Evaluation of promis preference scoring system (Propr) in patients undergoing hemodialysis or kidney transplant

Jing Zhang; Barry Dewitt; Evan Tang; Daniel Breitner; Mohammed Saqib; Dan Li; Rabail Siddiqui; Nathaniel Edwards; John Devin Peipert; Ron D. Hays; Janel Hanmer; Istvan Mucsi

doi:10.2215/CJN.01880221

Evaluation of promis preference scoring system (Propr) in patients undergoing hemodialysis or kidney transplant

Jing Zhang, Barry Dewitt, Evan Tang, Daniel Breitner, Mohammed Saqib, Dan Li, Rabail Siddiqui, Nathaniel Edwards, John Devin Peipert, Ron D. Hays, Janel Hanmer, Istvan Mucsi^*

^*Corresponding author for this work

Medical Social Sciences

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

23 Scopus citations

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.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	1328-1336
Number of pages	9
Journal	Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
Volume	16
Issue number	9
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.01880221
State	Published - Sep 2021

Funding

I. Mucsi reports receiving research funding from, and serving as a scientific advisor or member of, Paladin Labs Inc. J.D. Peipert reports receiving research funding from Pfizer and Veloxis Pharmaceuticals. All remaining authors have nothing to disclose. The study was supported, in part, by Kidney Foundation of Canada grant KFOC190008 and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research grant PJT 165915.

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Epidemiology
Critical Care and Intensive Care Medicine
Nephrology
Transplantation

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.2215/CJN.01880221

Cite this

Zhang, J., Dewitt, B., Tang, E., Breitner, D., Saqib, M., Li, D., Siddiqui, R., Edwards, N., Peipert, J. D., Hays, R. D., Hanmer, J., & Mucsi, I. (2021). Evaluation of promis preference scoring system (Propr) in patients undergoing hemodialysis or kidney transplant. Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, 16(9), 1328-1336. https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.01880221

@article{c385f3b1bbbd4d548ff8046f98781c54,

title = "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.",

author = "Jing Zhang and Barry Dewitt and Evan Tang and Daniel Breitner and Mohammed Saqib and Dan Li and Rabail Siddiqui and Nathaniel Edwards and Peipert, {John Devin} and Hays, {Ron D.} and Janel Hanmer and Istvan Mucsi",

note = "Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2021 by the American Society of Nephrology.",

year = "2021",

month = sep,

doi = "10.2215/CJN.01880221",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "16",

pages = "1328--1336",

journal = "Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology",

issn = "1555-9041",

publisher = "Lippincott Williams and Wilkins",

number = "9",

}

Zhang, J, Dewitt, B, Tang, E, Breitner, D, Saqib, M, Li, D, Siddiqui, R, Edwards, N, Peipert, JD, Hays, RD, Hanmer, J & Mucsi, I 2021, 'Evaluation of promis preference scoring system (Propr) in patients undergoing hemodialysis or kidney transplant', Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, vol. 16, no. 9, pp. 1328-1336. https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.01880221

TY - JOUR

T1 - Evaluation of promis preference scoring system (Propr) in patients undergoing hemodialysis or kidney transplant

AU - Zhang, Jing

AU - Dewitt, Barry

AU - Tang, Evan

AU - Breitner, Daniel

AU - Saqib, Mohammed

AU - Li, Dan

AU - Siddiqui, Rabail

AU - Edwards, Nathaniel

AU - Peipert, John Devin

AU - Hays, Ron D.

AU - Hanmer, Janel

AU - Mucsi, Istvan

PY - 2021/9

Y1 - 2021/9

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85114676633&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85114676633&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.2215/CJN.01880221

DO - 10.2215/CJN.01880221

M3 - Article

C2 - 34272256

AN - SCOPUS:85114676633

SN - 1555-9041

VL - 16

SP - 1328

EP - 1336

JO - Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology

JF - Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology

IS - 9

ER -

Evaluation of promis preference scoring system (Propr) in patients undergoing hemodialysis or kidney transplant

Abstract

Funding

ASJC Scopus subject areas

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this