Journal article 329 views 220 downloads
A comparison of the measurement properties of the PROMIS Fatigue (MS) 8a against legacy fatigue questionnaires
,
Christian Henke,
Dagmar Amtmann
Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders, Volume: 66, Start page: 104048
Swansea University Author:
Rod Middleton
-
PDF | Version of Record
© 2022 The Authors. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
Download (1.49MB)
DOI (Published version): 10.1016/j.msard.2022.104048
Abstract
BackgroundAmidst the growing number of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures of fatigue being used in multiple sclerosis (MS) clinical trials and clinics, evidence-based consensus on the most appropriate and generalizable measures across different settings would be beneficial for clinical research...
| Published in: | Multiple Sclerosis and Related Disorders |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 2211-0348 |
| Published: |
Elsevier BV
2022
|
| Online Access: |
Check full text
|
| URI: | https://cronfa.swan.ac.uk/Record/cronfa61483 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| Abstract: |
BackgroundAmidst the growing number of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures of fatigue being used in multiple sclerosis (MS) clinical trials and clinics, evidence-based consensus on the most appropriate and generalizable measures across different settings would be beneficial for clinical research and patient care. The objective of this research was to compare the validity and responsiveness of scores from the PROMIS Fatigue (MS) 8a with those of the Fatigue Severity Scale (FSS) and the Modified Fatigue Impact Scale (MFIS), across US and UK MS populations.MethodsTwo observational studies were performed in MS populations as part of a PRO measure development project, including a cross-sectional study in two tertiary US MS centers (n = 340) and a 96-week longitudinal study in the UK MS Register cohort (n = 352). In post-hoc analyses, we examined relative validity, based on ability to discriminate across patient groups with different fatigue levels or functional status at baseline (i.e., ANOVA-F PROX ÷ ANOVA-F PROMIS (MS) 8a), and relative responsiveness, based on baseline-to-Week-52 score change (effect sizes) across fatigue or functional status response groups .ResultsMean ± standard deviation (SD) age was 44.6 ± 11.3/50.0 ± 9.7; and 72.9%/77.3% were female (US/UK samples). The mean PROMIS Fatigue (MS) 8a T-score ± SD at baseline was 57.7 ± 10.5/58.9 ± 9.3 (US/UK samples). Compared with the PROMIS Fatigue (MS) 8a, relative validity (anchor: Global Health Score [GHS] fatigue global question) was 85% for MFIS symptom score, 48% for MFIS total score, and 44% for the FSS. Relative to the FSS, PROMIS Fatigue (MS) 8a scores were more sensitive to worsening (effect size = -0.43 versus -0.18) as well as improvement (effect size = 0.5 versus 0.2) in fatigue (≥1-point increase/decrease in GHS fatigue global question) over 52 weeks of follow-up. A similar pattern of score changes was observed based on a second anchor.ConclusionThe PROMIS Fatigue (MS) 8a scores showed higher responsiveness to fatigue changes than those of the FSS. The PROMIS measure also had higher precision in differentiating levels of fatigue compared to the FSS, the MFIS physical, and MFIS total scores. These differences have practical implications for the application of these questionnaires in both clinical practice and research settings (e.g., sample size estimation in clinical trials). |
|---|---|
| Keywords: |
Fatigue; Multiple sclerosis; Outcome measurement; Quality of life; PROMIS |
| College: |
Faculty of Medicine, Health and Life Sciences |
| Funders: |
This study was sponsored by Merck Healthcare KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany (CrossRef Funder ID: 10.13039/100009945). |
| Start Page: |
104048 |