Christina Wang1, Alisa J Stephens-Shields2, Leonard R DeRogatis3, Glenn R Cunningham4, Ronald S Swerdloff5, Peter Preston2, David Cella6, Peter J Snyder7, Thomas M Gill8, Shalender Bhasin9, Alvin M Matsumoto10, Raymond C Rosen11. 1. Division of Endocrinology, Department of Medicine, Harbor-University of California, Los Angeles Medical Center and Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, Torrance, CA, USA. Electronic address: wang@labiomed.org. 2. Department of Biostatistics, Epidemiology, and Informatics, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 3. Department of Psychiatry, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA. 4. Division of Diabetes, Endocrinology, and Metabolism, Baylor College of Medicine and Baylor St Luke's Medical Center, Houston, TX, USA. 5. Division of Endocrinology, Department of Medicine, Harbor-University of California, Los Angeles Medical Center and Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, Torrance, CA, USA. 6. Department of Medical Social Science, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA. 7. Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, and Metabolism, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 8. Section of Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA. 9. Research Program in Men's Health: Aging and Metabolism; Boston Claude D. Pepper Older Americans Independence Center; Harvard Medical School; Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 10. Geriatric Research, Education and Clinical Center, Department of Veterans Affairs Puget Sound Health Care System, and Division of Gerontology and Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Washington School of Medicine, Seattle, WA, USA. 11. HealthCore/New England Research Institutes Inc, Watertown, MA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Limited information is available on the performance characteristics of 2 questionnaires commonly used in clinical research, the Psychosexual Daily Questionnaire (PDQ) and the Derogatis Interview for Sexual Function (DISF)-II Assessment, especially in older men with low testosterone (T) and impaired sexual function. AIM: To determine reliability of PDQ and DISF-II by assessing the correlation within and between domains in the questionnaires and to define clinically meaningful changes in sexual activity (PDQ question 4 [Q4]) and desire (DISF-II sexual desire domain [SDD]) domains. METHODS: Data from 470 men participating in the T Trials were used to calculate Spearman correlation coefficients of individual items and total score among questionnaires to determine convergent and construct validity. Clinically meaningful changes for sexual desire and activity were determined by randomly dividing the sample into training and validation sets. Anchor- and distribution-based clinically meaningful change criteria were defined in the training set, and selected changes were evaluated in the validation set. OUTCOMES: Validity of the PDQ and DISF-II and clinically meaningful changes in sexual desire and activity were determined in older men in T Trials. RESULTS: Moderate to strong correlations were shown within and between domains from different questionnaires. Using Patient Global Impression of Change as an anchor, clinically meaningful change in PDQ sexual activity was ≥0.6, and in DISF-SDD was ≥5.0. Applying these change cut-points to the validation set, a greater proportion of T-treated men achieved clinically meaningful improvement in their sexual desire and activity compared to placebo-treated men. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The PDQ-Q4 and DISF-II-SDD can be used to reliably assess clinically meaningful changes in sexual activity and sexual desire in hypogonadal men treated with T. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: Strengths of this study include a large sample size, long trial duration, and inclusion of men with low libido and unequivocally low T levels. Limitations include using data from a single study that enrolled only older hypogonadal men, and only 1 anchor for both sexual desire and activity. CONCLUSION: Moderate to strong correlations were demonstrated within and between different sexual domains of the PDQ and DISF-II confirming construct and convergent validity. Clinically meaningful improvement in elderly hypogonadal men was change of ≥0.6 score in the PDQ-Q4 and ≥5.0 in the DISF-SDD. Improvements in sexual activity and desire in the T Trials were modest but clinically meaningful. Wang C, Stephens-Shields AJ, DeRogatis LR, et al. Validity and Clinically Meaningful Changes in the Psychosexual Daily Questionnaire and Derogatis Interview for Sexual Function Assessment: Results From the Testosterone Trials. J Sex Med 2018;15:997-1009.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Limited information is available on the performance characteristics of 2 questionnaires commonly used in clinical research, the Psychosexual Daily Questionnaire (PDQ) and the Derogatis Interview for Sexual Function (DISF)-II Assessment, especially in older men with low testosterone (T) and impaired sexual function. AIM: To determine reliability of PDQ and DISF-II by assessing the correlation within and between domains in the questionnaires and to define clinically meaningful changes in sexual activity (PDQ question 4 [Q4]) and desire (DISF-II sexual desire domain [SDD]) domains. METHODS: Data from 470 men participating in the T Trials were used to calculate Spearman correlation coefficients of individual items and total score among questionnaires to determine convergent and construct validity. Clinically meaningful changes for sexual desire and activity were determined by randomly dividing the sample into training and validation sets. Anchor- and distribution-based clinically meaningful change criteria were defined in the training set, and selected changes were evaluated in the validation set. OUTCOMES: Validity of the PDQ and DISF-II and clinically meaningful changes in sexual desire and activity were determined in older men in T Trials. RESULTS: Moderate to strong correlations were shown within and between domains from different questionnaires. Using Patient Global Impression of Change as an anchor, clinically meaningful change in PDQ sexual activity was ≥0.6, and in DISF-SDD was ≥5.0. Applying these change cut-points to the validation set, a greater proportion of T-treated men achieved clinically meaningful improvement in their sexual desire and activity compared to placebo-treated men. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: The PDQ-Q4 and DISF-II-SDD can be used to reliably assess clinically meaningful changes in sexual activity and sexual desire in hypogonadal men treated with T. STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: Strengths of this study include a large sample size, long trial duration, and inclusion of men with low libido and unequivocally low T levels. Limitations include using data from a single study that enrolled only older hypogonadal men, and only 1 anchor for both sexual desire and activity. CONCLUSION: Moderate to strong correlations were demonstrated within and between different sexual domains of the PDQ and DISF-II confirming construct and convergent validity. Clinically meaningful improvement in elderly hypogonadal men was change of ≥0.6 score in the PDQ-Q4 and ≥5.0 in the DISF-SDD. Improvements in sexual activity and desire in the T Trials were modest but clinically meaningful. Wang C, Stephens-Shields AJ, DeRogatis LR, et al. Validity and Clinically Meaningful Changes in the Psychosexual Daily Questionnaire and Derogatis Interview for Sexual Function Assessment: Results From the Testosterone Trials. J Sex Med 2018;15:997-1009.
Keywords:
Clinically Meaningful Change; Erectile Function; Sexual Activity; Sexual Desire; Sexual Function Assessment; Testosterone Deficiency; Testosterone Treatment in Older Men; Testosterone Trials
Authors: Frederick C W Wu; Abdelouahid Tajar; Jennifer M Beynon; Stephen R Pye; Alan J Silman; Joseph D Finn; Terence W O'Neill; Gyorgy Bartfai; Felipe F Casanueva; Gianni Forti; Aleksander Giwercman; Thang S Han; Krzysztof Kula; Michael E J Lean; Neil Pendleton; Margus Punab; Steven Boonen; Dirk Vanderschueren; Fernand Labrie; Ilpo T Huhtaniemi Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2010-06-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Christina Wang; Niloufar Ilani; Stefan Arver; Robert I McLachlan; Tina Soulis; Adam Watkinson Journal: Clin Endocrinol (Oxf) Date: 2011-12 Impact factor: 3.478
Authors: C Wang; R S Swerdloff; A Iranmanesh; A Dobs; P J Snyder; G Cunningham; A M Matsumoto; T Weber; N Berman Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Leonard R DeRogatis; Alessandra Graziottin; Johannes Bitzer; Sonja Schmitt; Patricia E Koochaki; Cynthia Rodenberg Journal: J Sex Med Date: 2009-01 Impact factor: 3.802
Authors: Daryl B O'Connor; Giovanni Corona; Gianni Forti; Abdelouahid Tajar; David M Lee; Joseph D Finn; Gyorgy Bartfai; Steven Boonen; Felipe F Casanueva; Aleksander Giwercman; Ilpo T Huhtaniemi; Krzysztof Kula; Terence W O'Neill; Neil Pendleton; Margus Punab; Alan J Silman; Dirk Vanderschueren; Frederick C W Wu Journal: J Sex Med Date: 2008-03-04 Impact factor: 3.802
Authors: Andre B Araujo; Gretchen R Esche; Varant Kupelian; Amy B O'Donnell; Thomas G Travison; Rachel E Williams; Richard V Clark; John B McKinlay Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2007-08-14 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Fiona Yuen; Arthi Thirumalai; Cindy Pham; Ronald S Swerdloff; Bradley D Anawalt; Peter Y Liu; John K Amory; William J Bremner; Clint Dart; Hongsheng Wu; Laura Hull; Diana L Blithe; Jill Long; Christina Wang; Stephanie T Page Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2020-03-01 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Ronald S Swerdloff; Christina Wang; William B White; Jed Kaminetsky; Marc C Gittelman; James A Longstreth; Robert E Dudley; Theodore M Danoff Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2020-08-01 Impact factor: 5.958