienced by patients have also increased, evidencing a need for brief assessments of side effect bother. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General (FACT-G) includes the item "I am bothered by side effects of treatment" (GP5). This study aimed to confirm GP5's validity in a large, diverse, real-world patient sample. METHODS: Real-world data were drawn from 10 Adelphi Disease Specific Programmes (DSP™) conducted between 2015 and 2019 in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, the UK and the USA, covering 10 cancer sites. We examined correlations between GP5 responses and varied measures of patient-reported global health and the number of side effects experienced. We explored whether more advanced patients and those with worse Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Status Rating (ECOG PSR) reported greater side effect bother. Finally, we conducted differential item functioning (DIF) assessment using the Mantel-Haenszel approach. RESULTS: The sample included 6755 advanced cancer patients. GP5 responses were distributed similarly across most cancer sites. A moderate, negative correlation (rpolyserial = - 0.43) between GP5 responses and global health evidenced convergent validity. Known groups validity was evidenced by dichotomised distributions of GP5, showing expected results between cancer stage 2 vs. 3 and 4 and with ECOG PSR (p < 0.001). Little evidence of DIF was found. CONCLUSION: GP5 exhibited evidence of validity across cancer sites and countries and appeared to measure the same construct across these countries. GP5 has significant promise as a summary indicator of side effect bother.

How do patients interpret and respond to a single-item global indicator of cancer treatment tolerability?

BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in patient-reported measures of cancer treatment tolerability. A global measure of bother, the FACT GP5 item ("I am bothered by side effects of treatment") is potentially useful for regulatory, research, and clinical use. To understand this item's appropriateness for capturing treatment tolerability, we conducted cognitive interviews on this item with 3 samples of cancer patients. METHODS: Patients with ovarian cancer (Study 1: N = 21; on treatment), lymphoma (Study 2: N = 14; on treatment), and colorectal or lung cancer (Study 3: N = 16; treatment naïve) were interviewed about GP5's understandability and relevance to their treatment side effects. What patients think about when answering GP5 was also assessed. In all studies, the interview included both structured and open-ended questions. Qualitative data were coded to extract themes and responses to structured questions were tallied. RESULTS: Most patients on treatment (Studies 1 and 2) reported that the GP5 item wording is appropriate (88%) and its meaning is clear (97%). They were very confident or confident in their response (97%) and stated that GP5 was relevant to their cancer experience (97%). When answering GP5, patients considered their treatment and specific side effects. A large proportion (40%) of the treatment-naïve (Study 3) patients reported that GP5 was not relevant to their cancer treatment, and the largest proportion responded to GP5 thinking of negative side effect expectancies. CONCLUSION: This study provides assurance that GP5 is a useful indicator of treatment tolerability, and is meaningful to people with cancer, especially once they have started treatment.

Ethical Considerations for the Inclusion of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Research: The PRO Ethics Guidelines.

Importance: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can inform health care decisions, regulatory decisions, and health care policy. They also can be used for audit/benchmarking and monitoring symptoms to provide timely care tailored to individual needs. However, several ethical issues have been raised in relation to PRO use. Objective: To develop international, consensus-based, PRO-specific ethical guidelines for clinical research. Evidence Review: The PRO ethics guidelines were developed following the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network's guideline development framework. This included a systematic review of the ethical implications of PROs in clinical research. The databases MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, AMED, and CINAHL were searched from inception until March 2020. The keywords patient reported outcome* and ethic* were used to search the databases. Two reviewers independently conducted title and abstract screening before full-text screening to determine eligibility. The review was supplemented by the SPIRIT-PRO Extension recommendations for trial protocol. Subsequently, a 2-round international Delphi process (n = 96 participants; May and August 2021) and a consensus meeting (n = 25 international participants; October 2021) were held. Prior to voting, consensus meeting participants were provided with a summary of the Delphi process results and information on whether the items aligned with existing ethical guidance. Findings: Twenty-three items were considered in the first round of the Delphi process: 6 relevant candidate items from the systematic review and 17 additional items drawn from the SPIRIT-PRO Extension. Ninety-six international participants voted on the relevant importance of each item for inclusion in ethical guidelines and 12 additional items were recommended for inclusion in round 2 of the Delphi (35 items in total). Fourteen items were recommended for inclusion at the consensus meeting (n = 25 participants). The final wording of the PRO ethical guidelines was agreed on by consensus meeting participants with input from 6 additional individuals. Included items focused on PRO-specific ethical issues relating to research rationale, objectives, eligibility requirements, PRO concepts and domains, PRO assessment schedules, sample size, PRO data monitoring, barriers to PRO completion, participant acceptability and burden, administration of PRO questionnaires for participants who are unable to self-report PRO data, input on PRO strategy by patient partners or members of the public, avoiding missing data, and dissemination plans. Conclusions and Relevance: The PRO ethics guidelines provide recommendations for ethical issues that should be addressed in PRO clinical research. Addressing ethical issues of PRO clinical research has the potential to ensure high-quality PRO data while minimizing participant risk, burden, and harm and protecting participant and researcher welfare.

ARMADA: Assessing reliable measurement in Alzheimer's disease and cognitive aging project methods.

INTRODUCTION: Early detection of cognitive decline in older adults is a public health priority. Advancing Reliable Measurement in Alzheimer's Disease and Cognitive Aging (ARMADA), a multisite study, is validating cognition, emotion, motor, and sensory modules of the National Institutes of Health Toolbox for Assessment of Neurological and Behavioral Function (NIHTB) in the aging spectrum from cognitively normal to dementia of the Alzheimer's type (DAT). METHODS: Participants 65 to 85 years old, in demographic groups racially proportional to the general US population, are recruited in one of three groups to validate the NIHTB: cognitively normal, amnestic mild cognitive impairment (aMCI), or mild DAT. Additional special emphasis cohorts include (1) Blacks in the three clinical groups; (2) Spanish-speakers in the three clinical groups; (3) cognitively normal, population-proportional, over age 85. DISCUSSION: Longitudinal study will determine whether NIHTB can predict cognitive decline and is associated with Alzheimer's disease biomarkers. Here, we detail the methods for the ARMADA study.

Findings and recommendations from the organ transplant caregiver initiative: Moving clinical care and research forward.

Lay-caregivers are essential to the continuum of care in adult organ transplantation. However, we have a limited understanding of the experiences, exigencies, and outcomes associated with lay-caregiving for organ transplant patients. While much discussion and debate has focused on caregiver requirements in relation to transplant candidate selection, little focus has been given to understanding the needs of caregivers themselves. In response to this, the Organ Transplant Caregiver Initiative was created, and a meeting was held during October 6-7, 2019. Transplant healthcare professionals, researchers, and lay-caregivers discussed the experiences, educational needs, existing research, and research recommendations to improve the experience of lay-caregivers for adult organ transplant patients. In this report, we summarize the Organ Transplant Caregiver Initiative and meeting findings, providing a preliminary action plan to improve education, research, and advocacy for organ transplant caregivers.

Between-group minimally important change versus individual treatment responders.

PURPOSE: Estimates of the minimally important change (MIC) can be used to evaluate whether group-level differences are large enough to be important. But responders to treatment have been based upon group-level MIC thresholds, resulting in inaccurate classification of change over time. This article reviews options and provides suggestions about individual-level statistics to assess whether individuals have improved, stayed the same, or declined. METHODS: Review of MIC estimation and an example of misapplication of MIC group-level estimates to assess individual change. Secondary data analysis to show how perceptions about meaningful change can be used along with significance of individual change. RESULTS: MIC thresholds yield over-optimistic conclusions about responders to treatment because they classify those who have not changed as responders. CONCLUSIONS: Future studies need to evaluate the significance of individual change using appropriate individual-level statistics such as the reliable change index or the equivalent coefficient of repeatability. Supplementing individual statistical significance with retrospective assessments of change is desirable.

Minimal important change (MIC): a conceptual clarification and systematic review of MIC estimates of PROMIS measures.

We define the minimal important change (MIC) as a threshold for a minimal within-person change over time above which patients perceive themselves importantly changed. There is a lot of confusion about the concept of MIC, particularly about the concepts of minimal important change and minimal detectable change, which questions the validity of published MIC values. The aims of this study were: (1) to clarify the concept of MIC and how to use it; (2) to provide practical guidance for estimating methodologically sound MIC values; and (3) to improve the applicability of PROMIS by summarizing the available evidence on plausible PROMIS MIC values. We discuss the concept of MIC and how to use it and provide practical guidance for estimating MIC values. In addition, we performed a systematic review in PubMed on MIC values of any PROMIS measure from studies using recommended approaches. A total of 50 studies estimated the MIC of a PROMIS measure, of which 19 studies used less appropriate methods. MIC values of the remaining 31 studies ranged from 0.1 to 12.7 T-score points. We recommend to use the predictive modeling method, possibly supplemented with the vignette-based method, in future MIC studies. We consider a MIC value of 2-6 T-score points for PROMIS measures reasonable to assume at this point. For surgical interventions a higher MIC value might be appropriate. We recommend more high-quality studies estimating MIC values for PROMIS.

Validation of the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Leukemia instrument in patients with acute myeloid leukemia who are not candidates for intensive therapy.

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to validate the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Leukemia (FACT-Leu) in patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who are not candidates for intensive therapy. METHODS: A sample of 317 patients with AML who were not eligible for intensive chemotherapy completed the FACT-Leu and EuroQol 5-Dimension (EQ-5D) measures (Utility Index and Visual Analogue Scale) every 28 days until the end of treatment. Internal consistency reliability was estimated with Cronbach's α. Concurrent validity was examined with correlations between FACT-Leu and EQ-5D scales, and known-groups validity was examined by determining whether FACT-Leu scales distinguished between Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status ratings (PSRs) and between maximum adverse event toxicities at the baseline. This study examined responsiveness to change by anchoring change in the FACT-Leu scales to a 0.10 change in the EQ-5D Health Utility Index. RESULTS: Cronbach's α usually exceeded the threshold for good (≥0.80) or excellent reliability (≥0.90). Correlations between FACT-Leu and EQ-5D scales were moderate (r > 0.50) or high (r > 0.70). FACT-Leu scales distinguished between ECOG PSR groups with large effect sizes for an ECOG PSR of 0 versus an ECOG PSR of 2 (0.50 ≤ d < 0.80). In addition, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General, Additional Concerns, FACT-Leu Total, and Trial Outcomes Index scales distinguished between patients with grade 3 or lower maximum adverse event toxicities and those with maximum adverse event toxicities higher than grade 3, but effect sizes were small (d < 0.50). Finally, FACT-Leu scale coefficients for a 0.10 change in the 5-level version of the EQ-5D HUI ranged between -0.01 and 4.30. CONCLUSIONS: The FACT-Leu is a suitable outcome measure for AML clinical trials among patients not eligible for intensive therapy, and it may have value for clinical monitoring.