评估患者使用生物制剂治疗自身免疫性疾病的真实世界患者报告的结果:在四个患者支持的研究网络中的观察性研究

IF 1.8 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Timothy Beukelman, Millie D Long, Rennie L Rhee, Michael D Kappelman, Peter A Merkel, William Benjamin Nowell, Cassie Clinton, Sarah Ringold, Vincent Del Gaizo, Brian Price, Dianne G Shaw, Shilpa Venkatachalam, David Cuthbertson, Fenglong Xie, Xian Zhang, Jeffrey R Curtis
{"title":"评估患者使用生物制剂治疗自身免疫性疾病的真实世界患者报告的结果:在四个患者支持的研究网络中的观察性研究","authors":"Timothy Beukelman,&nbsp;Millie D Long,&nbsp;Rennie L Rhee,&nbsp;Michael D Kappelman,&nbsp;Peter A Merkel,&nbsp;William Benjamin Nowell,&nbsp;Cassie Clinton,&nbsp;Sarah Ringold,&nbsp;Vincent Del Gaizo,&nbsp;Brian Price,&nbsp;Dianne G Shaw,&nbsp;Shilpa Venkatachalam,&nbsp;David Cuthbertson,&nbsp;Fenglong Xie,&nbsp;Xian Zhang,&nbsp;Jeffrey R Curtis","doi":"10.2147/PROM.S392174","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The most reliable and meaningful approach for inclusion of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in the evaluation of real-world clinical effectiveness of biologics in the treatment of autoimmune diseases is u ncertain. This study aimed to assess and compare the proportions of patients who had abnormalities in PROs measuring important general health domains at the initiation of treatment with biologics, as well as the effects of baseline abnormalities on subsequent improvement.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PROs were collected for patient participants with inflammatory arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and vasculitis using Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System instruments. Scores were reported as <i>T</i>-scores normalized to the general population in the United States. Baseline PROs scores were collected near the time of biologic initiation, and follow-up scores were collected 3 to 8 months later. In addition to summary statistics, the proportion of patients with PROs abnormalities (scores ≥5 units worse than the population norm) was determined. Baseline and follow-up scores were compared, and an improvement of ≥5 units was considered significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was wide variation across autoimmune diseases in baseline PROs scores for all domains. For example, the proportion of participants with abnormal baseline pain interference scores ranged from 52% to 93%. When restricted to participants with baseline PROs abnormalities, the proportion of participants experiencing an improvement of ≥5 units was substantially higher.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>As expected, many patients experienced improvement in PROs following initiation of treatment with biologics for autoimmune diseases. Nevertheless, a substantial proportion of participants did not exhibit abnormalities in all PROs domains at baseline, and these participants appear less likely to experience improvement. For PROs to be reliably and meaningfully included in the evaluation of real-world medication effectiveness, more knowledge and careful consideration are needed to select the most appropriate patient populations and subgroups for inclusion and evaluation in studies measuring change in PROs.</p>","PeriodicalId":19747,"journal":{"name":"Patient Related Outcome Measures","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/e4/9b/prom-14-171.PMC10276583.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Assessment of Real-World Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients Initiating Biologic Agents for the Treatment of Autoimmune Diseases: An Observational Study in Four Patient-Powered Research Networks.\",\"authors\":\"Timothy Beukelman,&nbsp;Millie D Long,&nbsp;Rennie L Rhee,&nbsp;Michael D Kappelman,&nbsp;Peter A Merkel,&nbsp;William Benjamin Nowell,&nbsp;Cassie Clinton,&nbsp;Sarah Ringold,&nbsp;Vincent Del Gaizo,&nbsp;Brian Price,&nbsp;Dianne G Shaw,&nbsp;Shilpa Venkatachalam,&nbsp;David Cuthbertson,&nbsp;Fenglong Xie,&nbsp;Xian Zhang,&nbsp;Jeffrey R Curtis\",\"doi\":\"10.2147/PROM.S392174\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The most reliable and meaningful approach for inclusion of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in the evaluation of real-world clinical effectiveness of biologics in the treatment of autoimmune diseases is u ncertain. This study aimed to assess and compare the proportions of patients who had abnormalities in PROs measuring important general health domains at the initiation of treatment with biologics, as well as the effects of baseline abnormalities on subsequent improvement.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>PROs were collected for patient participants with inflammatory arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and vasculitis using Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System instruments. Scores were reported as <i>T</i>-scores normalized to the general population in the United States. Baseline PROs scores were collected near the time of biologic initiation, and follow-up scores were collected 3 to 8 months later. In addition to summary statistics, the proportion of patients with PROs abnormalities (scores ≥5 units worse than the population norm) was determined. Baseline and follow-up scores were compared, and an improvement of ≥5 units was considered significant.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>There was wide variation across autoimmune diseases in baseline PROs scores for all domains. For example, the proportion of participants with abnormal baseline pain interference scores ranged from 52% to 93%. When restricted to participants with baseline PROs abnormalities, the proportion of participants experiencing an improvement of ≥5 units was substantially higher.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>As expected, many patients experienced improvement in PROs following initiation of treatment with biologics for autoimmune diseases. Nevertheless, a substantial proportion of participants did not exhibit abnormalities in all PROs domains at baseline, and these participants appear less likely to experience improvement. For PROs to be reliably and meaningfully included in the evaluation of real-world medication effectiveness, more knowledge and careful consideration are needed to select the most appropriate patient populations and subgroups for inclusion and evaluation in studies measuring change in PROs.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19747,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Patient Related Outcome Measures\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/e4/9b/prom-14-171.PMC10276583.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Patient Related Outcome Measures\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2147/PROM.S392174\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Patient Related Outcome Measures","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2147/PROM.S392174","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在评估生物制剂治疗自身免疫性疾病的实际临床有效性时,纳入患者报告的结局(PROs)的最可靠和有意义的方法尚不确定。本研究旨在评估和比较在生物制剂治疗开始时具有重要一般健康领域pro异常的患者比例,以及基线异常对随后改善的影响。方法:使用患者报告结局测量信息系统仪器收集炎症性关节炎、炎症性肠病和血管炎患者的PROs。在美国,分数以标准化的t分数报告。基线PROs评分在生物起始时收集,3 - 8个月后收集随访评分。除汇总统计外,确定PROs异常(评分比人群常模差≥5个单位)的患者比例。基线和随访评分比较,改善≥5个单位被认为是显著的。结果:自身免疫性疾病在所有领域的基线PROs评分存在很大差异。例如,基线疼痛干扰评分异常的参与者比例从52%到93%不等。当局限于基线PROs异常的参与者时,经历≥5个单位改善的参与者比例明显更高。结论:正如预期的那样,许多患者在开始使用生物制剂治疗自身免疫性疾病后,PROs得到了改善。然而,相当比例的参与者在基线时并没有表现出所有pro域的异常,并且这些参与者似乎不太可能经历改善。为了可靠而有意义地将PROs纳入现实世界药物有效性的评估,在测量PROs变化的研究中,需要更多的知识和仔细考虑,以选择最合适的患者群体和亚组进行纳入和评估。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Assessment of Real-World Patient-Reported Outcomes in Patients Initiating Biologic Agents for the Treatment of Autoimmune Diseases: An Observational Study in Four Patient-Powered Research Networks.

Background: The most reliable and meaningful approach for inclusion of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in the evaluation of real-world clinical effectiveness of biologics in the treatment of autoimmune diseases is u ncertain. This study aimed to assess and compare the proportions of patients who had abnormalities in PROs measuring important general health domains at the initiation of treatment with biologics, as well as the effects of baseline abnormalities on subsequent improvement.

Methods: PROs were collected for patient participants with inflammatory arthritis, inflammatory bowel disease, and vasculitis using Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System instruments. Scores were reported as T-scores normalized to the general population in the United States. Baseline PROs scores were collected near the time of biologic initiation, and follow-up scores were collected 3 to 8 months later. In addition to summary statistics, the proportion of patients with PROs abnormalities (scores ≥5 units worse than the population norm) was determined. Baseline and follow-up scores were compared, and an improvement of ≥5 units was considered significant.

Results: There was wide variation across autoimmune diseases in baseline PROs scores for all domains. For example, the proportion of participants with abnormal baseline pain interference scores ranged from 52% to 93%. When restricted to participants with baseline PROs abnormalities, the proportion of participants experiencing an improvement of ≥5 units was substantially higher.

Conclusion: As expected, many patients experienced improvement in PROs following initiation of treatment with biologics for autoimmune diseases. Nevertheless, a substantial proportion of participants did not exhibit abnormalities in all PROs domains at baseline, and these participants appear less likely to experience improvement. For PROs to be reliably and meaningfully included in the evaluation of real-world medication effectiveness, more knowledge and careful consideration are needed to select the most appropriate patient populations and subgroups for inclusion and evaluation in studies measuring change in PROs.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Patient Related Outcome Measures
Patient Related Outcome Measures HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES-
自引率
4.80%
发文量
27
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信