Dataset Information

Evaluation of PROMIS Preference Scoring System (PROPr) in Patients Undergoing Hemodialysis or Kidney Transplant.

ABSTRACT:

Background and objectives

A preference-based health utility score (PROPr) can be calculated using Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System domain scores. We assessed the construct validity of PROPr among patients treated with KRT (hemodialysis or kidney transplant).

Design, setting, participants, & measurements

We performed a secondary analysis of data collected in multicenter, cross-sectional studies of adults treated with KRT, recruited between April 2016 to March 2020 in Toronto, Canada. All participants provided informed consent. The outcome was the PROPr score. Coadministered outcome variables included the Short-Form Six-Domain (SF-6D) and EuroQol Five-Domain Five-Level (EQ-5D-5L) scores. Socioeconomic and clinical variables included age, sex, diabetes, eGFR, serum albumin, hemoglobin, KRT, and Charlson Comorbidity Index. Construct validity was assessed through correlations between PROPr and SF-6D or EQ-5D-5L, and associations between PROPr and other exposure variables. Health-condition impact estimates (coefficients for health conditions compared with a referent category, e.g., dialysis versus kidney transplant) were calculated using multivariable linear regression.

Results

The mean (SD) age of the 524 participants was 57 (17) years, 58% were male, and 45% were White. Median (interquartile range) score was 0.39 (0.24-0.58) for PROPr, 0.69 (0.58-0.86) for SF-6D, and 0.85 (0.70-0.91) for EQ-5D-5L. Large correlations were observed between PROPr versus SF-6D (0.79; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.76 to 0.82) and EQ-5D-5L (0.71; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.75). Both PROPr and the other utility indices demonstrated health-condition impact in the expected direction. For example, the estimate for PROPr was -0.17 (95% CI, -0.13 to -0.21) for dialysis (versus kidney transplant), -0.05 (95% CI, -0.11 to 0.01; P=0.08) for kidney transplant recipients with an eGFR of <45 versus ≥45 ml/min per 1.73 m², and -0.28 (95% CI, -0.22 to -0.33) for moderate/severe versus no/mild depressive symptoms.

Conclusions

Our results support the validity of PROPr among patients treated with KRT.

SUBMITTER: Zhang J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8729576 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Evaluation of PROMIS Preference Scoring System (PROPr) in Patients Undergoing Hemodialysis or Kidney Transplant.

Zhang Jing J Dewitt Barry B Tang Evan E Breitner Daniel D Saqib Mohammed M Li Dan D Siddiqui Rabail R Edwards Nathaniel N Peipert John Devin JD Hays Ron D RD Hays Ron D RD Hanmer Janel J Mucsi Istvan I

Clinical journal of the American Society of Nephrology : CJASN 20210716 9

<h4>Background and objectives</h4>A preference-based health utility score (PROPr) can be calculated using Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System domain scores. We assessed the construct validity of PROPr among patients treated with KRT (hemodialysis or kidney transplant).<h4>Design, setting, participants, & measurements</h4>We performed a secondary analysis of data collected in multicenter, cross-sectional studies of adults treated with KRT, recruited between April 2016 to Marc ...[more]

PMID: 34272256

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesThe PROMIS-Preference (PROPr) score is a recently developed summary score for the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS). PROPr is a preference-based scoring system for seven PROMIS domains created using multiplicative multi-attribute utility theory. It serves as a generic, societal, preference-based summary scoring system of health-related quality of life. This manuscript evaluates construct validity of PROPr in two large samples from the US general population.MethodsWe utilized 2 online panel surveys, the PROPr Estimation Survey and the Profiles-Health Utilities Index (HUI) Survey. Both included the PROPr measure, patient demographic information, self-reported chronic conditions, and other preference-based summary scores: the EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D-5L) and HUI in the PROPr Estimation Survey and the HUI in the Profiles-HUI Survey. The HUI was scored as both the Mark 2 and the Mark 3. Known-groups validity was evaluated using age- and gender-stratified mean scores and health condition impact estimates. Condition impact estimates were created using ordinary least squares regression in which a summary score was regressed on age, gender, and a single health condition. The coefficient for the health condition is the estimated effect on the preference score of having a condition vs. not having it. Convergent validity was evaluated using Pearson correlations between PROPr and other summary scores.ResultsThe sample consisted of 983 respondents from the PROPr Estimation Survey and 3,000 from the Profiles-HUI survey. Age- and gender-stratified mean PROPr scores were lower than EQ-5D and HUI scores, with fewer subjects having scores corresponding to perfect health on the PROPr. In the PROPr Estimation survey, all 11 condition impact estimates were statistically significant using PROPr, 8 were statistically significant by the EQ-5D, 7 were statistically significant by HUI Mark 2, and 9 were statistically significant by HUI Mark 3. In the Profiles-HUI survey, all 21 condition impact estimates were statistically significant using summary scores from all three scoring systems. In these samples, the correlations between PROPr and the other summary measures ranged from 0.67 to 0.70.ConclusionsThese results provide evidence of construct validity for PROPr using samples from the US general population.

Project description:BackgroundThe PROMIS Preference score (PROPr) is a new generic preference-based health-related quality of life (HRQoL) score that can be used as a health state utility (HSU) score for quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) in cost-utility analyses (CUAs). It is the first HSU score based on item response theory (IRT) and has demonstrated favorable psychometric properties in first analyses. The PROPr combines the seven PROMIS domains: cognition, depression, fatigue, pain, physical function, sleep disturbance, and ability to participate in social roles and activities. It was developed based on preferences of the US general population. The aim of this study was to validate the PROPr in a German inpatient sample and to compare it to the EQ-5D.MethodsWe collected PROPr and EQ-5D-5L data from 141 patients undergoing inpatient treatment in the rheumatology and psychosomatic departments. We evaluated the criterion and convergent validity, and ceiling and floor effects of the PROPr and compared those characteristics to those of the EQ-5D.ResultsThe mean PROPr (0.26, 95% CI: 0.23; 0.29) and the mean EQ-5D (0.44, 95% CI: 0.38; 0.51) scores differed significantly (d = 0.18, p < 0.001). Compared to the EQ-5D, the PROPr scores were less scattered across the measurement range which has resulted in smaller confidence intervals of the mean scores. The Pearson correlation coefficient between the two scores was r = 0.72 (p < 0.001). Both scores showed fair agreement with an Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) of 0.48 (p < 0.05). The PROPr and EQ-5D demonstrated similar discrimination power across sex, age, and conditions. While the PROPr showed a floor effect, the EQ-5D showed a ceiling effect.ConclusionThe PROPr measures HSU considerably lower than the EQ-5D as a result of different construction, anchors and measurement ranges. Because QALYs derived with the EQ-5D are widely considered state-of-the-art, application of the PROPr for QALY measurements would be problematic.

Project description:To compare the mortality of elderly adults with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) treated with home hemodialysis (HD) with that of those receiving a kidney transplant (KTx).Prospective cohort.Pertinent data for the two groups were obtained from electronic medical records from a large dialysis provider and the U.S. Renal Data System.Using data from elderly adults (aged ?65) who started home HD and underwent KTx in the US between 2007 and 2011, a 1:1 propensity score (PS)-matched cohort of 960 elderly adults was created, and the association between treatment modality and all-cause mortality was examined using Cox proportional hazards and competing risk regression survival models using modality failure as a competing event.Modality of renal replacement therapy.The baseline mean age ± standard deviation of the PS-matched individuals undergoing home HD was 71 ± 6, and that of KTx recipients was 71 ± 5, 69% of both groups were male, 81% of those undergoing home HD and 79% of KTx recipients were white, and 11% and 12%, respectively, were African American. Median follow-up time was 205 days (interquartile range (IQR) 78-364 days) for those undergoing home HD and 795 days (IQR 366-1,221 days) for KTx recipients. There were 97 deaths (20%, 253/1,000 patient-years, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 207-309/1,000 patient-years) in the home HD group and 48 deaths (10%, 45/1,000 patient-years, 95% CI = 34-60/1,000 patient-years) in the KTx group. Elderly adults undergoing home HD had a risk of mortality that was almost five times as high as that of KTx recipients (hazard ratio = 4.74, 95% CI = 3.25-6.91). Similar results were seen in competing risk regression analyses (subhazard ratio = 4.71, 95% CI = 3.27-6.79). Results were consistent across different types of kidney donors and subgroups divided according to various recipient characteristics.Elderly adults with ESRD who receive a KTx have greater survival than those who undergo home HD. Further studies are needed to assess whether KTx receipt is associated with other benefits such as better quality of life and lower hospitalization rates.

Dataset Information

Evaluation of PROMIS Preference Scoring System (PROPr) in Patients Undergoing Hemodialysis or Kidney Transplant.

Background and objectives

Design, setting, participants, & measurements

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Evaluation of PROMIS Preference Scoring System (PROPr) in Patients Undergoing Hemodialysis or Kidney Transplant.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets