Measuring Patient-Reported Outcomes in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients
- 188 Downloads
Improvements in organ preservation methods, immunosuppressive regimens and general post-transplant care have resulted in an increased life expectancy and a continually decreasing morbidity after solid organ transplantation. As attention gradually moves towards improving subjective patient outcomes, the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROs) thus becomes increasingly important in post-transplant patient management.
This paper provides a brief systematic overview of the transplant-specific PRO measures, and their psychometric properties, developed and used in solid organ transplant recipients to date.
PRO measures may focus on or encompass different aspects of life relevant to organ transplant patients: overall quality of life (QOL), physical, psychological and social functioning, and adherence. Overall QOL can be measured using transplant-specific or generic QOL instruments, or a combination of both.
In general, very little information is available on the psychometric properties of PRO measures, and there is no gold standard for PRO measurement. Transplant-specific and generic PRO instruments are complementary. Generic instruments will continue to be important for economic evaluations, but transplant-specific instruments may be more useful for patient management purposes, as they are generally more sensitive to small but clinically relevant changes in outcomes in transplant populations.
The authors received no funding for the preparation of this article and have no conflicts of interest to declare that are relevant to this article.
- 6.Eurotransplant International Foundation. Eurotransplant International Foundation annual report 2005. Leiden, The Netherlands: Eurotransplant International Foundation, 2005 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.eurotransplant.nl/files/annual_report/AR2005_def.pdf [Accessed 2007 Mar 7]Google Scholar
- 13.Institute of Medicine, Committee on Health and Behavior: Research, Practice and Policy, Board on Neuroscience and Behavioral Health. Health and behavior: the interplay of biological, behavioral and societal influences. Washington, DC, National Academy Press, 2001 [online]. Available from URL: http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9838&page=r1 [Accessed 2007 Mar 7]Google Scholar
- 15.World Health Organization. Innovative care for chronic conditions: building blocks for action. Geneva: World Health Organization, 2002Google Scholar
- 22.Acquadro C, Berzon R, Dubois D, et al. Incorporating the patient’s perspective into drug development and communication: an ad hoc task force report of the Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Harmonization Group meeting at the Food and Drug Administration, February 16, 2001. Value Health 2003; 6 (5): 522–531PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Szende A, Leidy NK, Revicki D. Health-related quality of life and other patient-reported outcomes in the European centralized drug regulatory process: a review of guidance documents and performed authorizations of medicinal products 1995 to 2003. Value Health 2005; 8 (5): 534–548PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 24.Cupples S, Dew MA, Grady KL, et al. Report of the Psychosocial Outcomes Workgroup of the Nursing and Social Sciences Council of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation: present status of research on psychosocial outcomes in cardiothoracic transplantation. Review and recommendations for the field. J Heart Lung Transplant 2006; 25 (6): 716–725PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Hathaway D, Winsett R, Prendergast M, et al. The first report from the patient outcomes registry for transplant effects on life (PORTEL): differences in side-effects and quality of life by organ type, time since transplant and immunosuppressive regimens. Clin Transplant 2003; 17 (3): 183–194PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 30.Napolitano MA. Development of a pulmonary-specific quality of life scale (PQLS). Ann Behav Med 1999; 21: S168Google Scholar
- 51.De Vito DA, Hoffman LA, Dauber JH, et al. Evaluating the reliability and validity of the Questionnaire for Lung Transplant Patients. Prog Transplant 2002; 12 (3): 191–198Google Scholar
- 52.De Vito DA, Kim Y, Vensak J, et al. Validation and refinement of the Questionnaire for Lung Transplant Patients. Prog Transplant 2004; 14 (4): 338–345Google Scholar
- 56.Leventhal H, Johnson JE. Laboratory and field experimentation: development of a theory of self-regulation. In: Wooldridge PJ, Schmitt MH, Skipper JK, editors. Behavioral science and nursing theory. St. Louis (MO): CV Mosby, 1983: 189–262Google Scholar
- 61.Ziegelmann JP, Griva K, Hankins M, et al. The Transplant Effects Questionnaire (TxEQ): the development of a questionnaire for assessing the multidimensional outcome of organ transplantation. Example of end stage renal disease (ESRD). Br J Health Psychol 2002; 7 (Pt 4): 393–408PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 73.Schafer-keller P, Steiger J, Denhaerynck K, et al. Using electronic monitoring as reference standard: how well do state of measurement methods measure medication adherence in kidney transplant recipients? American Transplant Congress. Am J Transplant 2005; 5: s331Google Scholar
- 77.US Food and Drug Administration, Department of Health and Human Services. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures. Use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/5460dft.pdf [Accessed 2007 Mar 7]
- 80.Payne JL, Feurer ID, Pinson CW. Quality of life as part of outcomes analysis in solid organ transplantation. Inside Case Management 2001; 8 (5): 9–11Google Scholar