Dataset Information

The minimal important difference in the 6-minute walk test for patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension.

ABSTRACT:

Rationale

Although commonly used as the primary outcome measure of clinical trials in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH), the minimal important difference (MID) of the 6-minute walk test (6MWT) has not been well defined for this population of patients.

Objectives

To estimate the MID in the 6MWT in patients with PAH.

Methods

Study subjects from the clinical trial of tadalafil in PAH, a 16-week, parallel-group, randomized clinical trial of patients who were treatment naive or on background therapy with an endothelin receptor antagonist, were eligible. 6MWT was performed using a standardized protocol. Distributional and anchor-based methods were used to estimate the MID; the latter method used the Physical Component Summary Score (PCS) of the Medical Outcomes Study 36-item short form (SF-36).

Measurements and main results

Four hundred five subjects were analyzed. Domains of the SF-36 were weakly to modestly associated with 6MWT. Change in the PCS of the SF-36 was most strongly associated with change in 6MWT (r = 0.40, P < 0.001) and thus was selected as the anchor for subsequent anchor-based analyses. Distributional analyses yielded estimates of the MID ranging from 25.1 to 38.5 m, whereas anchor-based analyses yielded an estimate of 38.6 m.

Conclusions

Using both distributional and anchor-based methods, the estimated consensus MID in the 6MWT for PAH is approximately 33 m. These results have important implications for (1) assessing treatment responses from clinical trials and metaanalyses of specific PAH therapy, and (2) sample size calculations for future study design.

SUBMITTER: Mathai SC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3443803 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and objectivesField exercise tests (eg, 6-minute walk test [6MWT]) are important measures of functional exercise capacity in people with COPD. Shorter tests such as the 2-minute walk test (2MWT) may offer advantages in some populations but lack information about responsiveness to change. This study examined responsiveness, minimal important difference (MID), test-retest reliability, and construct validity of the 2MWT in people with stable COPD attending outpatient pulmonary rehabilitation (PR).MethodsAt pre-PR assessment, study participants completed a 2MWT twice in addition to usual measures (6MWT and Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire). At post-PR assessment following a standard PR program, measures were repeated and global rating of change scores obtained (patient and therapist). Pre-post program change scores were examined for correlations with change in 2-minute walk distance (2MWD) and used (where r≥0.3) to estimate the MID through anchor-based methods. Distribution-based estimates based on standard error of measurement were examined. Test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] and Bland-Altman agreement) and validity (Pearson correlation with 6-minute walk distance [6MWD]) were reported.ResultsFifty-nine people (28 men) with stable COPD, mean age 68 years (SD 10 years), and percentage predicted forced expiratory volume in 1 second 48% (SD 20%) attended pre-PR assessment. Test-retest ICC for same-session 2MWD was 0.985. A mean difference of 2.4 m (95% confidence interval [CI] 0.7-4.0 m, P=0.006) occurred between the first and second trials. 2MWD and 6MWD were highly correlated (r=0.87, P<0.001). Forty-one participants completed PR and were included in responsiveness and MID analysis. Mean 2MWD improved significantly post-PR (8.8 m, 95% CI 3.6-14 m, P=0.001). The MID in 2MWD, anchored against clinically meaningful change in 6MWD, was 5.5 m (area under curve =0.81, P=0.001). Distribution-based methods estimated an MID of 4 m.ConclusionChange in 2MWD of at least 5.5 m following a PR program corresponded to a clinically meaningful change. A practice test is recommended due to learning effects.

Project description:Several patient-reported outcome measures have been developed to assess health status in pulmonary arterial hypertension. The required change in instrument scores needed, to be seen as meaningful to the individual, however remain unknown. We sought to identify minimal clinically important differences in the Cambridge Pulmonary Hypertension Outcome Review (CAMPHOR) and to validate these against objective markers of functional capacity. Minimal clinically important differences were established from a discovery cohort (n = 129) of consecutive incident cases of idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension with CAMPHOR scores recorded at treatment-naïve baseline and 4-12 months following pulmonary arterial hypertension therapy. An independent validation cohort (n = 87) was used to verify minimal clinically important differences. Concurrent measures of functional capacity relative to CAMPHOR scores were collected. Minimal clinically important differences were derived using anchor- and distributional-based approaches. In the discovery cohort, mean (SD) was 54.4 (16.4) years and 64% were female. Most patients (63%) were treated with sequential pulmonary arterial hypertension therapy. Baseline CAMPHOR scores were: Symptoms, 12 (7); Activity, 12 (7) and quality of life, 10 (7). Pulmonary arterial hypertension treatment resulted in significant improvements in CAMPHOR scores (p < 0.05). CAMPHOR minimal clinically important differences averaged across methods for health status improvement were: Symptoms, -4 points; Activity, -4 points and quality of life -3 points. CAMPHOR Activity score change ≥minimal clinically important difference was associated with significantly greater improvement in six-minute walk distance, in both discovery and validation populations. In conclusion, CAMPHOR scores are responsive to pulmonary arterial hypertension treatment. Minimal clinically important differences in pulmonary hypertension-specific scales may provide useful insights into treatment response in future clinical trials.

Project description:BackgroundPulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is a chronic disease of the pulmonary vasculature that can lead to heart failure and premature death. Assessment of patients with PAH includes performing a 6-minute walk test (6MWT) in clinics. We developed a smartphone app to compute the walked distance (6MWD) indoors, by counting U-turns, and outdoors, by using satellite positioning.ObjectiveThe goal of the research was to assess (1) accuracy of the indoor 6MWTs in clinical settings, (2) validity and test-retest reliability of outdoor 6MWTs in the community, (3) compliance, usability, and acceptance of the app, and (4) feasibility of pulse oximetry during 6MWTs.MethodsWe tested the app on 30 PAH patients over 6 months. Patients were asked to perform 3 conventional 6MWTs in clinic while using the app in the indoor mode and one or more app-based 6MWTs in outdoor mode in the community per month.ResultsBland-Altman analysis of 70 pairs of conventional versus app-based indoor 6MWDs suggests that the app is sometimes inaccurate (14.6 m mean difference, lower and upper limit of agreement: -133.35 m to 162.55 m). The comparison of 69 pairs of conventional 6MWDs and community-based outdoor 6MWDs within 7 days shows that community tests are strongly related to those performed in clinic (correlation 0.89), but the interpretation of the distance should consider that differences above the clinically significant threshold are not uncommon. Analysis of 89 pairs of outdoor tests performed by the same patient within 7 days shows that community-based tests are repeatable (intraclass correlation 0.91, standard error of measurement 36.97 m, mean coefficient of variation 12.45%). Questionnaires and semistructured interviews indicate that the app is usable and well accepted, but motivation to use it could be affected if the data are not used for clinical decision, which may explain low compliance in 52% of our cohort. Analysis of pulse oximetry data indicates that conventional pulse oximeters are unreliable if used during a walk.ConclusionsApp-based outdoor 6MWTs in community settings are valid, repeatable, and well accepted by patients. More studies would be needed to assess the benefits of using the app in clinical practice.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov NCT04633538; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04633538.