Validation of an Instrument for Measuring Adherence to Treatment With Immunomodulators in Patients With Multiple Myeloma

Assessment tools for patient-reported outcomes in multiple myeloma

BACKGROUND

Patients with multiple myeloma experience severe symptom burden. Patient participation in self-reporting is essential as medical staff's assessment of patient symptom severity is often lower than patient self-reporting. This article reviews patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessment tools and their application in the field of multiple myeloma.

RESULTS

The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) is the universal patient-reported outcome assessment tool most frequently used to evaluate the life quality in people with multiple myeloma. Among the specific patient-reported outcome assessment tools, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Multiple Myeloma Module (EORTC QLQ-MY20), the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Multiple Myeloma (FACT-MM), and the M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory-Multiple Myeloma Module (MDASI-MM) are the most widely used, with some scholars using the EORTC QLQ-MY20 as a calibration correlate for scale development. Most current assessment instruments were developed using classical measurement theory methods; future researchers could combine classic theory tests and item response theory to create scientific assessment instruments. In addition, researchers select the appropriate assessment tool based on the purpose of the study. They can translate high-quality assessment tools into different languages and consider applying them more often to assessing multiple myeloma patients. Finally, most existing PROs focus on measuring life quality and symptoms in people with multiple myeloma, with less research on outcomes such as adherence and satisfaction, thus failing to comprehensively evaluate the patient treatment and disease management.

CONCLUSIONS

Research has shown that the field of PROs in multiple myeloma is in an exploratory phase. There is still a need to enrich the content of PROs and develop more high-quality PRO scales for multiple myeloma based on the strengths and weaknesses of existing tools. With the successful advancement of information technology, PROs for people with multiple myeloma could be integrated with electronic information systems, allowing patients to report their health status in real time and doctors to track their condition and adjust their treatment, thereby improving patient outcomes.

Validation of a scale to assess adherence to oral chemotherapy based on the experiences of patients and healthcare professionals (EXPAD-ANEO)

Background: Lack of adherence to Oral antineoplastic agents (OAAs) treatment has important clinical, social and economic consequences.

Objective: To develop and validate a novel instrument for assessing adherence to OAAs, based on the reported experiences of people with cancer in relation to their treatment and the opinions of the healthcare professionals who care for them.

Methods: We performed a multicenter validation study of a scale designed to assess adherence to OAAs. First, a steering committee developed the items for an initial scale, based on the results of a qualitative study that evaluated patients’ and professionals’ experiences with this treatment. We then assessed the validity and reliability of the initial scale in a sample of 268 outpatients with cancer who received their OAAs from four Spanish hospitals.

Results: The mean age of the sample of 268 outpatients was 64.1 (standard deviation [SD] 12.4) years, and 47% of participants were women. With the results of this analysis, we developed the EXPAD-ANEO scale, which has 2 factors, one for beliefs and expectations and another for behavior. Both factors explain 52% of the explained common variance. Good reliability was obtained, with a McDonald’s omega of 0.7 for the first factor and 0.6 for the second factor. The fit indices were optimal (Root Mean Square Error of Approximation = 0.02, Comparative Fit Index = 0.99, Tucker Lexis Index = 0.99 and Standardized Root Mean Squared Residual = 0.03), which verifies the appropriateness of the items to the model. We measured EXPAD-ANEO criterion validity against pill count, obtaining a specificity of 80%. We measured convergent validity with the Morisky-Green test and found a significant association (p < 0.001). We measured divergent validity with questions on health literacy from the 16-item European Health Literacy Survey and found no correlation (p = 0.153).

Conclusion: EXPAD-ANEO is the first validated instrument for evaluating patients’ experiences with and adherence to OAAs, providing valuable information that can help health professionals to establish individual strategies or collective programs for improving therapeutic results and reducing healthcare costs.

Real World Adherence to and Persistence With Oral Oncolytics in Multiple Myeloma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Oral oncolytic treatments (OOTs) have improved the prognosis of patients with multiple myeloma (MM). However, the effectiveness of these therapies is undermined by poor adherence. We aimed to characterize the real-world adherence to, and persistence with, OOTs for MM.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the International Pharmaceutical abstracts databases were searched for relevant observational studies published in English up to November 21, 2021. This was supplemented by manual searches of abstracts from the annual meetings of the American Society of Hematology, the American Society for Clinical Oncology, and the European Hematology Association as well as screening the references of included articles. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Following screening of 11,557 articles, 19 studies involving 27,129 patients in 8 countries (France, the US, Germany, Italy, the UK, Brazil, South Korea, and Belgium) prescribed OOTs (lenalidomide, thalidomide, pomalidomide, panobinostat, ixazomib, and melphalan) for MM were included. The overall pooled proportion of adherent patients was 67.9% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 57.1%-77.8%). The pooled proportion of adherent patients was higher in self-reported questionnaire-based studies compared to those using prescription/dispensing data (81.6% vs. 61.0%; P-value for difference = .08). Across 5 studies involving 15,363 patients, a pooled proportion of 35.8% (95% CI: 22.0-50.9) discontinued treatment. Factors reported to be associated with nonadherence included increasing age, higher comorbidity, polypharmacy, and a lack of social support.

CONCLUSION

In patients with MM, adherence to and persistence with OOTs remains suboptimal. To achieve desired clinical outcomes, interventions to improve adherence and minimize discontinuation may be warranted.

Patient-reported outcome measures to detect intentional, mixed, or unintentional non-adherence to medication: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To categorise patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) into their propensity to detect intentional and/or unintentional non-adherence to medication, and synthesise their psychometric properties.

DESIGN

Systematic review and regression analysis.

ELIGIBILITY

Medication adherence levels studied at primary, secondary and tertiary care settings. Self-reported measures with scoring methods were included. Studies without proxy measures were excluded.

DATA SOURCES

Using detailed searches with key concepts including questionnaires, reliability and validity, and restricted to English, MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, International Pharmaceutical Abstracts, and Cochrane Library were searched until 01 March 2022. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 (PRISMA-2020) checklist was used.

DATA ANALYSIS

Risk of bias was assessed via COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN-2018) guidelines. Narrative synthesis aided by graphical figures and statistical analyses.

OUTCOME MEASURES

Process domains [behaviour (e.g., self-efficacy), barrier (e.g., impaired dexterity) or belief (e.g., perception)], and overall outcome domains of either intentional (I), unintentional (UI), or mixed non-adherence.

RESULTS

Paper summarises evidence from 59 studies of PROMs, validated among patients aged 18-88 years in America, the United Kingdom, Europe, Middle East, and Australasia. PROMs detected outcome domains: intentional non-adherence, n=44 (I=491 criterion items), mixed intentionality, n=13 (I=79/UI=50), and unintentional, n=2 (UI=5). Process domains detected include belief (383 criterion items), barrier (192) and behaviour (165). Criterion validity assessment used proxy measures (biomarkers, e-monitors), and scoring was ordinal, dichotomised, or used Visual Analogue Scale. Heterogeneity was revealed across psychometric properties (consistency, construct, reliability, discrimination ability). Intentionality correlated positively with negative beliefs (r(57)=0.88) and barriers (r(57)=0.59). For every belief or barrier criterion-item, PROMs' aptitude to detect intentional non-adherence increased by β=0.79 and β=0.34 units, respectively (R²=0.94). Primary care versus specialised care predicted intentional non-adherence (OR 1.9; CI 1.01 to 2.66).

CONCLUSIONS

Ten PROMs had adequate psychometric properties. Of the ten, eight PROMs were able to detect total, and two PROMs were able to detect partial intentionality to medication default. Fortification of patients' knowledge and illness perception, as opposed to daily reminders alone, is most imperative at primary care levels.