Poghni A Peri-Okonny1,2, Jingyan Wang2, Kensey L Gosch, Manesh R Patel3, Mehdi H Shishehbor4, David L Safley1,2, J Dawn Abbott5, Herbert D Aronow5, Carlos Mena-Hurtado6, Qurat-Ul-Ain Jelani6, Yuanyuan Tang2, Matthew Bunte1,2, Clementine Labrosciano7, John F Beltrame7, John A Spertus1,2, Kim G Smolderen6. 1. Department of Internal Medicine, University of Missouri, Kansas City (P.A.P.-O., D.A., M.B., J.A.S.). 2. Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Saint Luke's Mid America Heart Institute, Kansas City, MO (P.A.P.-O., J.W., J.G., D.S, Y.T., M.B., J.A.S.). 3. Division of Cardiology, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC (M.P.). 4. Harrington Heart & Vascular Institute and Case Western University School of Medicine, Cleveland, OH (M.H.S.). 5. Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Brown University, Providence, RI (J.D.A., H.D.A.). 6. Vascular Medicine Outcomes (VAMOS) Program, Section of Cardiovascular Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT (C.M.-H., Q.-U.-A.J., K.G.S.). 7. Department of Medicine, Queen Elisabeth Hospital, Adelaide, Australia (C.L., J.F.B.).
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Understanding minimum clinically important differences (MCID) in patient-reported outcomes is essential in interpreting the magnitude of changes in these measures. No MCID from patients' perspectives has ever been published for peripheral artery disease-specific health status assessment tools. The Peripheral Artery Questionnaire (PAQ) is a commonly used, validated peripheral artery disease-specific health status instrument for which we sought to prospectively establish its MCID from patients' perspectives. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients presenting to vascular clinics with new or worsened claudication in the US cohort of the PORTRAIT (Patient-Centered Outcomes Related to Treatment Practices in Peripheral Arterial Disease: Investigating Trajectories) registry who completed baseline and follow-up PAQ assessments along with the Global Assessment of Functioning scale were included. Mean change in PAQ summary scores from 3- to 6-month follow-up was calculated according to Global Assessment of Functioning category. MCID was defined as the mean difference in scores between those with small improvement or deterioration and those with no change. Multivariable linear regression was used to provide an MCID estimate after adjusting for patients' 3-month PAQ score. Of the 483 patients who completed the Global Assessment of Functioning score at 6 months and who had available 3- and 6-month PAQ assessments, the mean age was 69 years, 42% were female, and 71% were White. The MCIDs for PAQ summary scale improvement and worsening were 8.7 (2.9-14.5) and -11.0 (-18.6 to -3.3), respectively. After multivariable adjustment, these were 8.9 (3.0-14.8) and -11.2 (-18.2 to -4.2), respectively. There was no significant interaction between treatment (invasive versus noninvasive) and Global Assessment of Functioning response (P=0.75). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with new or worsened claudication, a 10-point change in PAQ summary score represents an MCID. This estimate needs external validation and may inform the interpretation of PAQ scores when used as outcomes in clinical trials or in routine clinical care. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01419080.
BACKGROUND: Understanding minimum clinically important differences (MCID) in patient-reported outcomes is essential in interpreting the magnitude of changes in these measures. No MCID from patients' perspectives has ever been published for peripheral artery disease-specific health status assessment tools. The Peripheral Artery Questionnaire (PAQ) is a commonly used, validated peripheral artery disease-specific health status instrument for which we sought to prospectively establish its MCID from patients' perspectives. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients presenting to vascular clinics with new or worsened claudication in the US cohort of the PORTRAIT (Patient-Centered Outcomes Related to Treatment Practices in Peripheral Arterial Disease: Investigating Trajectories) registry who completed baseline and follow-up PAQ assessments along with the Global Assessment of Functioning scale were included. Mean change in PAQ summary scores from 3- to 6-month follow-up was calculated according to Global Assessment of Functioning category. MCID was defined as the mean difference in scores between those with small improvement or deterioration and those with no change. Multivariable linear regression was used to provide an MCID estimate after adjusting for patients' 3-month PAQ score. Of the 483 patients who completed the Global Assessment of Functioning score at 6 months and who had available 3- and 6-month PAQ assessments, the mean age was 69 years, 42% were female, and 71% were White. The MCIDs for PAQ summary scale improvement and worsening were 8.7 (2.9-14.5) and -11.0 (-18.6 to -3.3), respectively. After multivariable adjustment, these were 8.9 (3.0-14.8) and -11.2 (-18.2 to -4.2), respectively. There was no significant interaction between treatment (invasive versus noninvasive) and Global Assessment of Functioning response (P=0.75). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with new or worsened claudication, a 10-point change in PAQ summary score represents an MCID. This estimate needs external validation and may inform the interpretation of PAQ scores when used as outcomes in clinical trials or in routine clinical care. Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01419080.
Entities:
Keywords:
health status; minimal clinically important difference; patients; quality of life; registries
Authors: Jeffrey W Olin; David E Allie; Michael Belkin; Robert O Bonow; Donald E Casey; Mark A Creager; Thomas C Gerber; Alan T Hirsch; Michael R Jaff; John A Kaufman; Curtis A Lewis; Edward T Martin; Louis G Martin; Peter Sheehan; Kerry J Stewart; Diane Treat-Jacobson; Christopher J White; Zhi-Jie Zheng; Frederick A Masoudi Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-11-29 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Devraj Sukul; Scott F Grey; Peter K Henke; Hitinder S Gurm; P Michael Grossman Journal: JACC Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2017-11-27 Impact factor: 11.195
Authors: Matthew C Bunte; David J Cohen; Michael R Jaff; William A Gray; Elizabeth A Magnuson; Haiyan Li; Andrew Feiring; Marco Cioppi; Robert Hibbard; Bruce Gray; Yazan Khatib; David Jessup; Roberto Patarca; Jing Du; Hans-Peter Stoll; Joe Massaro; David M Safley Journal: Catheter Cardiovasc Interv Date: 2018-03-09 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: W Schuyler Jones; Iris Baumgartner; William R Hiatt; Gretchen Heizer; Michael S Conte; Christopher J White; Jeffrey S Berger; Peter Held; Brian G Katona; Kenneth W Mahaffey; Lars Norgren; Juuso Blomster; Marcus Millegård; Craig Reist; Manesh R Patel; F Gerry R Fowkes Journal: Circulation Date: 2016-11-13 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Kim G Smolderen; Kensey Gosch; Manesh Patel; W Schuyler Jones; Alan T Hirsch; John Beltrame; Rob Fitridge; Mehdi H Shishehbor; Johan Denollet; Patrick Vriens; Jan Heyligers; Nancy Stone MEd; Herbert Aronow; J Dawn Abbott; Clementine Labrosciano; Rudolf Tutein-Nolthenius; John A Spertus Journal: Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes Date: 2018-02
Authors: Henrica C W de Vet; Berend Terluin; Dirk L Knol; Leo D Roorda; Lidwine B Mokkink; Raymond W J G Ostelo; Erik J M Hendriks; Lex M Bouter; Caroline B Terwee Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2009-06-21 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: Aozhou Wu; Josef Coresh; Elizabeth Selvin; Hirofumi Tanaka; Gerardo Heiss; Alan T Hirsch; Bernard G Jaar; Kunihiro Matsushita Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2017-01-20 Impact factor: 5.501
Authors: Andy T Tran; John A Spertus; Carlos I Mena-Hurtado; Philip G Jones; Herbert D Aronow; David M Safley; Ali O Malik; Poghni A Peri-Okonny; Mehdi H Shishehbor; Clementine Labrosciano; Kim G Smolderen Journal: J Am Heart Assoc Date: 2022-02-08 Impact factor: 6.106