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, 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","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":"14 ","pages":"171-180"},"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, 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\",\"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\":\"14 \",\"pages\":\"171-180\"},\"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}
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.