Assessing Preference-Based Outcome Measures for Overactive Bladder: An Evaluation of Patient-Reported Outcome Data from the BESIDE Clinical Trial

被引:8
|
作者
Herdman, Mike [1 ]
Nazir, Jameel [2 ]
Hakimi, Zalmai [3 ]
Siddiqui, Emad [2 ]
Huang, Moses [2 ]
Pavesi, Marco [4 ]
MacDiarmid, Scott [5 ]
Drake, Marcus J. [6 ,7 ]
Devlin, Nancy [1 ]
机构
[1] Off Hlth Econ, Southside, 7th Floor,105 Victoria St, London SW1E 6QT, England
[2] Astellas Pharma Europe Ltd, HEOR, EMEA, Astellas Med Affairs, Chertsey, England
[3] Astellas Pharma Europe BV, Astellas Med Affairs, Global, HEOR, Leiden, Netherlands
[4] European Fdn Study Chron Liver Failure EF CLIF, Data Management Ctr, Barcelona, Spain
[5] Alliance Urol Specialists, Greensboro, NC USA
[6] Univ Bristol, Bristol, Avon, England
[7] Bristol Urol Inst, Bristol, Avon, England
来源
关键词
QUALITY-OF-LIFE; BETA(3)-ADRENOCEPTOR AGONIST; MIRABEGRON; EFFICACY; INCONTINENCE; PRODUCTIVITY; THERAPY; PHASE-3; BURDEN; IMPACT;
D O I
10.1007/s40271-017-0262-8
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
Objectives The aim of this study was to compare outcomes using two preference-based measures of health status (EQ-5D-5L and OAB-5D) in patients with overactive bladder (OAB) treated with solifenacin plus mirabegron or solifenacin monotherapy in the BESIDE trial. Methods Patients with OAB who remained incontinent after 4 weeks' treatment with solifenacin 5 mg were randomized 1:1:1 to combination treatment (solifenacin 5 mg plus mirabegron [25 mg for the first 4 weeks/50 mg for the last 8 weeks]), solifenacin 5 mg, or solifenacin 10 mg. EQ-5D-5L and OAB-q were administered at baseline, weeks 4, 8, 12, and end of treatment (EoT). OAB-5D scores were derived from OAB-q results. Responder analysis was carried out using several definitions of minimally important difference. Results A total of 2054 patients received one or more doses of study treatment (combination, n = 694; solifenacin 5 mg, n = 684; solifenacin 10 mg, n = 676). EQ-5D-5L Index mean score changes (from baseline to EoT) were greater with combination (0.059) than with solifenacin 5 mg (0.040) and 10 mg (0.044) monotherapy, but the differences were not statistically significant. A significantly greater improvement was observed for combination on OAB-5D (0.107 vs 0.085 for 5 mg, and 0.087 for 10 mg; p <= 0.01). The dimensions most improved overall were anxiety/depression, pain/discomfort, and usual activities on EQ-5D-5L, and urge, urine loss, and coping on OAB-5D. The proportion of responders was significantly greater with combination compared with monotherapy using OAB-5D only. Conclusions Improvements were observed in all study arms on both the EQ-5D-5L and OAB-5D, although only the OAB-5D showed a statistically significant benefit for combination versus solifenacin monotherapy. Combining generic and condition-specific preference-based health status measures allowed for assessment of dimensions that were particularly relevant to this patient population, while permitting comparison with outcomes from other studies, treatments, and populations via EQ-5D.
引用
收藏
页码:677 / 686
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Meaningful Clinical Applications of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Orthopaedics
    Makhni, Eric C.
    JOURNAL OF BONE AND JOINT SURGERY-AMERICAN VOLUME, 2021, 103 (01): : 84 - 91
  • [22] Patient-reported outcome measures: Use in evaluation of treatment for aphasia
    Ross, Katherine B.
    JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY, 2006, 14 (03) : IX - XI
  • [23] Systematic Evaluation of the Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Content of Clinical Trial Protocols
    Kyte, Derek
    Duffy, Helen
    Fletcher, Benjamin
    Gheorghe, Adrian
    Mercieca-Bebber, Rebecca
    King, Madeleine
    Draper, Heather
    Ives, Jonathan
    Brundage, Michael
    Blazeby, Jane
    Calvert, Melanie
    PLOS ONE, 2014, 9 (10):
  • [24] Psychometric validation of patient-reported outcome measures assessing chronic constipation
    Nelson, Lauren M.
    Williams, Valerie S. L.
    Fehnel, Sheri E.
    Carson, Robyn T.
    MacDougall, James
    Baird, Mollie J.
    Tourkodimitris, Stavros
    Kurtz, Caroline B.
    Johnston, Jeffrey M.
    CLINICAL AND EXPERIMENTAL GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2014, 7 : 385 - 393
  • [25] EVALUATION OF PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES IN PATIENTS WITH CYSTIC FIBROSIS
    Ruseckaite, R.
    Ratnayake, I
    Ahern, S.
    PEDIATRIC PULMONOLOGY, 2020, 55 : S100 - S100
  • [26] EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE METHODS OF TRANSLATING PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES
    McKenna, S. P.
    Hagell, P.
    Hedin, P. J.
    Nyberg, L.
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2009, 12 (07) : A236 - A236
  • [27] Assessing Gender Dysphoria: A Systematic Review of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures
    Bowman, Sarah Joy
    Casey, Liam John
    McAloon, John
    Wootton, Bethany M.
    PSYCHOLOGY OF SEXUAL ORIENTATION AND GENDER DIVERSITY, 2022, 9 (04) : 398 - 409
  • [28] Exploring Patient's Preference of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Laryngeal Movement Disorders
    Gochman, Grant E.
    Dwyer, Christopher D.
    Young, VyVy N.
    Rosen, Clark A.
    LARYNGOSCOPE, 2023, 133 (06): : 1448 - 1454
  • [29] CLINICAL AND PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOME MEASURES AS PREDICTORS OF POOR FUNCTIONAL OUTCOME IN PSORIATIC ARTHRITIS
    Haroon, M.
    Petty-Saphon, N.
    Gallagher, P.
    FitzGerald, O.
    ANNALS OF THE RHEUMATIC DISEASES, 2013, 72 : 682 - 682
  • [30] Assessing Pain Using Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Pragmatic Considerations in Clinical and Research Settings
    Ramasamy, Akilesh
    JOURNAL OF ORAL AND MAXILLOFACIAL SURGERY, 2024, 82 (02) : 139 - 141