PURPOSE: The 32-item Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ-32) is the most frequently used instrument to capture disease-specific quality of life in randomized clinical trials for ulcerative colitis. This review and meta-analysis provides the first synthesis of evidence regarding the sensitivity of IBDQ-32 total and domain scores to treatment efficacy. METHODS: A systematic literature search and risk-of-bias assessment yielded 14 articles that were included in the primary analysis. Treatments were categorized as efficacious if they met the primary efficacy endpoint (which was not the IBDQ-32); otherwise they were categorized as non-efficacious. A continuous measure of treatment efficacy was calculated for each primary efficacy endpoint. Meta-analysis using random-effects models compared standardized mean differences in IBDQ-32 total and domain change scores between target dose and control arms. Meta-regression compared the association between treatment efficacy and these outcomes. RESULTS: Studies with efficacious treatments showed larger mean improvements relative to controls in IBDQ-32 total scores and all 4 domains (Hedges' g range: 0.49 to 0.67; P<0.001 for all). At the same time, patients in studies with non-efficacious treatments showed small and nonsignificant improvements in these outcomes relative to controls (Hedges' g range: 0.05 to 0.23; P>0.09 for all). Meta-regression models showed that the magnitude of treatment efficacy was a positive predictor of these same IBDQ-32 outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses found that IBDQ-32 scores are sensitive to treatment. The results provided here support the use of the IBDQ-32 to capture treatment benefits on quality of life for patients with ulcerative colitis.
PURPOSE: The 32-item Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire (IBDQ-32) is the most frequently used instrument to capture disease-specific quality of life in randomized clinical trials for ulcerative colitis. This review and meta-analysis provides the first synthesis of evidence regarding the sensitivity of IBDQ-32 total and domain scores to treatment efficacy. METHODS: A systematic literature search and risk-of-bias assessment yielded 14 articles that were included in the primary analysis. Treatments were categorized as efficacious if they met the primary efficacy endpoint (which was not the IBDQ-32); otherwise they were categorized as non-efficacious. A continuous measure of treatment efficacy was calculated for each primary efficacy endpoint. Meta-analysis using random-effects models compared standardized mean differences in IBDQ-32 total and domain change scores between target dose and control arms. Meta-regression compared the association between treatment efficacy and these outcomes. RESULTS: Studies with efficacious treatments showed larger mean improvements relative to controls in IBDQ-32 total scores and all 4 domains (Hedges' g range: 0.49 to 0.67; P<0.001 for all). At the same time, patients in studies with non-efficacious treatments showed small and nonsignificant improvements in these outcomes relative to controls (Hedges' g range: 0.05 to 0.23; P>0.09 for all). Meta-regression models showed that the magnitude of treatment efficacy was a positive predictor of these same IBDQ-32 outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: These analyses found that IBDQ-32 scores are sensitive to treatment. The results provided here support the use of the IBDQ-32 to capture treatment benefits on quality of life for patients with ulcerative colitis.
Authors: Seong Won Han; Elaine McColl; John Roger Barton; Peter James; Ian Nicholas Steen; Mark Richard Welfare Journal: Inflamm Bowel Dis Date: 2005-01 Impact factor: 5.325
Authors: Birgitte Boye; Knut E A Lundin; Günter Jantschek; Siv Leganger; Kjell Mokleby; Tone Tangen; Ingrid Jantschek; Are H Pripp; Swavek Wojniusz; Astri Dahlstroem; Ann Christin Rivenes; Dieter Benninghoven; Trygve Hausken; Arne Roseth; Sebastian Kunzendorf; Ingvard Wilhelmsen; Michael Sharpe; Svein Blomhoff; Ulrik F Malt; Jorgen Jahnsen Journal: Inflamm Bowel Dis Date: 2011-02-01 Impact factor: 5.325
Authors: S Bloom; S Kiilerich; M R Lassen; A Forbes; K Leiper; E Langholz; E J Irvine; C O'Morain; D Lowson; S Orm Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2004-04-15 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: W J Sandborn; B E Sands; D C Wolf; J F Valentine; M Safdi; S Katz; K L Isaacs; L D Wruble; J Katz; D H Present; E V Loftus; F Graeme-Cook; D J Odenheimer; S B Hanauer Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2003-06-01 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: Remo Panaccione; Subrata Ghosh; Stephen Middleton; Juan R Márquez; Boyd B Scott; Laurence Flint; Hubert J F van Hoogstraten; Annie C Chen; Hanzhe Zheng; Silvio Danese; Paul Rutgeerts Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Akbar K Waljee; Joel C Joyce; Patricia A Wren; Tahira M Khan; Peter D R Higgins Journal: Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol Date: 2009-05 Impact factor: 2.566
Authors: P Rutgeerts; B G Feagan; C W Marano; L Padgett; R Strauss; J Johanns; O J Adedokun; C Guzzo; H Zhang; J-F Colombel; W Reinisch; P R Gibson; W J Sandborn Journal: Aliment Pharmacol Ther Date: 2015-06-29 Impact factor: 8.171
Authors: Julian Panés; Séverine Vermeire; James O Lindsay; Bruce E Sands; Chinyu Su; Gary Friedman; Haiying Zhang; Aaron Yarlas; Martha Bayliss; Stephen Maher; Joseph C Cappelleri; Andrew G Bushmakin; David T Rubin Journal: J Crohns Colitis Date: 2019-01-01 Impact factor: 9.071
Authors: Natasha Bollegala; Melanie Barwick; Nancy Fu; Anne M Griffiths; Laurie Keefer; Sara Ahola Kohut; Karen I Kroeker; Sally Lawrence; Kate Lee; David R Mack; Thomas D Walters; Jacqueline de Guzman; Claudia Tersigni; Ashleigh Miatello; Eric I Benchimol Journal: BMC Gastroenterol Date: 2022-05-18 Impact factor: 2.847
Authors: Cristina Calviño-Suárez; Rocío Ferreiro-Iglesias; Iria Bastón-Rey; Manuel Barreiro-de Acosta Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-07-04 Impact factor: 3.390