Patients' and clinicians' perspectives on item importance, scoring, and clinically meaningful differences for the Endometriosis Symptom Diary (ESD) and Endometriosis Impact Scale (EIS).
Adult
Dysmenorrhea
/ psychology
Endometriosis
/ psychology
Female
Finland
/ epidemiology
Germany
/ epidemiology
Humans
Male
Medical Records
Middle Aged
Pain Measurement
/ methods
Patient Reported Outcome Measures
Pelvic Pain
/ psychology
Qualitative Research
Spain
/ epidemiology
Symptom Assessment
/ psychology
Treatment Outcome
United States
/ epidemiology
Clinically important difference (CID)
Endometriosis
Endometriosis Impact Scale (EIS)
Endometriosis Symptom Diary (ESD)
Patient preference
Patient-reported outcome measures
Qualitative research
Women’s health
Journal
Health and quality of life outcomes
ISSN: 1477-7525
Titre abrégé: Health Qual Life Outcomes
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101153626
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 Jan 2021
06 Jan 2021
Historique:
received:
21
04
2020
accepted:
24
09
2020
entrez:
7
1
2021
pubmed:
8
1
2021
medline:
23
3
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
The Endometriosis Symptom Diary (ESD) and Endometriosis Impact Scale (EIS) are patient-reported outcome measures developed to evaluate efficacy in clinical trials and clinical practice. The ESD is a daily electronic diary assessing symptom severity; the EIS is a weekly electronic diary assessing symptom impact. This study explored the importance of symptoms (ESD items) and impacts (EIS domains), perspectives on scoring algorithms, and clinically important difference (CID) thresholds to inform clinical trial score interpretation. Endometriosis patients in Germany (n = 8) and the US (n = 17), and expert clinicians (n = 4) in Germany, the US, Spain, and Finland participated in semi-structured qualitative interviews comprising structured tasks. Interview transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis techniques. Quality and severity of endometriosis-associated pelvic pain varied considerably among patients; some experienced pelvic pain daily, others during menstrual bleeding (dysmenorrhea) only. Patients and clinicians ranked "worst pelvic pain" as the most meaningful pain concept assessed by the ESD, followed by constant and short-term pelvic pain. Preferences for summarizing daily pain scores over the 28-day menstrual cycle depended on individuals' experience of pain: patients experiencing pain daily preferred scores summarizing data for all 28 days; patients primarily experiencing pain during selected days, and their treating clinicians preferred scores based on the most severe pain days. Initial CID exploration for the "worst pelvic pain" 0-10 numerical rating scale (0-10 NRS) revealed that, for most patients, a 2- or 3-point reduction was considered meaningful, depending on baseline severity. Patients and clinicians ranked "emotional well-being" and "limitations in physical activities" as the most important EIS domains. This study informs the use of the ESD and EIS as clinically relevant measures of endometriosis symptoms and their impact. Findings from the ESD highlight the importance of individual-patient assessment of pain experience and identify "worst pelvic pain" as the most meaningful symptom assessed. Aggregating scores over the 28-day menstrual cycle may inform meaningful endpoints for clinical trials. Diverse EIS concepts (e.g. impact on emotional well-being and physical activities) are meaningful to patients and clinicians, emphasizing the importance of evaluating the impact on both to comprehensively assess treatment efficacy and decisions. Not applicable. Qualitative, non-interventional study; registration not required.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The Endometriosis Symptom Diary (ESD) and Endometriosis Impact Scale (EIS) are patient-reported outcome measures developed to evaluate efficacy in clinical trials and clinical practice. The ESD is a daily electronic diary assessing symptom severity; the EIS is a weekly electronic diary assessing symptom impact. This study explored the importance of symptoms (ESD items) and impacts (EIS domains), perspectives on scoring algorithms, and clinically important difference (CID) thresholds to inform clinical trial score interpretation.
METHODS
METHODS
Endometriosis patients in Germany (n = 8) and the US (n = 17), and expert clinicians (n = 4) in Germany, the US, Spain, and Finland participated in semi-structured qualitative interviews comprising structured tasks. Interview transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis techniques.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Quality and severity of endometriosis-associated pelvic pain varied considerably among patients; some experienced pelvic pain daily, others during menstrual bleeding (dysmenorrhea) only. Patients and clinicians ranked "worst pelvic pain" as the most meaningful pain concept assessed by the ESD, followed by constant and short-term pelvic pain. Preferences for summarizing daily pain scores over the 28-day menstrual cycle depended on individuals' experience of pain: patients experiencing pain daily preferred scores summarizing data for all 28 days; patients primarily experiencing pain during selected days, and their treating clinicians preferred scores based on the most severe pain days. Initial CID exploration for the "worst pelvic pain" 0-10 numerical rating scale (0-10 NRS) revealed that, for most patients, a 2- or 3-point reduction was considered meaningful, depending on baseline severity. Patients and clinicians ranked "emotional well-being" and "limitations in physical activities" as the most important EIS domains.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This study informs the use of the ESD and EIS as clinically relevant measures of endometriosis symptoms and their impact. Findings from the ESD highlight the importance of individual-patient assessment of pain experience and identify "worst pelvic pain" as the most meaningful symptom assessed. Aggregating scores over the 28-day menstrual cycle may inform meaningful endpoints for clinical trials. Diverse EIS concepts (e.g. impact on emotional well-being and physical activities) are meaningful to patients and clinicians, emphasizing the importance of evaluating the impact on both to comprehensively assess treatment efficacy and decisions.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
Not applicable. Qualitative, non-interventional study; registration not required.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33407560
doi: 10.1186/s12955-020-01579-7
pii: 10.1186/s12955-020-01579-7
pmc: PMC7789138
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
7Références
BJOG. 2018 Jan;125(1):55-62
pubmed: 28444957
J Obstet Gynaecol Can. 2010 Jul;32(7 Suppl 2):S1-32
pubmed: 21545757
J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2020 Feb 18;4(1):13
pubmed: 32072316
Int J Womens Health. 2017 May 16;9:323-330
pubmed: 28553145
Fertil Steril. 2017 Jul;108(1):125-136
pubmed: 28668150
Curr Obstet Gynecol Rep. 2017 Mar;6(1):34-41
pubmed: 29276652
Value Health. 2011 Dec;14(8):978-88
pubmed: 22152166
J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2018 Dec;39(4):315-320
pubmed: 29027829
Hum Reprod Update. 2015 Jan-Feb;21(1):136-52
pubmed: 25180023
Fertil Steril. 2018 Jul 1;110(1):137-152.e1
pubmed: 29937152
Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2015 Nov;49(6):813-821
pubmed: 30222392
Hum Reprod. 2005 Oct;20(10):2698-704
pubmed: 15980014
Br J Anaesth. 2008 Jul;101(1):17-24
pubmed: 18487245
J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2019 Mar 4;3(1):16
pubmed: 30830492
Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2016 Apr;214(4):452-464
pubmed: 26778385
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010 Nov 24;8:138
pubmed: 21106059
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2018 Jan 4;16(1):3
pubmed: 29301557
Value Health. 2005 Mar-Apr;8(2):94-104
pubmed: 15804318
Fertil Steril. 2014 Apr;101(4):927-35
pubmed: 24630080
Value Health. 2009 Jun;12(4):430-40
pubmed: 19138309
Fertil Steril. 2009 Jul;92(1):68-74
pubmed: 18684448
Hum Reprod. 2013 Jun;28(6):1552-68
pubmed: 23528916
Pain. 2003 Dec;106(3):337-45
pubmed: 14659516
Reprod Biomed Online. 2014 Jan;28(1):116-24
pubmed: 24268732
Reprod Sci. 2018 Nov;25(11):1567-1576
pubmed: 30033855
Clin J Pain. 2000 Mar;16(1):22-8
pubmed: 10741815
Hum Reprod. 2014 Mar;29(3):400-12
pubmed: 24435778
Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2016 Jan;50(1):22-29
pubmed: 30236016
Cephalalgia. 2012 Feb;32(3):185-97
pubmed: 22332207