BACKGROUND: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) includes two instruments to quantify sleep symptoms (sleep disturbance [SDA] and sleep-related impairment [SRI]) in diverse populations across a wide symptom spectrum. However, the responsiveness of PROMIS measures to treatment of sleep disorders is unknown. We examined the responsiveness of the PROMIS sleep scales to the treatment of OSA. METHODS: We collected SDA, SRI, and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) before and after initiation of positive airway pressure (PAP) in patients with type 2 diabetes newly diagnosed with OSA. To compare responsiveness, we compared effect sizes and classifications of symptom improvement using both the reliable change method and thresholds of minimum important difference (MID). RESULTS: A total of 103 patients completed assessments pre- and post-PAP. SDA, SRI, and ESS scores all declined significantly with PAP therapy. We observed the largest effect size for SDA (-0.64; 95% CI, -0.86 to -0.42), followed by SRI (-0.43; 95% CI, -0.63 to -0.23), and ESS (-0.28; 95% CI, -0.42 to -0.15). More patients experienced the reliable change category of symptom remission categorized by the PROMIS measures (SDA: 23.3%; SRI: 31.1%) relative to the ESS (5.8%) (P < .001 for both). Using the MID, SDA and SRI also classified more patients as improved (SDA: 54.4%; SRI: 49.5%) relative to the ESS (35.0%) (P < .001 for both pairwise comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: PROMIS sleep measures were more likely than the ESS to detect an improvement with PAP therapy. Incorporating PROMIS measures into research and clinical care may provide a more sensitive assessment of symptomatic response to OSA treatment. Published by Elsevier Inc.
BACKGROUND: The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) includes two instruments to quantify sleep symptoms (sleep disturbance [SDA] and sleep-related impairment [SRI]) in diverse populations across a wide symptom spectrum. However, the responsiveness of PROMIS measures to treatment of sleep disorders is unknown. We examined the responsiveness of the PROMIS sleep scales to the treatment of OSA. METHODS: We collected SDA, SRI, and Epworth Sleepiness Scale (ESS) before and after initiation of positive airway pressure (PAP) in patients with type 2 diabetes newly diagnosed with OSA. To compare responsiveness, we compared effect sizes and classifications of symptom improvement using both the reliable change method and thresholds of minimum important difference (MID). RESULTS: A total of 103 patients completed assessments pre- and post-PAP. SDA, SRI, and ESS scores all declined significantly with PAP therapy. We observed the largest effect size for SDA (-0.64; 95% CI, -0.86 to -0.42), followed by SRI (-0.43; 95% CI, -0.63 to -0.23), and ESS (-0.28; 95% CI, -0.42 to -0.15). More patients experienced the reliable change category of symptom remission categorized by the PROMIS measures (SDA: 23.3%; SRI: 31.1%) relative to the ESS (5.8%) (P < .001 for both). Using the MID, SDA and SRI also classified more patients as improved (SDA: 54.4%; SRI: 49.5%) relative to the ESS (35.0%) (P < .001 for both pairwise comparisons). CONCLUSIONS: PROMIS sleep measures were more likely than the ESS to detect an improvement with PAP therapy. Incorporating PROMIS measures into research and clinical care may provide a more sensitive assessment of symptomatic response to OSA treatment. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Authors: Robert Fieo; Katja Ocepek-Welikson; Marjorie Kleinman; Joseph P Eimicke; Paul K Crane; David Cella; Jeanne A Teresi Journal: Psychol Test Assess Model Date: 2016
Authors: Susheel P Patil; Indu A Ayappa; Sean M Caples; R Joh Kimoff; Sanjay R Patel; Christopher G Harrod Journal: J Clin Sleep Med Date: 2019-02-15 Impact factor: 4.062
Authors: David Cella; William Riley; Arthur Stone; Nan Rothrock; Bryce Reeve; Susan Yount; Dagmar Amtmann; Rita Bode; Daniel Buysse; Seung Choi; Karon Cook; Robert Devellis; Darren DeWalt; James F Fries; Richard Gershon; Elizabeth A Hahn; Jin-Shei Lai; Paul Pilkonis; Dennis Revicki; Matthias Rose; Kevin Weinfurt; Ron Hays Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2010-08-04 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Suhani Patel; Samantha S C Kon; Claire M Nolan; Ruth E Barker; Anita K Simonds; Mary J Morrell; William D-C Man Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2018-04-01 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Paul C Myhill; Wendy A Davis; Kirsten E Peters; S A Paul Chubb; David Hillman; Timothy M E Davis Journal: J Clin Endocrinol Metab Date: 2012-09-07 Impact factor: 5.958
Authors: Caroline B Terwee; John Devin Peipert; Robert Chapman; Jin-Shei Lai; Berend Terluin; David Cella; Philip Griffith; Lidwine B Mokkink Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2021-07-10 Impact factor: 4.147