Minimal clinically important differences for the EQ-5D and QWB-SA in Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD): results from a Doubly Randomized Preference Trial (DRPT)

Health and Quality of Life Outcomes

Norah C Feeny¹  Lori A Zoellner³  Jason N Doctor²  Quang A Le⁴ 

[1] Department of Psychological Sciences, Case Western Reserve University, 10900 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH, 44106-7123, USA;Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy/Leonard D. Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics, University of Southern California, 3335 S. Figueroa Street, Unit A, Los Angeles, CA, 90089-7273, USA;Department of Psychology/Center for Anxiety and Traumatic Stress, University of Washington, Box 351525, Seattle, WA, 98195-1525, USA;Department of Pharmacy Administration and Practice, Western University of Health Sciences, 309 E. Second Street, Pomona, CA 91766-1854, USA

关键词: Sertraline;    Prolonged exposure therapy;    Doubly randomized preference trial;    PTSD;    Minimal clinically important difference;    QWB-SA;    EQ-5D;   

Others  :  823806
DOI  :  10.1186/1477-7525-11-59

 received in 2012-11-13, accepted in 2013-03-26,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Objective

To determine the minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the health-utility measures EuroQol-5 dimensions (EQ-5D) and Quality of Well Being Self-Administered (QWB-SA) Scale in PTSD patients.

Research design and methods

Two hundred patients aged 18 to 65 years with PTSD enrolled in a doubly randomized preference trial (DRPT) examining the treatment and treatment-preference effects between cognitive behavioral therapy and pharmacotherapy with sertraline and completed the EQ-5D and QWB-SA at baseline and 10-week post-treatment. The anchor-based methods utilized a Clinical Global Impression-Improvement (CGI-I) and Clinical Global Impression-Severity. We regressed the changes in EQ-5D and QWB-SA scores on changes in the anchors using ordinary least squares regression. The slopes (beta coefficients) were the rates of change in the anchors as functions of change in EQ-5D and QWB, which represent our estimates of MCID. In addition, we performed receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis to examine the relationship between the changes in EQ-5D and QWB-SA scores and treatment-response status. The MCIDs were estimated from the ROC curve where they best discriminate between treatment responders and non-responders. The distribution-based methods used small to moderate effect size in terms of 0.2 and 0.5 of standard deviation of the pre-treatment EQ-5D and QWB-SA scores.

Results

The anchor-based methods estimated the MCID ranges of 0.05 to 0.08 for the EQ-5D and 0.03 to 0.05 for the QWB. The MCID ranges were higher with the distribution-based methods, ranging from 0.04 to 0.10 for the EQ-5D and 0.02 to 0.05 for the QWB-SA.

Conclusions

The established MCID ranges of EQ-5D and QWB-SA can be a useful tool in assessing meaningful changes in patient’s quality of life for researchers and clinicians, and assisting health-policy makers to make informing decision in mental health treatment.

Clinical trial registration

Clinicaltrials.gov; Identifier: NCT00127673.

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Le et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Kessler RC, Sonnega A, Bromet E, Hughes M, Nelson CB: Posttraumatic stress disorder in the National Comorbidity Survey. Arch Gen Psychiatry 1995, 52:1048-60.
• [2]Hoge CW, Castro CA, Messer SC, McGurk D, Cotting DI, Koffman RL: Combat duty in Iraq and Afghanistan, mental health problems, and barriers to care. N Engl J Med 2004, 351:13-22.
• [3]Mendlowicz MV, Stein MB: Quality of life in individuals with anxiety disorders. Am J Psychiatry 2000, 157:669-682.
• [4]Sareen J, Cox BJ, Stein MB: Physical and mental disability, disability, and suicidal behavior associated with posttraumatic stress disorder in a large community sample. Psychosom Med 2007, 69:242-248.
• [5]Doctor JN, Zoellner LA, Feeny NC: Predictors of health-related quality-of-life utilities among persons with posttraumatic stress disorder. Psych Serv 2011, 62:272-277.
• [6]Greenberg PE, Sisitsky T, Kessler RC: The economic burden of anxiety disorders in the 1990s. J Clin Psychiatry 1999, 60:427-35.
• [7]Eibner C, Ringel JS, Kilmer B, Pacula RL, Diaz C: The cost of post-deployment mental health and cognitive conditions. In Invisible wounds of war: psychological and cognitive injuries, their consequences, and services to assist recovery. Edited by Tanielian T, Jaycox LH. Santa Monica: RAND; 2008.
• [8]Foa E, Riggs DS, Dancu CV, Rothbaum BO: Reliability and validity of a brief instrument for assessing post-traumatic stress disorder. J Trauma Stress 1993, 6:459-74.
• [9]Blanchard EB, Jones-Alexander J, Buckley TC, Forneris CA: Psychometric properties of the PTSD checklist (PCL). Behav Res Ther 1996, 34:669-673.
• [10]Blake DD, Weathers FW, Nagy LM, Kaloupek DG, Gusman FD, Charney DS, Keane TM: The development of a clinician-administered PTSD scale. J of Trauma Stress 1995, 8:75-90.
• [11]Mancino MJ, Pyne JM, Tripathi S, Constans J, Roca V, Freeman T: Quality-adjusted health status in veterans with posttraumatic stress disorder. J Nerv Ment Dis 2006, 194:877-879.
• [12]Freed MC, Yeager DE, Liu X, Gore KL, Engel CC, Magruder KM: Preference-weighted health status of PTSD among veterans: an outcome for cost-effectiveness analysis using clinical data. Psych Serv 2009, 60:1230-1238.
• [13]Cohen BE, Marmar CR, Neylan TC, Schiller NB, Ali S, Whooley MA: Posttraumatic stress disorder and health-related quality of life in patients with coronary heart disease: findings from the Heart and Soul study. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2009, 66:1214-1220.
• [14]Haagsma JA, Polinder S, Olff M, Toet H, Bonsel GJ, van Beeck EF: Posttraumatic stress symptoms and health-related quality of life: a two year follow up study of injury treated at the emergency department. BMC Psychiatry 2012, 12:1. BioMed Central Full Text
• [15]Walter SJ, Brazier JE: Comparison of the minimally important difference for two health state utility measures: EQ-5D and SF-6D. Qual Life Res 2005, 14:1523-1532.
• [16]Revicki DA, Cella D, Hays RD, Sloan JA, Lenderking WR, Aaronson NK: Responsiveness and minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2006, 4:70. BioMed Central Full Text
• [17]Revicki DA, Hays RD, Cella D, Sloan JA: Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol 2008, 61:102-109.
• [18]Pickard SA, Neary MP, Cella D: Estimation of minimally important differences in EQ-5D and VAS scores in cancer. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2007, 5:70. BioMed Central Full Text
• [19]Coteur G, Feagan B, Keininger DL, Kosinski M: Evaluation of the meaningfulness of health-related quality of life of life improvements as assessed by the SF-36 and the EQ-5D VAS in patients with active Crohn’s disease. Aliment Pharmocol Ther 2009, 29:1032-1041.
• [20]Luo N, Johnson JA, Coons SJ: Using instrument-defined health state transitions to estimate minimally important differences for four preference-based health-related quality of life instruments. Med Care 2010, 48:365-371.
• [21]McDonough CM, Tosteson TD, Tosteson ANA, Jette AM, Grove MR, Weinstein JN: A longitudinal comparison of 5 preference-weighted health state classification systems in persons with intervertebral disk herniation. Med Dec Making 2011, 31:270-280.
• [22]Kaplan RM: The minimally clinically important difference in generic utility-based measures. COPD 2005, 2:91-97.
• [23]Kupferberg DH, Kaplan RM, Slymen DJ, Ries AL: Minimal clinically important difference for the UCSD shortness of breath questionnaire. J Cardiopulm Rehabil 2005, 25:370-377.
• [24]Kind P: Guidelines for value sets in economic and on-economic studies using EQ-5D. In The Measurement and Valuation of Health Status Using EQ-5D: A European Perspective. Edited by Brooks R, Rabin R, Charro FD. Amsterdam: the Netherlands Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2003:29-42.
• [25]Shaw JW, Johnson JA, Coons SJ: US valuation of the EQ-5D health states: development and testing of the D1 valuation model. Med care 2005, 43:203-20.
• [26]Kaplan RM, Sieber WJ, Ganiats TG: The Quality of Well-Being Scale: Comparison of the interviewer-administered version with a self-administered questionnaire. Psychol Health 1977, 12:783-791.
• [27]National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) Early clinical drug evaluation unit (ECDEU): Clinical global impressions. In ECDEU Assessment Manual for Psychopharmacology Revised. Edited by Guy W. Rockville, MD: NIMH; 1976:218-222.
• [28]Jacobson NS, Truax P: Clinical significance: a statistical approach to defining meaningful change in psychotherapy research. J Consult Clin Psychol 1991, 59:12-19.
• [29]Jacobson NS, Roberts LJ, Berns SB, McGlinchey JB: Methods for defining and determining the clinical significance of treatment effects: description, application, and alternatives. J Consult Clin Psychol 1999, 67:300-307.
• [30]Foa EB, Cashman LJ, Jaycox LH, Perry K: The validation of a self-report measure of PTSD: The PTSD Diagnostic Scale. Psychol Assess 1997, 9:445-451.
• [31]Miller KL, Walt JG, Mink DR: Minimal clinically important difference for the ocular surface disease index. Arch Ophthalmol 2010, 128:94-101.
• [32]Hanley JA, McNeil BJ: The meaning and use of the area under a receiving operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology 1982, 143:29-36.
• [33]Deyo RA, Diehr P, Patrick DL: Reproducibility and responsiveness of health status measures: statistics and strategies for evaluation. Control Clin Trials 1991, 12:142S-158S.
• [34]Ward MM, Marx AS, Barry NN: Identification of clinically important changes in health status using receiver operating characteristic curves. J Clin Epidemiol 2000, 53:279-284.
• [35]Turner D, Schunemann HJ, Griffith LE: Using the entire cohort in the receiver operating characteristic analysis maximizes precision of the minimal important difference. J Clin Epidemiol 2009, 62:374-379.
• [36]Norman GR, Sloan JA, Wyrwich KW: Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care 2003, 41:582-592.
• [37]Crosby RD, Kolotkin RL, Williams RG: Defining clinically meaningful change in health-related quality of life. J Clin Epidemiol 2005, 56:395-407.