Generation of evidence supporting the content validity of SF-36, FACIT-F, and LupusQoL, and novel patient-reported symptom items for use in patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and SLE with lupus nephritis (LN).
Lupus Nephritis
Outcome Assessment, Health Care
Qualitative Research
Quality of Life
Systemic Lupus Erythematosus
Journal
Lupus science & medicine
ISSN: 2053-8790
Titre abrégé: Lupus Sci Med
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101633705
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
08 2022
08 2022
Historique:
received:
13
04
2022
accepted:
01
08
2022
entrez:
25
8
2022
pubmed:
26
8
2022
medline:
30
8
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
SLE and lupus nephritis (LN) have significant impacts on the health-related quality of life of patients living with the condition, which are important to capture from the patient's perspective using patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The objectives of this study were to evaluate the content validity of PROs commonly used in SLE and LN (36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36), Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-F) and Lupus Quality of Life (LupusQoL), as well as novel PRO symptom severity items measuring skin rash, joint pain, joint stiffness and swelling of the legs and/or feet, in both populations. Qualitative, semi-structured, cognitive interviews were conducted with 48 participants (SLE=28, LN=20). Understanding and relevance of symptom and impact PRO concepts from existing PROs were assessed, alongside novel PRO symptom severity items with different recall periods (24 hours vs 7 days) and response scales (Numerical Rating Scale (NRS) vs Verbal Rating Scale). Interviews were conducted in multiple rounds to allow for modifications to the novel PRO items. Analysis of verbatim interview transcripts was performed. Symptom and impact concepts assessed by the SF-36, FACIT-F, and LupusQoL were well understood by both participants with SLE and LN (≥90.0%), with most considered relevant by over half of the participants asked (≥51.9%). All participants asked (100%) understood the novel PRO symptom severity items, and the majority (≥90.0%) considered the symptoms relevant. Minor modifications to the novel PRO items were made between rounds to improve clarity based on participant feedback. The selected 7-day recall period and NRS in the final iteration of the PRO items were understood and relevant. No differences in interview findings between the SLE and LN samples were identified. Findings provide evidence of content validity for concepts assessed by the SF-36, FACIT-F, LupusQoL and the novel PRO symptom severity items, supporting use of these PROs to comprehensively assess disease impact in future SLE and LN clinical trials.
Identifiants
pubmed: 36007978
pii: 9/1/e000712
doi: 10.1136/lupus-2022-000712
pmc: PMC9422858
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: RW-H, NW, MB, AR, AG, CT, HB and AW are employed by Adelphi Values, a health outcomes research company paid for conducting the research reported in this article. PB and PDL work for and own stocks/shares in Janssen Global Services LLC, which funded the research reported. EH and QZ work for and own stocks in Janssen R&D. ZT received funding from Schroeder Arthritis Institute and Lupus Ontario. VS received funding from numerous clients, including Janssen, which funded this research.
Références
J Pain Symptom Manage. 1997 Feb;13(2):63-74
pubmed: 9095563
J Patient Rep Outcomes. 2021 Apr 8;5(1):33
pubmed: 33830377
Rheumatology (Oxford). 2016 Feb;55(2):252-62
pubmed: 26342222
J Rheumatol. 2005 Sep;32(9):1699-705
pubmed: 16142863
J Multidiscip Healthc. 2011 Apr 05;4:63-72
pubmed: 21594059
Arthritis Rheum. 2012 Aug;64(8):2677-86
pubmed: 22553077
Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011 Aug;11(4):455-68
pubmed: 21831027
Qual Life Res. 2012 Aug;21(6):1013-20
pubmed: 21909804
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2018 Jan;70(1):125-133
pubmed: 28320078
Value Health. 2011 Dec;14(8):978-88
pubmed: 22152166
Clin Dev Immunol. 2012;2012:604892
pubmed: 22690240
Maedica (Bucur). 2011 Oct;6(4):330-6
pubmed: 22879850
J Am Soc Nephrol. 2007 Jan;18(1):244-54
pubmed: 17167111
N Engl J Med. 2011 Dec 1;365(22):2110-21
pubmed: 22129255
Scand J Rheumatol. 2010;39(1):58-62
pubmed: 20132072
Kidney Dis (Basel). 2015 Sep;1(2):110-8
pubmed: 27536671
Arthritis Rheum. 2008 Apr 15;59(4):465-73
pubmed: 18383406
Lupus. 2000;9(5):322-7
pubmed: 10878722
Lupus. 2006;15(10):633-43
pubmed: 17120589
BMC Res Notes. 2022 Jan 9;15(1):5
pubmed: 35000586
Rheum Dis Clin North Am. 2016 May;42(2):253-263
pubmed: 27133488
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014 Jul 22;12:116
pubmed: 25048687
Reumatol Clin. 2011 Jan-Feb;7(1):3-6
pubmed: 21794772
Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol. 2013 Jun;27(3):363-75
pubmed: 24238693
Psychol Health Med. 2011 Aug;16(4):393-404
pubmed: 21749237
Arthritis Rheum. 1997 Sep;40(9):1725
pubmed: 9324032
Lupus Sci Med. 2018 Aug 21;5(1):e000279
pubmed: 30167315
Lupus. 2018 Feb;27(2):257-264
pubmed: 28728507
Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006 Oct 11;4:79
pubmed: 17034633
Lupus Sci Med. 2020 Jun;7(1):
pubmed: 32591423
Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken). 2019 Jun;71(6):829-838
pubmed: 30320964
Ther Adv Musculoskelet Dis. 2013 Aug;5(4):210-33
pubmed: 23904865
J Rheumatol. 1996 Nov;23(11):1953-5
pubmed: 8923374
Arthritis Rheum. 2007 Aug 15;57(6):972-9
pubmed: 17665467
Psychol Health Med. 2019 Sep;24(8):978-991
pubmed: 30943791
J Rheumatol. 1999 Feb;26(2):490-7
pubmed: 9972993