{"title":"PROMs in sarcoidosis - what to use for systemic disease and individual organs and why?","authors":"Claudia Ravaglia","doi":"10.1097/MCP.0000000000001203","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose of review: </strong>This review provides a critical evaluation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in sarcoidosis, focusing on their use in assessing systemic disease and organ-specific involvement. We aim to summarize current tools, identify evidence gaps, and explore the evolving role of PROMs in both clinical research and practice.</p><p><strong>Recent findings: </strong>generic instruments such as the SF-36, EQ-5D, and PROMIS have been widely applied in sarcoidosis cohorts, yet their lack of disease specificity limits their interpretability and responsiveness. Sarcoidosis-specific tools [including the Sarcoidosis Health Questionnaire (SHQ), the King's Sarcoidosis Questionnaire (KSQ), and the Fatigue Assessment Scale (FAS)] offer greater construct validity and capture symptoms more relevant to patient experience. On the other hand, PROMs for cardiac, neurologic, ocular, and hepatic involvement remain underdeveloped. PROMs are increasingly incorporated into clinical trials but are rarely used in routine care, partly due to challenges in implementation, interpretation, and integration into workflows. Technological innovations such as computer-adaptive testing and ePROMs offer promising solutions.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>PROMs are essential for capturing the subjective burden of sarcoidosis, particularly in domains poorly reflected by physiologic measures. Further work is needed to expand validation across phenotypes, develop organ-specific tools, and embed PROMs into clinical decision-making and regulatory frameworks.</p>","PeriodicalId":11090,"journal":{"name":"Current Opinion in Pulmonary Medicine","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Opinion in Pulmonary Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MCP.0000000000001203","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Purpose of review: This review provides a critical evaluation of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in sarcoidosis, focusing on their use in assessing systemic disease and organ-specific involvement. We aim to summarize current tools, identify evidence gaps, and explore the evolving role of PROMs in both clinical research and practice.
Recent findings: generic instruments such as the SF-36, EQ-5D, and PROMIS have been widely applied in sarcoidosis cohorts, yet their lack of disease specificity limits their interpretability and responsiveness. Sarcoidosis-specific tools [including the Sarcoidosis Health Questionnaire (SHQ), the King's Sarcoidosis Questionnaire (KSQ), and the Fatigue Assessment Scale (FAS)] offer greater construct validity and capture symptoms more relevant to patient experience. On the other hand, PROMs for cardiac, neurologic, ocular, and hepatic involvement remain underdeveloped. PROMs are increasingly incorporated into clinical trials but are rarely used in routine care, partly due to challenges in implementation, interpretation, and integration into workflows. Technological innovations such as computer-adaptive testing and ePROMs offer promising solutions.
Summary: PROMs are essential for capturing the subjective burden of sarcoidosis, particularly in domains poorly reflected by physiologic measures. Further work is needed to expand validation across phenotypes, develop organ-specific tools, and embed PROMs into clinical decision-making and regulatory frameworks.
期刊介绍:
Current Opinion in Pulmonary Medicine is a highly regarded journal offering insightful editorials and on-the-mark invited reviews, covering key subjects such as asthma; cystic fibrosis; infectious diseases; diseases of the pleura; and sleep and respiratory neurobiology. Published bimonthly, each issue of Current Opinion in Pulmonary Medicine introduces world renowned guest editors and internationally recognized academics within the pulmonary field, delivering a widespread selection of expert assessments on the latest developments from the most recent literature.