A step-by-step approach for selecting an optimal minimal important difference

SOHO State of the Art Updates and Next Questions | Measuring Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) and Treatment Tolerability in Patients With Hematologic Malignancies

There has been a rapid expansion of novel therapeutics for hematologic malignancies, including monoclonal antibodies, small molecules, and cellular therapies, which confer different treatment-related toxicities and symptomatic adverse events (AEs) than traditional cytotoxic chemotherapies. Given that patients with blood cancers are living longer with these newer treatments, with some therapies requiring indefinite or time-intensive administration, consideration of patient-reported tolerability and effects on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) are increasingly relevant. Historically, clinical trials have focused on the efficacy and safety of therapies. While related to safety and not intended to replace it, "treatment tolerability" is a distinct construct defined as the extent to which symptomatic and nonsymptomatic AEs impact a patient's ability and desire to continue with current treatment dosing, which also encompasses how patients feel and function while undergoing anticancer therapies. Assessment of tolerability requires the systematic and rigorous measurement of patient-reported outcomes (PROs). In this review, we discuss the introduction of patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) into hematology clinical trials and how PROs inform the measurement of treatment tolerability, including symptomatic adverse events, physical and role functioning, and overall side effect burden. Selected PROMs for measurement of these core tolerability domains are outlined, with a focus on novel analytic tools that have been developed for the longitudinal analysis of tolerability data. Further, we outline ongoing studies to accelerate integration of PROs throughout the cancer care spectrum, from early-stage drug development to routine clinical care, with the goal of improving both HRQoL and survival.

Common interventional procedures for chronic non-cancer spine pain: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomised trials

OBJECTIVE

To address the comparative effectiveness of common interventional procedures for chronic non-cancer (axial or radicular) spine pain.

DESIGN

Systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA) of randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

DATA SOURCES

Medline, Embase, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and Web of Science from inception to 24 January 2023.

STUDY SELECTION

RCTs that enrolled patients with chronic non-cancer spine pain, randomised to receive a commonly used interventional procedure versus sham procedure, usual care, or another interventional procedure.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Pairs of reviewers independently identified eligible studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We conducted frequentist network meta-analyses to summarise the evidence and used the GRADE approach to rate the certainty of evidence.

RESULTS

Of 132 eligible studies, 81 trials with 7977 patients that explored 13 interventional procedures or combinations of procedures were included in meta-analyses. All subsequent effects refer to comparisons with sham procedures. For chronic axial spine pain, the following probably provide little to no difference in pain relief (moderate certainty evidence): epidural injection of local anaesthetic (weighted mean difference (WMD) 0.28 cm on a 10 cm visual analogue scale (95% CI -1.18 to 1.75)), epidural injection of local anaesthetic and steroids (WMD 0.20 (-1.11 to 1.51)), and joint-targeted steroid injection (WMD 0.83 (-0.26 to 1.93)). Intramuscular injection of local anaesthetic (WMD -0.53 (-1.97 to 0.92)), epidural steroid injection (WMD 0.39 (-0.94 to 1.71)), joint-targeted injection of local anaesthetic (WMD 0.63 (-0.57 to 1.83)), and joint-targeted injection of local anaesthetic with steroids (WMD 0.22 (-0.42 to 0.87)) may provide little to no difference in pain relief (low certainty evidence); intramuscular injection of local anaesthetic with steroids may increase pain (WMD 1.82 (-0.29 to 3.93)) (low certainty evidence). Evidence for joint radiofrequency ablation proved of very low certainty.For chronic radicular spine pain, epidural injection of local anaesthetic and steroids (WMD -0.49 (-1.54 to 0.55)) and radiofrequency of dorsal root ganglion (WMD 0.15 (-0.98 to 1.28)) probably provide little to no difference in pain relief (moderate certainty evidence). Epidural injection of local anaesthetic (WMD -0.26 (-1.37 to 0.84)) and epidural injection of steroids (WMD -0.56 (-1.30 to 0.17)) may result in little to no difference in pain relief (low certainty evidence).

CONCLUSION

Our NMA of randomised trials provides low to moderate certainty evidence that, compared with sham procedures, commonly performed interventional procedures for axial or radicular chronic non-cancer spine pain may provide little to no pain relief.

REGISTRATION

PROSPERO (CRD42020170667).

Effectiveness of Cognitive Behavioral Therapy Provided Through a Web Application for Subthreshold Depression, Subthreshold Insomnia, and Subthreshold Panic: Open-Labeled 6-Arm Randomized Clinical Trial Pilot Study

BACKGROUND

A common definition of "subthreshold" is that the diagnostic threshold is not met but the individuals are not asymptomatic. Some symptoms are present, causing significant difficulty in functioning and negatively impacting quality of life. Despite the attention given to subthreshold symptoms and the interventions for subthreshold symptoms being efficient in preventing the transition to psychiatric disease in primary care, reports on specific interventions are insufficient.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to verify the effectiveness of internet-delivered cognitive behavioral therapy (ICBT) for subthreshold depression (SD), subthreshold insomnia (SI), and subthreshold panic (SP). Additionally, this study aimed to explore the minimally important change (MIC) of each subthreshold group's effectiveness outcome.

METHODS

Participants aged 18-70 years from internet research monitors were categorized into SD, SI, and SP groups based on screening assessment. They were randomly assigned to intervention or control groups within each subthreshold symptom. The intervention groups worked on 4 weeks of nonguided ICBT ("Mentre"), while the control groups worked on a sham app. The primary outcome was the score change from screening (T1) to 4-week follow-up (T4) using the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CESD) in the SD group, the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) in the SI group, and the Panic and Agoraphobia Scale (PAS) in the SP group. Secondary outcomes were score changes in the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) scale, the Patient Health Questionnaire 9 (PHQ-9), the CESD, the PSQI, and the PAS, except the primary outcome in each group. Secondary outcomes were analyzed using complete-case analysis and repeated-measures ANOVA. Additionally, the MIC in the primary endpoint for each group was also calculated as an exploratory outcome.

RESULTS

The SD, SP, and SI groups contained 846, 597, and 1106 participants, respectively. In the SD group, the difference in the CESD score change from baseline to follow-up between the intervention and control groups was significant (difference=0.52, 95% CI 1.29-4.66, P<.001). In the SI group, the difference in the PSQI score change was also significant (difference=0.53, 95% CI 0.11-0.94, P=.01). However, in the SP group, the difference in the PAS score change was not significant (difference=0.07, 95% CI -2.00 to 2.15, P=.94).

CONCLUSIONS

Our ICBT program Mentre contributes to the improvement of SI and SD. This suggests that nonguided ICBT may be effective in preventing SI and SD from progressing to the full threshold. However, appropriate definitions of subthreshold symptoms are necessary. In particular, it is difficult to define SP, and further research that considers the specific factors of each subthreshold symptom is necessary to accumulate evidence.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

University Hospital Medical Information Network (UMIN) UMIN000051280; https://tinyurl.com/2wyahhe3.

Use of Minimal Important Difference for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Plastic Surgery: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The minimal important difference (MID) is vital to consider when interpreting the clinical importance of observed changes from surgical interventions assessed by patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). There is no accepted standard for how to calculate MIDs, and uptake in the plastic surgery literature is unknown, leading to methodologic and interpretation issues.

METHODS

Medline and Embase were searched to identify all plastic surgery randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using PROMs as outcomes and MID estimation studies for PROMs used by RCTs. Included studies were assessed for uptake and application of MIDs, and MID estimation methodology and values were categorized.

RESULTS

A total of 554 RCTs using PROMs as outcomes were identified. Of these, 419 RCTs had the possibility of incorporating a previously published MID. The uptake rate of MIDs was 11.5% ( n = 48 of 419). The most common ways MIDs were applied were to calculate sample size (37.5%) or to determine whether results were clinically important (35.4%). A total of 99 studies estimating MID values for the most common PROMs in plastic surgery, based on our review, were analyzed. The most common estimation methodologies were receiver operating characteristic curve analysis (49%), change difference (31%), and SD (25%).

CONCLUSIONS

This review highlights limited uptake and application of MIDs in plastic surgery. The authors propose 4 major barriers: (1) no repository of published MIDs for PROMs used in plastic surgery exists; (2) available MIDs are not specific to plastic surgery populations; (3) high heterogeneity in MID estimation methodology was present; and (4) there are wide ranges in MID values, with no superior choice identified.

Predictors of Response to Medical Cannabis for Chronic Pain: A Retrospective Review of Real-Time Observational Data

Objective

People living with chronic pain increasingly use medical cannabis for symptom relief. We conducted a retrospective cohort study examining cannabis for chronic pain relief using anonymous archival data obtained from the medicinal cannabis tracking app, Strainprint®.

Method

We acquired cannabis utilization data from 741 adults with chronic pain and used multilevel modeling to examine the association of age, sex, type of pain (muscle, joint or nerve pain), cannabis formulation (high CBD, balanced CBD:THC, or high THC), route of administration (inhaled or ingested), cannabis use before vs. during the COVID-19 pandemic, and duration of cannabis use, with pain relief.

Results

Most patients were female (n = 464; 63%), with a mean age of 39 (SD = 11), and our cohort had completed a total of 83,622 tracked cannabis sessions through Strainprint. The majority of sessions reported use of inhaled cannabis products (78%), typically with high tetrahydrocannabinol (THC; 64%) versus high cannabidiol (CBD; 15%) or balanced THC:CBD (21%) products. The median change in pain scores across sessions was -3.0 points on a 10-point numeric rating scale (NRS; IQR -4.5 to -2.0). In our adjusted model, greater pain relief was associated with male vs. female sex (-0.69 points on a 10-point NRS; 95%CI -0.46 to -0.91). We found statistically significant, but trivial associations with joint pain (-0.05 points), balanced THC:CBD products in the long term (-0.003 points), and cannabis use during the pandemic (0.18 points).

Conclusions

We found that people living with chronic pain report important pain relief when using cannabis for medical purposes, and that men may achieve greater pain relief than women.

Relationship between patient-perceived quality of primary care and self-reported hospital utilisation in China: A cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

Reducing avoidable hospital admissions is a global healthcare priority, with optimal primary care recognised as pivotal for achieving this objective. However, in developing systems like China, where primary care is evolving without compulsory gatekeeping, the relationship between patient-perceived primary care quality and hospital utilisation remains underexplored.

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to explore the association between patient-perceived primary care quality and self-reported hospital utilisation in China.

METHODS

Data were collected from 16 primary care settings. Patient-perceived quality of primary care was measured using the Assessment Survey of Primary Care scale across six domains (first-contact care, continuity, comprehensiveness, accessibility, coordination, and patient-centredness). Hospital utilisation included patient self-reported outpatient visits, hospital admissions, and emergency department (ED) visits in the last six months. Logistic regression analyses were examined associations between self-reported hospital utilisation and perceived primary care quality adjusted for potential confounders.

RESULTS

Of 1,185 patients recruited, 398 (33.6%) reported hospital utilisation. Logistic regression analyses showed that higher total scores for patient-perceived quality of primary care were associated with decreased odds of hospital utilisation (adjusted odds ratio(AOR): 0.417, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.308-0.565), outpatient visits (AOR: 0.394, 95% CI: 0.275-0.566) and hospital admissions (AOR: 0.496, 95% CI: 0.276-0.891). However, continuity of care was positively associated with ED visits (AOR: 2.252, 95% CI: 1.051-4.825).

CONCLUSION

Enhanced patient-perceived quality of primary care in China is associated with a reduction in self-reported overall hospital utilisation, including outpatient visits and hospital admissions. However, better continuity of care may be associated with increased ED visits. Further research is warranted for precise insights and validation of these findings.

Methodological considerations in calculating the minimal clinically important change score for the core outcome measures index (COMI): insights from a large single-centre spine surgery registry

INTRODUCTION

The Minimal Clinically Important Change (MCIC) is used in conjunction with Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) to determine the clinical relevance of changes in health status. MCIC measures a change within the same person or group over time. This study aims to evaluate the variability in computing MCIC for the Core Outcome Measure Index (COMI) using different methods.

METHODS

Data from a spine centre in Switzerland were used to evaluate variations in MCIC for the COMI score. Distribution-based and anchor-based methods (predictive and nonpredictive) were applied. Bayesian bootstrap estimated confidence intervals.

RESULTS

From 27,003 cases, 9821 met the inclusion criteria. Distribution-based methods yielded MCIC values from 0.4 to 1.4. Anchor-based methods showed more variability, with MCIC values from 1.5 to 4.9. Predictive anchor-based methods also provided variable MCIC values for improvement (0.3-2.4), with high sensitivity and specificity.

DISCUSSION

MCIC calculation methods produce varying values, emphasizing careful method selection. Distribution-based methods likely measure minimal detectable change, while non-predictive anchor-based methods can yield high MCIC values due to group averaging. Predictive anchor-based methods offer more stable and clinically relevant MCIC values for improvement but are affected by prevalence and reliability corrections.

The smallest worthwhile effect on pain intensity of exercise therapy for people with chronic low back pain: a discrete choice experiment study

OBJECTIVE: To identify the smallest worthwhile effect (SWE) of exercise therapy for people with non-specific chronic low back pain (CLBP). DESIGN: Discrete choice experiment. METHODS: The SWE was estimated as the lowest reduction in pain that participants would consider exercising worthwhile, compared to not exercising i.e., effects due to natural history and other components (e.g., regression to the mean). We recruited English-speaking adults in Australia with non-specific CLBP to our online survey via email obtained from a registry of previous participants and advertisements on social media. We used discrete choice experiment to estimate the SWE of exercise compared to no exercise for pain intensity. We analysed the discrete choice experiment using a mixed logit model, and mitigated hypothetical bias through certainty calibration, with sensitivity analyses performed with different certainty calibration thresholds. RESULTS: Two-hundred and thirteen participants completed the survey. The mean age (±SD) was 50.7±16.5, median (IQR) pain duration 10 years (5-20), and mean pain intensity (±SD) was 5.8±2.3 on a 0-10 numerical rating scale. For people with CLBP the SWE of exercise was a between-group reduction in pain of 20%, compared to no exercise. In the sensitivity analyses, the SWE varied with different levels of certainty calibration; from 0% without certainty calibration to 60% with more extreme certainty calibration. CONCLUSION: This patient-informed threshold of clinical importance could guide the interpretation of findings from randomised trials and meta-analyses of exercise therapy compared to no exercise.

Effectiveness and safety of manual therapy when compared with oral pain medications in patients with neck pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

This systematic review and meta-analysis seeks to investigate the effectiveness and safety of manual therapy (MT) interventions compared to oral pain medication in the management of neck pain.

METHODS

We searched from inception to March 2023, in Cochrane Central Register of Controller Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED) and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; EBSCO) for randomized controlled trials that examined the effect of manual therapy interventions for neck pain when compared to medication in adults with self-reported neck pain, irrespective of radicular findings, specific cause, and associated cervicogenic headaches. We used the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool to assess the potential risk of bias in the included studies, and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE) approach to grade the quality of the evidence.

RESULTS

Nine trials (779 participants) were included in the meta-analysis. We found low certainty of evidence that MT interventions may be more effective than oral pain medication in pain reduction in the short-term (Standardized Mean Difference: -0.39; 95% CI -0.66 to -0.11; 8 trials, 676 participants), and moderate certainty of evidence that MT interventions may be more effective than oral pain medication in pain reduction in the long-term (Standardized Mean Difference: - 0.36; 95% CI - 0.55 to - 0.17; 6 trials, 567 participants). We found low certainty evidence that the risk of adverse events may be lower for patients that received MT compared to the ones that received oral pain medication (Risk Ratio: 0.59; 95% CI 0.43 to 0.79; 5 trials, 426 participants).

CONCLUSIONS

MT may be more effective for people with neck pain in both short and long-term with a better safety profile regarding adverse events when compared to patients receiving oral pain medications. However, we advise caution when interpreting our safety results due to the different level of reporting strategies in place for MT and medication-induced adverse events. Future MT trials should create and adhere to strict reporting strategies with regards to adverse events to help gain a better understanding on the nature of potential MT-induced adverse events and to ensure patient safety.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO registration number: CRD42023421147.

Minimal Clinically Important Difference of Scales Reported in Stroke Trials: A Review

There is a growing awareness of the significance of using minimum clinically important differences (MCIDs) in stroke research. An MCID is the smallest change in an outcome measure that is considered clinically meaningful. This review is the first to provide a comprehensive summary of various scales and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in stroke research and their MCID values reported in the literature, including a concise overview of the concept of and methods for determining MCIDs in stroke research. Despite the controversies and limitations surrounding the estimation of MCIDs, their importance in modern clinical trials cannot be overstated. Anchor-based and distribution-based methods are recommended for estimating MCIDs, with patient self-evaluation being a crucial component in capturing the patient's perspective on their health. A combination of methods can provide a more comprehensive understanding of the clinical relevance of treatment effects, and incorporating the patient's perspective can enhance the care of stroke patients.

Minimal important difference of the 12-item World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0 in persons with chronic low back pain

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 12-item survey (WHODAS-12) is a questionnaire developed by the WHO to measure functioning across health conditions, cultures, and settings. WHODAS-12 consists of a subset of the 36 items of WHODAS-2.0 36-item questionnaire. Little is known about the minimal important difference (MID) of WHODAS-12 in persons with chronic low back pain (LBP), which would be useful to determine whether rehabilitation improves functioning to an extent that is meaningful for people experiencing the condition. Our objective was to estimate an anchor-based MID for WHODAS-12 questionnaire in persons with chronic LBP.

METHODS

We analyzed data from two cohort studies (identified in our previous systematic review) conducted in Europe that measured functioning using the WHODAS-36 in adults with chronic LBP. Eligible participants were adults with chronic LBP with scores on another measure as an anchor to indicate participants with small but important changes in functioning over time [Short-form-36 Physical Functioning (SF36-PF) or Oswestry Disability Index (ODI)] at baseline and follow-up (study 1: 3-months post-treatment; study 2: 1-month post-discharge from hospital). WHODAS-12 scores were constructed as sums of the 12 items (scored 0-4), with possible scores ranging from 0 to 48. We calculated the mean WHODAS-12 score in participants who achieved a small but meaningful improvement on SF36-PF or ODI at follow-up. A meaningful improvement was an MID of 4-16 on ODI or 5-16 on SF36-PF.

RESULTS

Of 70 eligible participants in study 1 (mean age = 54.1 years, SD = 14.7; 69% female), 18 achieved a small meaningful improvement based on SF-36 PF. Corresponding mean WHODAS-12 change score was - 3.22/48 (95% CI -4.79 to -1.64). Of 89 eligible participants in study 2 (mean age = 65.5 years, SD = 11.5; 61% female), 50 achieved a small meaningful improvement based on ODI. Corresponding mean WHODAS-12 change score was - 5.99/48 (95% CI - 7.20 to -4.79).

CONCLUSIONS

Using an anchor-based approach, the MID of WHODAS-12 is estimated at -3.22 (95% CI -4.79 to -1.64) or -5.99 (95% CI - 7.20 to -4.79) in adults with chronic LBP. These MID values inform the utility of WHODAS-12 in measuring functioning to determine whether rehabilitation or other health services achieve a minimal difference that is meaningful to patients with chronic LBP.