| Literature DB >> 24708598 |
Derek H Tang1, Danielle Colayco, James Piercy, Vaishali Patel, Denise Globe, Michael B Chancellor.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Neurogenic detrusor overactivity (NDO) leads to impaired health-related quality of life (HRQoL), productivity, and greater healthcare resource burden. The humanistic and economic burden may be more apparent in NDO patients with urinary incontinence (UI). The objective of this study was to compare the HRQoL, productivity, and health resource use (HRU) between continent and incontinent NDO patients.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24708598 PMCID: PMC3984584 DOI: 10.1186/1471-2377-14-74
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Neurol ISSN: 1471-2377 Impact factor: 2.474
Inclusion criteria for physicians and patients to be included in the overall Adelphi OAB/UI survey*
| 1. GP/ PCP; gynecologists; urologists; urogynecologists | 1. Patients over 18 years old |
| 2. 3 ≤ number of years in practice ≤ 35 | 2. Outpatients |
| 3. Number of OAB/UI patients managed per week (inpatients plus outpatients) | 3. Currently managed for OAB/ UI |
| PCP: 6 | 4. No females currently pregnant |
| Urologists/Gynecologists: 8 | 5. No patients suffering from OAB/UI due to urinary infection |
| Urologists: 2 of MS/SCI patients | |
| 4. Seeing enough patients to be able to generate 10–12 patient record forms in 2–3 weeks |
*GP General practitioners, PCP Primary care physicians, OAB Overactive bladder, UI Urinary incontinence, MS Multiple sclerosis, SCI Spinal cord injury.
Instrument score range and interpretation
| General Health Utility | EQ-5D 3 L utility scorec | −0.11 – 1 | General health ↑ as score ↑ |
| Disease-specific QOL | I-QOL total score | 0 – 100 | HRQoL ↑ as score ↑ |
| OAB-q symptom severity score | 0 – 100 | Symptom severity ↓ as score ↑ | |
| OAB-q HRQoL score | 0 – 100 | HRQoL ↑ as score ↑ | |
| Productivity | % activity impairment due to their bladder condition | 0 – 100 | Productivity ↓ as score ↑ |
| % work time missed due to their bladder condition | 0 – 100 | Productivity ↓ as score ↑ | |
| % impairment while working due to their bladder condition | 0 – 100 | Productivity ↓ as score ↑ | |
| % overall work impairment due to their bladder condition | 0 – 100 | Productivity ↓ as score ↑ | |
aQOL, Quality of life; EQ-5D, EuroQoL-5D; I-QOL, Incontinence Quality of Life questionnaire; OAB-q, Overactive Bladder questionnaire; HRQoL, Health-related quality of life.
b↓ indicates decrease, ↑ indicates increase.
cDerived from the 5 questions representing 5 dimensions of health states in the EQ-5D instrument using standardized scoring algorithm.
Figure 1Patient cohort selection flowchart.
Distribution of underlying neurological conditions among continent and incontinent NDO patients
| Parkinson’s Disease (PD) | 6 (7.7%) | 23 (9.8%) |
| Multiple Sclerosis (MS) | 43 (55.1%) | 122 (51.9%) |
| Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) | 14 (17.9%) | 52 (22.1%) |
| Stroke | 10 (12.8%) | 21 (8.9%) |
| Other | 4 (5.1%) | 12 (5.1%) |
| Unknown | 1 (1.3%) | 5 (2.1%) |
| Total | 78 (100.0%) | 235 (100.0%) |
a301 (92.9%) out of 324 NDO patients had a primary neurological condition of either PD, MS, SCI or stroke.
b11 patients out of the 324 patients had unknown incontinence status.
cAmong all SCI patients, 29% had complete SCI, 61% had incomplete SCI, while 10% had unknown injury status.
Patient demographics by incontinence status
| USA | 55.8 (17.4) | 54.9 (15.9) | ||
| Europe | 49.9 (16.5) | 54.1 (16.2) | ||
| Total | 51.5 (16.9) | 54.3 (16.1) | ||
| USA | 11 (52.4%) | 23 (35.4%) | ||
| Europe | 24 (42.1%) | 79 (47.0%) | ||
| Total | 35 (44.9%) | 102 (43.8%) | ||
| USA** | 9 (52.9%) | 55 (88.7%) | ||
| Europe | 38 (73.1%) | 110 (68.8%) | ||
| Total | 47 (68.1%) | 165 (74.3%) | ||
| USA | White/Caucasian | 11 (52.4%) | 45 (69.2%) | |
| Hispanic/Latino | 4 (19.0%) | 5 (7.7%) | ||
| Afro/Caribbean | 5 (23.8%) | 13 (20.0%) | ||
| Others | 1 (4.8%) | 2 (3.1%) | ||
| Europe | White/Caucasian | 48 (84.2%) | 148 (87.1%) | |
| Hispanic/Latino | 7 (12.3%) | 9 (5.3%) | ||
| Afro/Caribbean | 2 (3.5%) | 7 (4.1%) | ||
| Others | 0 (0.0%) | 6 (3.5%) | ||
| Total | White/Caucasian | 59 (75.6%) | 193 (82.1%) | |
| Hispanic/Latino | 11 (14.1%) | 14 (6.0%) | ||
| Afro/Caribbean | 7 (9.0%) | 20 (8.5%) | ||
| Others | 1 (1.3%) | 8 (3.4%) | ||
| USA | Less than high school | 1 (5.0%) | 1 (1.8%) | |
| High school | 6 (30.0%) | 22 (39.3%) | ||
| College or more | 13 (65.0%) | 33 (58.9%) | ||
| Europe | Less than high school | 6 (11.1%) | 25 (15.5%) | |
| High school | 18 (33.3%) | 65 (40.4%) | ||
| College or more | 30 (55.6%) | 71 (44.1%) | ||
| Total | Less than high school | 7 (9.5%) | 26 (12.0%) | |
| High school | 24 (32.4%) | 87 (40.1%) | ||
| College or more | 43 (58.1%) | 104 (47.9%) | ||
| USA | 18 (100.0%) | 55 (98.2%) | ||
| Europe | 43 (76.8%) | 125 (76.7%) | ||
| Total | 61 (82.4%) | 180 (82.2%) | ||
aBivariate analyses comparing distribution of demographic variables between incontinent versus continent group.
b11 out of 324 NDO patients had unknown incontinent status.
*p < 0.05 **p < 0.01 ***p < 0.001 in chi-square test, Fisher’s exact test, t-test, or Wilcoxon rank-sum test as appropriate.
Relationship between Quality of Life (QOL) and productivity measures and sncontinence status
| EQ-5D utility score‡‡ | USA* | 0.82 (0.22) | 0.68 (0.24) | |
| Europe | 0.73 (0.22) | 0.70 (0.22) | ||
| Total | 0.75 (0.22) | 0.70 (0.22) | ||
| I-QOL score‡‡ | USA** | 72 (19) | 57 (23) | |
| Europe*** | 59 (17) | 50 (19) | ||
| Total*** | 63 (19) | 52 (20) | ||
| OAB-q: Symptom severity‡‡ | USA* | 37 (19) | 49 (19) | |
| Europe*** | 41 (20) | 56 (18) | ||
| Total*** | 40 (20) | 54 (19) | ||
| OAB-q: HRQL total‡‡ | USA*** | 79 (15) | 62 (23) | |
| Europe | 63 (19) | 57 (19) | ||
| Total** | 67 (20) | 58 (20) | ||
| WPAI activity impairment‡‡ | USA | 34 (26) | 46 (28) | |
| Europe | 48 (22) | 55 (25) | ||
| Total* | 44 (24) | 52 (26) | ||
| WPAI overall impairment | USA | 53 (32) | 32 (19) | |
| (among patients on paid employment: n (continent) = 19, n(incontinent) = 45)‡‡ | Europe | 49 (22) | 50 (28) | |
| Total | 50 (23) | 43 (26) | ||
| WPAI impairment while working (among patients on paid employment: n (continent) = 19, n(incontinent) = 45)‡‡ | USA | 38 (33) | 33 (18) | |
| Europe | 39 (22) | 46 (24) | ||
| Total | 39 (24) | 42 (23) | ||
| WPAI work time miss (among patients on paid employment: n (continent) = 19, n(incontinent) = 45)‡‡ | USA | 15 (26) | 1 (2) | |
| Europe | 8 (13) | 12 (21) | ||
| Total | 10 (15) | 8 (18) | ||
| Proportion of patients on paid employment‡∆ | USA | 5 (23.8%) | 15 (24.2%) | |
| Europe | 14 (24.6%) | 30 (17.9%) | ||
| Total | 19 (24.4%) | 45 (19.6%) | ||
aBivariate analyses comparing burden of illness between incontinent versus non-incontinent group.
b11 out of 324 NDO patients had unknown incontinent status.
*p < 0.05 **p < 0.01 ***p < 0.001 in chi-square test, Fisher’s exact test, t-test, or Wilcoxon rank-sum test as appropriate.
‡Data are presented as number (percentage).
‡‡Data are presented as mean (standard deviation).
∆Retired patients (n = 1) who reported “under paid employment” were analyzed as paid employees.
Relationship between health resource utilization and incontinence status
| USA | 1 (5.0%) | 3 (4.6%) | |
| Europe | 9 (15.8%) | 31 (18.2%) | |
| Total | 10 (12.8%) | 34 (14.5%) | |
| USA | 2 (9.5%) | 10 (15.9%) | |
| Europe | 6 (10.5%) | 11 (6.5%) | |
| Total | 8 (10.3%) | 21 (9.1%) | |
| USA | 6 (28.6%) | 15 (23.1%) | |
| Europe | 18 (31.6%) | 46 (27.1%) | |
| Total | 24 (30.8%) | 61 (26.0%) | |
| USA** | 4 (19.0%) | 40 (61.5%) | |
| Europe*** | 6 (10.5%) | 127 (75.6%) | |
| Total*** | 10 (12.8%) | 167 (71.7%) | |
| USA | 1.3 (1.2) | 1.5 (1.3) | |
| Europe | 2.2 (2.4) | 2.5 (2.3) | |
| Total | 2.0 (2.1) | 2.2 (2.0) | |
| USA | 4.5 (12.2) | 10.8 (14.4) | |
| Europe*** | 0.8 (2.4) | 9.3 (9.0) | |
| Total*** | 1.8 (6.7) | 9.7 (10.8) | |
aBivariate analyses comparing burden of illness between incontinent versus non-incontinent group.
b11 out of 324 NDO patients had unknown incontinent status.
*p < 0.05 **p < 0.01 ***p < 0.001 in chi-square test, Fisher’s exact test, t-test, or Wilcoxon rank-sum test as appropriate.
‡Data are presented as number (percentage).
‡‡Data are presented as mean (standard deviation).
Primary analysis: adjusted associations between incontinence status and quality of life (QOL)/productivity measures using linear regression models (n = 324)
| −0.04 (0.03) | 0.21 | −0.01 (0.00)* | 0.22 | 0 ≤ n ≤ 4 | −0.02 (0.03) | 0.22 | |
| n > 4 | −0.07 (0.03)* | ||||||
| −10.39 (2.52)*** | 0.25 | −1.03 (0.29)*** | 0.24 | 0 ≤ n ≤ 4 | −8.47 (2.69)** | 0.26 | |
| n > 4 | −13.66 (2.97)*** | ||||||
| 15.01 (2.58)*** | 0.22 | 1.65 (0.29)*** | 0.22 | 0 ≤ n ≤ 4 | 11.92 (2.72)*** | 0.25 | |
| n > 4 | 20.27 (3.01)*** | ||||||
| −8.69 (2.72)** | 0.19 | −1.03 (0.30)*** | 0.19 | 0 ≤ n ≤ 4 | −6.63 (2.89)* | 0.20 | |
| n > 4 | −12.22 (3.18)*** | ||||||
| 8.23 (3.41)* | 0.15 | 1.40 (0.38)*** | 0.17 | 0 ≤ n ≤ 4 | 4.88 (3.62) | 0.17 | |
| n > 4 | 13.95 (4.03)** | ||||||
| 3.69 (5.66) | 0.22 | 1.51 (1.15) | 0.24 | 0 ≤ n ≤ 4 | 3.51 (5.90) | 0.22 | |
| n > 4 | 4.71 (8.98) | ||||||
| 3.70 (7.13) | 0.28 | 3.14 (1.42)* | 0.34 | 0 ≤ n ≤ 4 | 1.69 (7.16) | 0.31 | |
| n > 4 | 15.93 (11.33) | ||||||
| 3.04 (8.96) | 0.27 | 1.94 (1.79) | 0.28 | 0 ≤ n ≤ 4 | 3.30 (9.30) | 0.27 | |
| n > 4 | 1.21 (13.88) | ||||||
†All analyses adjusted for time since diagnosis, age, male sex, race, education, insurance status, country, and whether having the following comorbidities: psychological/psychiatric conditions, hypertension, diabetes, and dementia.
‡Comorbidities were not included as covariates.
aMean regression coefficient (non-exponentiated) (standard error).
bPopulation restricted to patients that were on paid employment (n = 68).
cReference group: patients that reported no leakages.
*p < 0.05 **p < 0.01 ***p < 0.001.
Sensitivity analysis: adjusted associations between incontinence status and quality of life (QOL)/ productivity measures using negative binomial regression models (n = 324)
| 0.95 (0.15) | 0.99 (0.02) | 0 ≤ n ≤ 4 | 0.97 (0.16) | |
| n > 4 | 0.91 (0.17) | |||
| 0.83 (0.04)*** | 0.98 (0.01)** | 0 ≤ n ≤ 4 | 0.86 (0.05)** | |
| n > 4 | 0.78 (0.05)*** | |||
| 1.38 (0.08)*** | 1.03 (0.01)*** | 0 ≤ n ≤ 4 | 1.30 (0.08)*** | |
| n > 4 | 1.52 (0.10)*** | |||
| 0.87 (0.05)** | 0.98 (0.01)** | 0 ≤ n ≤ 4 | 0.90 (0.05) | |
| n > 4 | 0.81 (0.05)** | |||
| 1.21 (0.10)* | 1.03 (0.01)** | 0 ≤ n ≤ 4 | 1.12 (0.10) | |
| n > 4 | 1.34 (0.13)** | |||
| 2.77 (3.11) | 1.46 (0.48) | 0 ≤ n ≤ 4 | 2.89 (3.29) | |
| n > 4 | 1.87 (3.86) | |||
| 1.04 (0.26) | 1.08 (0.05) | 0 ≤ n ≤ 4 | 0.99 (0.25) | |
| n > 4 | 1.39 (0.52) | |||
| 1.03 (0.39) | 1.02 (0.07) | 0 ≤ n ≤ 4 | 1.06 (0.40) | |
| n > 4 | 0.81 (0.45) | |||
†All analyses adjusted for time since diagnosis, age, male sex, race, education, insurance status, country, and whether having the following comorbidities: psychological/psychiatric conditions, hypertension, diabetes, and dementia.
‡Comorbidities were not included as covariates.
aIncidence rate ratio (standard error).
bPopulation restricted to patients that were on paid employment (n = 68).
cReference group: patients that reported no leakages.
*p < 0.05 **p < 0.01 ***p < 0.001.