Health-related quality of life in pulmonary arterial hypertension trials: a review and conceptual map

Frances Varian, Rebecca Burney, Charlotte Pearson, Ze Ming Goh, Joseph Newman, Gregg Rawlings, Hamza Zafar, David G Kiely, AA Roger Thompson, Robin Condliffe, Mark Toshner, Ciara McCormack, Iain Armstrong, Tessa Peasgood, Jill Carlton, Alex Rothman
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.08.09.24311740

Abstract

Introduction Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH) is valued as an outcome measure by patients, clinicians and regulators. Despite the incorporation of HRQoL in trials of PAH therapies, there is limited data on their suitability, accuracy and reliability.

Method We report a systematic review following PRISMA guidelines (PROSPERO ID: CRD42024484021). Selection of PROMs included those powered to detect a minimal clinically important difference (MCID). Measurement properties were evaluated according to COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) and graded by recommendation for use. An a priori framework was then used to develop a ratified conceptual model from patient interviews and surveys to map the content of PROMs to HRQoL.

Results Screening of 896 records was performed after removal of duplicates. Of 43 trials with a HRQoL endpoint, 20 selected an instrument with a MCID. Of these, only 8 trials were adequately powered. Three different PROMs (EuroQoL-5D-5L, Short Form-36, Living with Pulmonary Hypertension Questionnaire (LPHQ)) were used. For COSMIN measurement property evaluation, 389 records were screened and 21 were included; EmPHasis-10 was also evaluated due to its inclusion in forthcoming trials. Using COSMIN criteria EmPHasis-10 and LPHQ can be recommended (Grade A) for use in clinical trials in PAH. However, SF-36 and EQ-5D-5L (Grade B) require further study. Conceptual mapping from 8045 patients showed disease-specific instruments uniquely capture self-identity and autonomy.

Conclusion To improve evaluation of HRQoL outcomes, future PAH therapy trials require appropriate PROM selection, with adequate power, and consideration of conceptual mapping.

Figure
health-related quality of life outcomes in pulmonary arterial hypertension trials

COSMIN COnsensus-based standards for the Selection of health-Measurement INstruments, EQ-5D-5L EuroQol-5D-5L; HRQoL health-related quality of life; LPHQ Living with Pulmonary Hypertension Questionnaire, MCID minimal clinically important difference; PAH pulmonary arterial hypertension; PROM patient reported outcome measure, QALY quality adjusted life year, RCT randomised controlled trial, SF-36 36-item Short Form survey. Created with BioRender.com

Plain language summary Individuals living with pulmonary hypertension want to know which treatments improve their quality of life related to their health. We use questionnaires to capture the experiences of people living with pulmonary hypertension. Examples of this used in clinical practice are EmPHasis-10. We reviewed all the clinical trials in pulmonary hypertension to see which questionnaires were used to measure health-related quality of life. Some questionnaires may be better at capturing the experience of living with pulmonary hypertension than others. We found 20 clinical trials used a questionnaire that could detect a change in health-related quality of life in pulmonary hypertension. However, only 8 trials were designed to detect a significant treatment impact. We then evaluated these questionnaires against current best practice guidelines to ensure they are fit for purpose. EmPHasis-10 and the Living with Pulmonary Hypertension Questionnaire are preferred from the four evaluated in this study. The final part of this study was to look at what quality of life means for those living with pulmonary hypertension. Data from 8045 patients across the world was used to draft a health-related quality of life framework. We then finalised this design with professionals and patients. This framework can be used in the future to help understand how the well a questionnaire captures things important to those with lived experience of pulmonary hypertension. This will help us to better understand treatments that improve quality of life for people living with pulmonary hypertension.

Background

Endpoints in randomised controlled trials (RCT) have traditionally focussed on physiological measures including functional markers such as 6-minute walk distance (6MWD).(1,2) However, approaches prioritising clinician-derived endpoints (3–5) can undervalue the patient voice. Integral to assessment of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are an instrument developed to capture and quantify the experience of living with a health condition. Improvement in HRQoL is an important treatment goal for clinicians, regulators and patients, yet it is often not examined in clinical trials.(6–10) Furthermore, significant advancements in the diagnosis and treatment of PAH mean people are living longer, with a focus not only on length of life, but also quality.

Comparison of the cost-effectiveness of interventions is usually based on Quality Adjusted Life Years (QALYs). To allow such a calculation, PROMs used to describe and assess HRQoL also need a value set. In combination these are termed a preference-weighted measure (PWM). Value sets are based on the views or preferences of the public and/or patients and vary by country to reflect sociocultural differences.(11,12). A PWM scores each health state described by the PROM as a single value or ‘utility index’ on a scale, such that 1 represents full health, and zero represents death. A score below zero indicates a health state considered worse than being dead. The index score of a health state can be combined with time spent in that state to estimate QALYs. QALYs are an important outcome for regulatory and clinical decision-making and therefore dependent upon robust PROMs.(13)

There are many challenges in validating PROMs for accurate measurement of HRQoL and for use as PWM. Condition-specific measures may offer greater sensitivity to changes in HRQoL than generic PROMs however evidence is limited.(14) The condition-specific PROMs for PAH include CAMPHOR, EmPHasis-10, Living with Pulmonary Hypertension Questionnaire (LPHQ) and PAH-SYMptoms and imPACT (PAH-SYMPACT).(15) Sensitivity to change must be interpreted with respect to being clinically meaningful. Multiple standards, including those of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), specify that PROMs should have an established minimal clinically important difference (MCID).(16–22) A generic PROM (e.g. SF-36) may be used, providing the instrument has been validated in the population of interest to include a MCID. In addition, the choice of PROM should follow guidance developed using international Delphi approaches (18) and be evidence-based.(23) PROMs used as HRQoL outcome measures in PAH clinical trials have yet to undergo psychometric evaluation using the COnsensus-based standards for the Selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) guidance.(17,23) COSMIN guidance supports the identification of PROMs that can detect meaningful change within the health condition of interest, and aids decision-making for recommendations for use. HRQoL endpoints can be further enhanced by identifying HRQoL concepts captured by the PROM.(24) Developing a conceptual framework aids visualisation of important aspects of HRQoL for people living with PAH.(25,26)

Aims and Objectives

This is the first systematic review of PROMs for adults with PAH(15,27–29) to 1) evaluate MCIDs, and 2) compare measurement properties in accordance with COSMIN guidance; including evaluation of psychometric performance and grading recommendation for use.(19–21,30). To advance HRQoL outcomes in PAH, we undertake a literature review to develop a conceptual framework to inform relevant HRQoL constructs from the patient perspective.

Methods

Systematic searches

The protocol for the systematic review of PAH RCTs was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42024484021). The additional COSMIN evaluation is not independently registered. Methodology adhered to the Cochrane Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions, and COSMIN guidance.(31) Reporting structure followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement (see online supplementary figure E1) and PRISMA-COSMIN outcome measurement instruments (online supplementary figure E4 and E9). MEDLINE (1980 to December 2023) and Cochrane Library (2002 to December 2023) were searched for RCTs evaluating the effectiveness of any intervention for PAH designed to improve a clinical outcome measure as determined by the FDA endpoints “feel, function or survive”. Inclusion and exclusion criteria are registered on PROSPERO. After removal of duplicates, one author (FV) screened the titles and abstracts of articles for relevance before reviewing the full text for eligibility. Where there was uncertainty about the relevance of an article, a second author (JN) reviewed the title and abstract/main text. A third author was available to adjudicate discrepancies. This process was repeated for the second PRISMA-COSMIN search and reporting structure followed (supplementary figure E3 and E4). PRISMA-COSMIN studies included pulmonary hypertension (PH) comprising group 1 and group 4 patients to maximise psychometric property evaluation. Forward and backward searches were performed on eligible articles for both searches, and citation searching performed on systematic reviews identified.

Data Extraction

Five authors (FV, RB, CP, ZMG, JN) extracted information independently from all RCTs using a pre-determined template. This included sample and trial characteristics, primary and secondary outcome measures and results, and details of HRQoL PROMs used. Primary and secondary endpoints were categorised into measures of how a patient ‘feels’, ‘functions’ or ‘survives’ as per FDA recommendations for clinical trial endpoints.(32) HRQoL endpoints were classified as ‘feel’ (e.g. EQ-5D-5L), ‘function’ (e.g. any form of exercise parameter and World Health Organisation Functional Class (WHO FC)) and ‘survive’ (inclusive of clinical worsening events and mortality and not restricted to survival analyses).

Risk of Bias and Strength of Evidence

Two authors (ZMG, RB) assessed the systematic review risk of bias (RoB) using the Cochrane RoB2 Toolkit, and strength of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. The COSMIN RoB checklist was completed by two other authors (FV & CP). (30,31) Any disagreements were discussed until consensus was reached. Further bias assessment (e.g. Egger’s) was not appropriate due to the large heterogeneity of study interventions and low number of PROM instruments limiting interpretation. A summary of the overall strength of PROM recommendation is made by grading into one of three categories: (A) PROM can be trusted for use with sufficient evidence of psychometric properties; (B) PROM has potential to be recommended for use but insufficient to meet A or C categories; (C) PROMs with high-quality evidence that a measurement property is insufficient and therefore should not be recommended for use.(17,33,34). A description of terms used in the COSMIN evaluation is available in supplementary table E5.

Data Analysis

It is recommended that the MCID is considered for sample size calculations for comparing HRQoL outcomes.(19–21) To determine whether trials were sufficiently powered for the chosen PROM, the MCID for each instrument was obtained (supplementary table E1). If data were unavailable specifically for PAH, a MCID was searched for respiratory conditions (1) and heart failure (2) to maximise PROM inclusion. (27,35–40) A second author (JN) confirmed absence of MCID using search criteria in PubMed and the PROMs Data Archive: [instrument_name] AND [MCID OR MID OR Minimal].

Computation of MCID mean and standard deviation in GPower v3.1 was used to estimate sample size calculations from a two-independent means model for 80% power, 5% significance, one-tailed test. Trials insufficiently powered to detect a meaningful change in HRQoL as defined by the MCID calculations were excluded from analysis. The MCID for six-minute walk distance (6MWD) was defined at a threshold of 33m, as correlated with the physical functioning item of the Short-Form 36 (SF-36).(41,42) Meta-analysis was undertaken per therapy and by PROM and was calculated in SPSSv28.1.(43)

Scoping review for conceptual framework and patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE)

A scoping literature review was conducted independently by two authors (FV & RB) to map HRQoL concepts on to PROMs in PAH.(21,22,44). An a priori framework from generic health and wellbeing instruments and HRQoL model was used to inform the PAH HRQoL conceptual framework.(25,45) Published studies using primary and secondary analytical methods and grey literature, such as surveys asked by Pulmonary Hypertension Associations, were included (supplementary table E6).(6–9,46–53) To corroborate previous synthesis from a qualitative systematic review,(54) a random selection of four publications was appraised in detail for blinded thematic content agreement prior to evaluation of the synthesised systematic review. Themes were not duplicated in final synthesis. Subthemes were extracted and seven a priori themes considered(25,45); final subthemes were weighted from most to least commonly reported. Key professional stakeholders from centres in the UK and Ireland then ratified the framework followed by PPIE obtained from representatives from Pulmonary Hypertension Association UK (PHA UK) and patient volunteers registered within Sheffield’s local PPIE PAH network. The form asked to “consider what quality of life means” before reviewing the conceptual framework for anything missing. Participation was entirely voluntary without reimbursement. PROMs from the COSMIN review were then mapped to the conceptual framework to visualise instrument scope.

Results

Systematic review of valid HRQoL endpoints and their psychometric properties

The systematic search identified 896 unique records. After screening, 178 remained for full-text review. Overall, 90 potentially eligible RCTs were identified with a clinical endpoint. 73% (n=66) included pharmacological interventions which were categorised into ‘feel’, ‘function’ or ‘survive’ and these were mapped (supplementary figure E2). This demonstrated a predominance of functional endpoints, with an increasing trend toward emphasis on survival. The scope of HRQoL or ‘feel’ was limited to secondary endpoints.

In total, 43 RCTs with a HRQoL endpoint were considered for final inclusion (supplementary table E2). All studies showed some risk of bias (supplementary table E3). The strength of all studies with a HRQoL endpoint was ‘moderate’ (supplementary table E4). There was no evidence of patient involvement in selection of PROM in any PAH RCT (supplementary table E2).(18)

Regarding condition-specific PROMs, a valid MCID for EmPHasis-10, LPHQ and CAMPHOR was found, but not for PAH-SYMPACT (55). All available MCID values and methods of derivation are included in supplementary table E1. Figure 1 shows that 20 of the 43 RCTs with a HRQoL endpoint selected an instrument with an MCID for PAH. Of these, only 8 trials met the full inclusion criteria with adequate power to detect a meaningful change in HRQoL (Table 1).(56–99) PROMs meeting final inclusion (Table 1) were SF-36, EQ-5D-5L, LPHQ and Minnesota Living with Heart Failure (MLWHF). A utility index is available for EQ-5D-5L for the PAH population, but not a specific MCID. A sample size was therefore conservatively estimated from a comparable 6MWD of 35m from an interstitial lung disease population to maximise inclusivity.(100) All trials powered for HRQoL selected 6MWD as their primary endpoint (Table 1). Bosentan (EARLY)(86)), IV epoprostenol (PACES)(88), and inhaled treprostinil (TRIUMPH-I)(85) did not meet their primary endpoint and showed no improvement in the SF-36 physical functioning domain (Table 1). Significant improvements in 6MWD for ambrisentan (ARIES2)(101) and exercise (EU-TRAIN-01)(102) were reported, however only the MCID was met for the role-physical domain of SF-36 in EU-TRAIN-01(102).

Figure 1:
Figure 1:

HRQoL Instruments in PAH RCTs from systematic review categorised by ability to distinguish meaningful change in the PAH population. 20 of 43 trials selected an instrument with a MCID for HRQoL. 56 total instruments are included as 13 trials included more than one instrument, see supplementary table E2 for full details. No trials reported results in the context of MCID. Where available, statistical significance was reported as p<0.05. BDI Beck’s depression inventory, CAMPHOR Cambridge Pulmonary Hypertension Outcome Review, E10 EmPHasis-10, EuroQol(EQ)-5D-5L, DFI dyspnoea fatigue index, FSS fatigue severity score, HADS hospital anxiety and depression questionnaire, HAP human activity profile, IPAQ International Physical Activity Questionnaire, KCCQ Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire, LPHQ Living with Pulmonary Hypertension Questionnaire, MCID minimal clinically important difference. MLWHF Minnesota Living with Heart Failure, NHP Nottingham Health Profile, PAH-SYMPACT pulmonary arterial hypertension symptoms and impact questionnaire, PGA patient global assessment, SF-36 Short-Form-36, SGA subject global assessment.

View this table:
Table 1. Characteristics of studies powered for HRQoL 6MWD six-minute walk distance, CPET cardiopulmonary exercise test, CWE clinical worsening events, EQ (EuroQoL)-5D-5L, EQ-VAS EuroQoL visual analogue scale, HRQoL health-related quality of life, NTProBNP N-terminal Pro-Brain Natriuretic Peptide, NYHA New York Heart Failure Association functional score, PROM patient-reported outcome measure, PVR pulmonary vascular resistance, WHO FC World Health Organisation Functional Class †All secondary endpoints

PATENT-1(103) and PATENT-2(104) (riociguat vs placebo) were the only RCTs available for combined meta-analysis (Figure 2). Two PROMs (EQ-5D-5L and LPHQ) were completed by the same patients. EQ-5D-5L overall appeared less sensitive to changes in HRQoL (Cohen’s d ES=0.24, SE=0.08, p<0.001) compared to LPHQ (ES=-0.48, SE=0.11, p<0.001) (Figure 2).

Figure 2:
Figure 2:

Meta-analysis of HRQoL outcomes for riociguat PROM instruments LPHQ (A) and EuroQoL (EQ)-5D-5L (B). 1.5mg dose in Patent-1 for LPHQ was excluded as subgroup insufficiently powered. HRQoL health-related quality of life, LPHQ Living with Pulmonary Hypertension. Utility index score was not reported with EQ-5D-5L analysis. PROMs delivered at start and week 12 for PATENT-1, and every 2 weeks up to week 8 for PATENT-2 follow-on study. 12-month follow-up data for EQ-5D-5L from PATENT-2 not included. No imputation reported of missing data. 2.5mg riociguat 2013,(107) n= 254 (WHO FC III, n = 140 (55%) Vs WHO FC II, n = 108 (43%)** p>0.05; riociguat 1.5mg 2013, n =63 (WHO FC III, n= 39 (62%) Vs WHO FC II, n = 19 (30%)***p<0.0001); 2.5mg riociguat 2015,(104) n= 231 (WHO FC III, n= 127 (55%) Vs WHO FC II, n=97 (42%)** p>0.05; 1.5mg riociguat 2015, n = 56 (WHO FC III n= 35(63%) Vs WHO FC II, n =17 (30%)** p<0.005 all Fisher’s exact test.

Although an exploratory endpoint, it is unclear which country-specific value sets was used for EQ-5D-5L as recommended by reporting practices.(12,105–108) All trials reported statistical significance (p<0.05) between arms rather than MCID, requiring additional interpretation as a valued endpoint. The open-label extension study supported a sustained improvement in HRQoL with riociguat compared to placebo as measured by LPHQ.(104) However this was not true for all dose regimes. There was no significant change in HRQoL for the group receiving 2.5mg dose of riociguat as measured by EQ-5D-5L (Figure 2)(109). EQ-5D-5L was sensitive to change in the 1.5mg subgroup, which had a statistically higher proportion of patients in WHO FC III compared to II (Fisher’s exact p<0.05) and this was also clinically meaningful (MCID is +0.017) at 12 months (0.13±0.24) compared to the 2.5mg group (+0.06±0.24)).(104)

For COSMIN evaluation, 369 eligible articles were screened for psychometric properties with additional citation searching (n=20) from 3 systematic reviews. EmPHasis-10 was considered relevant for inclusion as recruitment for two RCTs is underway and has an estimated MCID.(110,111) 21 studies demonstrated measurement properties (supplementary figure E4).(15,35,42,112–129) MLWHF for Pulmonary Hypertension (MLWHF-PH)(113) was later renamed LPHQ and therefore these instruments are pooled for evaluation.(15,35,112,113) SF-36 is available as either a PWM or PROM. The MCID for SF-36 is not specifically reported for mental health, pain, general health and role-emotional domains but is available for physical functioning, role-physical, energy-fatigue and social functioning.(115) EQ-5D-5L is also PWM used in PAH,(130) and the instrument compared in derivation of LPHQ.(35) However we found no studies validating psychometric properties of EQ-5D-5L in adults with PH, limiting further review. All RCTs identified from the initial systematic review were included within the COSMIN review as a measure of PROM ‘responsiveness’.(17,30,33,34)

PROM suitability for the PAH population in accordance with COSMIN guidance

PROM design includes how comprehensively the instrument covers HRQoL for the population of interest, also known as content validity. A description of terms structuring COSMIN analysis is available in supplementary table E5. The characteristics and measurement properties of the PROMs selected are outlined in Table 2 with full details in supplementary tables E7 and E8. For adequate content validity, all instruments require post-hoc cognitive interviewing with patients and experts. LPHQ was the only instrument to perform post-hoc saturation analysis to confirm the relevance of the final instrument from the patient’s perspective. No cognitive interviewing for content validation in the PAH population has been performed for SF-36 or EQ-5D-5L.

View this table:
Table 2: Summary of PROM characteristics, measurement properties and evidence quality sufficient (+), insufficient (–), or indeterminate (?), (NA) not available.

Summary of evidence quality based on a modified GRADE approach. Properties with moderate to high evidence quality are shaded grey. Recommendations are made by three categories (A) PROM can be trusted for use with evidence for sufficient content validity and internal consistency, (B) potential to be recommended for use but not categorized as A or C or (C) PROMs with high quality evidence that a measurement property is insufficient and therefore should not be recommended for use. ***non-commercial use, *8 items: P physical, RP role physical, EF energy fatigue, SF social functioning, MH mental health, RE role emotional, GH general health, V vitality. Factor coefficients for mental and physical summary scores are held under copyright, reporting a total overall score is not recommended.(114,161) ҂ inconsistencies with item functioning. Full summary of findings available in online supplement tables E7 and E8. GRADE Grading of Recommendations Assessment Development Evaluation, EuroQol-5D-5L (EQ-5D-5L), LPHQ Living with Pulmonary Hypertension Questionnaire, MLWHF Minnesota Living with Heart Failure, SF Short Form-36

Statistical analysis must be performed in an appropriate sample size to evaluate the internal structure of the PROM. Appropriate statistical analysis for the ‘model fit’ must also be reported.(131) Internal structure comprises structural validity, determined by appropriate statistical analysis, internal consistency, defined by response agreement between items (e.g. Cronbach’s alpha ≥0.7), and measurement invariance, which determines how well the PROM performs across different groups (i.e. potential response variations e.g. age, gender, BMI).

Statistical analysis validating the psychometric structure of SF-36 in PH was not reported and was incomplete for LPHQ and EmPHasis-10. Internal consistency is well evidenced for LPHQ, EmPHasis-10 and SF-36. This is not relevant for EQ-5D-5L as items are not inter-related, with only 1 item per domain (Table 2).(132) No studies adequately considered measurement invariance. One study suggested EmPHasis-10 may vary by demographic and clinical characteristics,(119) but there is an absence of further testing. While multiple translations are available for EQ-5D-5L and SF-36, there is insufficient psychometric validation (cross-cultural validity)(133) to support use of these languages in the PAH population (Table 2, online supplementary table E8). EmPHasis-10 demonstrates strong linguistic validation.(121,123,127,134) Developed in the UK and Ireland, EmPHasis-10 is the only PROM validated cross-culturally in US, China, Japan, Italy and Turkey.(118,119,121,123,126,127) LPHQ is available in English only, though was derived in the US, France and Germany.

PROM structure considers how the questionnaire should be scored and interpreted. Each score should be structurally validated using psychometric statistical analyses to check accuracy. LPHQ has a multifactor structure with physical, emotional and total scores(35), as is SF-36 with eight domains and physical and mental component scores, whereas EmPHasis-10 was derived as a unidimensional structure (i.e. a single, total score)(118). Reporting of the structural validity of these PROMs does not meet current requirements (supplementary table E8).(23) However, a recent analysis of EmPHasis-10 structured into three scoring components (breathlessness (three items), fatigue (three items) and independence (four items)) does meet COSMIN requirements.(125) Further evaluation is required to consider the clinical relevance of interpreting EmPHasis-10 in this way.

Test-retest reliability is essential for defining the natural score variation of the PROM during a period of stability. If the mean variation exceeds the MCID, then the PROM becomes invalid. Test-retest reliability is indeterminate for LPHQ and SF-36, with limited evaluation of the smallest detectable change or limits of agreement (supplementary table E8). Only two SF-36 domains (physical functioning and general health) meet adequate test-retest reliability in PH, with wide confidence intervals and standard errors of measurement in others raising concerns.(114,115) Hypothesis testing comprises the final COSMIN analyses to evaluate 1) how well the PROM correlates with other instruments (convergent validity), 2) discriminates subgroups e.g. WHO FC (construct validity) and 3) responds to intervention (responsiveness). It is the most widely tested psychometric property (supplementary table E8). All instruments show correlation with others. Criterion validity additionally assesses sensitivity and specificity of the instrument; however, it is challenging to achieve without a ‘gold standard’ measure. Performance of instruments across PAH subgroups requires improvement for SF-36 and EQ-5D-5L. The SF-36 physical component score correlates with 6MWD (r=0.62, p<0.001);(42) however, other SF-36 domains and component scores show no or inconsistent relationship with WHO FC and 6MWD.(42,112,115,129) LPHQ appears to correlate well with WHO FC (r=0.61)(128) but response to changes in WHO FC requires further evaluation.(35,112,128) EmPHasis-10 has been shown to accurately discriminate WHO FC, and has good correlation with 6MWD, however treatment responsiveness lags behind, with much-anticipated RCTs underway.(118,119,122,124) Snapshot haemodynamics have yet to show strong correlation with any PROM.(42,112,113,117–119,123).

Summary COSMIN instrument recommendations are grade A for LPHQ and EmPHasis-10 and grade B for SF-36 and EQ-5D-5L. No PROMs received a grade C recommendation. However the overall quality of evidence for LPHQ and Emphasis-10 is low, and for SF-36, very low (Table 2).

Mapping the HRQoL conceptual framework

Improving HRQoL matters to people living with pulmonary hypertension. Surveys report this as the most important treatment focus (52-83%) over other outcomes such as life expectancy (33-75%, n=1196, UK, Canada).(10,46) HRQoL concepts of interest may vary between clinical and trial applications,(21,30,44,135) however, recognising their relationship to PROMs is key for appropriate instrument selection. A conceptual framework developed from the Wilson and Cleary and subsequent models(25,26,45) was inductively modified to reflect concepts of HRQoL. These subthemes (e.g. ‘stigma’) were identified from combined questionnaires and surveys of 8045 patients from around the world.(14,119,136) Demographics (where available) were reflective of the disease prevalence with a female predominance (79%, n=4700). Average age of patients was 55 years (range 24-80 years) and 88% self-reported to be Caucasian (supplementary table E6).

Figure 3A summarises the conceptual framework, with six themes and 25 subthemes identified. The framework was ratified by 6 PH consultants, 2 PH clinical fellows, 1 clinical nurse specialist, 1 physiotherapist, 1 clinical psychologist and PPIE obtained from two PHA UK representatives and five patients with relevant demographic representation. One patient commented specifically that they “never really thought about quality of life before their diagnosis” and they “think mental health is a big thing and this is affected differently and sometimes unexpectedly each day”. No additional themes or subthemes were identified.

Figure 3:
Figure 3:

(A) Conceptual framework for PAH HRQoL and (B) scope of PROMs used in PAH RCTs mapped onto the conceptual framework by professionals. [A] Framework of patient-reported themes (n=6) and subthemes (n=25) identified by two independent reviewers on impact of pulmonary hypertension (majority group 1 PAH) on HRQoL [A]. Directly reported concepts are in bold (n= 8045 from supplementary table E6). Concepts may indirectly cross subthemes (cross loading), for example, treatment burden may impact on the EQ-5D-5L item ‘pain/discomfort’ as a reflection of treatment side effects however this is not included in analysis. Emphasis-10 (oval) is included as two RCTs are currently recruiting.(110) LPHQ is combined with MLWHF as instruments are identical. [B] Professional conceptual mapping of PROMs to HRQoL framework (6 PH consultants, 2 PH clinical fellows, 1 nurse specialist, 1 clinical psychologist, 1 physiotherapist). Emphasis-10 and LPHQ cover all main themes. Further work with patient perspectives required. LPHQ Living with Pulmonary Hypertension Questionnaire, MLWHF Minnesota Living with Heart Failure, SOB shortness of breath, SF-36 Short-Form 36.

The most frequently reported concepts in Figure 3A are presented in bold, with most-to-least common left-to-right and those overlapping representing similar weighting. The most reported impacts were activity, sadness/depression, self-worth, sense of loss, treatment- and financial burden. Cultural variation was evident for this latter subtheme and more commonly discussed in surveys and interviews of those living in Canada, USA and China compared the UK and Europe.

PROMs were then mapped onto the conceptual framework (Figure 3B). No single PROM covers all subthemes directly. EmPHasis-10 and LPHQ cover all main themes. Two commonly reported themes, self-identity and autonomy, are not specifically captured by EQ-5D-5L or SF-36. In addition, EQ-5D-5L does not capture impact on relationships. LPHQ is the only PROM to directly ask about treatment burden by including items on side effects but may also include items that are less impactful in this patient group (e.g. diet).

Discussion

This is the first systematic review to evaluate meaningful changes in HRQoL in RCTs in patients with PAH. Based on rigorous methodology using COSMIN guidance both EmPHasis-10 and LPHQ receive a grade A recommendation for use, whereas SF-36 and EQ-5D-5L receive a grade B recommendation. Of these PROMs EmPHasis-10 provides the broadest scope internationally and is validated in three continents. Whilst SF-36 is the most frequently used PROM in PAH RCTs to date, only 2 of 8 SF-36 domains meet current psychometric guidance. Currently no PROMs used in PAH RCTs are adequate for PAH-QALY calculation. To aid future work, we developed a conceptual framework which allows visualisation of what PROMs measure to capture aspects of HRQoL important to people living with PAH. Six themes and 25 subthemes were identified by researchers and ratified in the conceptual framework. Whereas both EmPHasis-10 and LPHQ likely capture all major themes, two major themes (self-identity and autonomy) are unlikely to be captured by SF-36 and EQ-5D-5L. Further study mapping the PROMs to this conceptual framework from the patients’ perspective is required. Complementary psychometric approaches will aid future selection of the most appropriate PROMs to measure HRQoL outcomes in clinical trials.

A PROM with a MCID is a meaningful trial endpoint

PROMs should be resilient to the day-to-day variability in HRQoL. There will be a natural change in score, without a significant change in HRQoL and this may vary depending on disease severity. Meaningful change in HRQoL therefore may not equate to statistical difference.(137) The MCID for PAH PROMs has traditionally been anchored using the SF-36 physical functioning domain to changes in 6MWD. CAMPHOR is the only PROM to include PAH patient opinion in derivation of a MCID.(122,138,139) As illustrated by the conceptual framework, 6MWD alone is unlikely to adequately benchmark all aspects of change in HRQoL.(139,140) There is further inaccuracy in over-simplifying differences based on average distributions.(137,141) Multiple MCIDs should ideally be anchored over many individual timepoints to improve sensitivity.(137,139,140) Other factors influencing MCID include direction of change (improvement or deterioration) and individual baseline value. Neither of which may be synonymous with predicted disease outcome.(141) While highly valuable for trial endpoints, MCIDs evaluated should be interpreted with caution, and within the context of measurement error.(16,137,139,141) Measurement error includes PROM scores undertaken during stable conditions (test-retest reliability). SF-36 has shown the variable performance in this regard. As the most widely adopted PROM in PAH RCTs, five of the eight domains have a valid MCID however only two (physical functioning and general health) meet adequate test-retest reliability.

Psychometric measurement properties validate HRQoL outcomes

HRQoL is a multifactorial construct with diurnal, daily and lifelong variability. Perception varies across the patient’s lifespan. Changes in values and priorities (response shift) depends upon ‘pre-diagnosis’, ‘transitioning through diagnosis’ and ‘duration living with PH’. The latter group reportedly face challenges with recognising disease progression and monitoring the condition.(51,142) Registry data shows consistent performance of EmPHasis-10 in patients with recent diagnoses (<6 months) but other time points are lacking.(119) For consistency, a PROM must perform regardless of ‘time since diagnosis’. This is known as response shift and has not been studied in PROMs for people living with PAH to date.

Further complexity is introduced by variations in HRQoL perceptions with age, gender, and disease severity.(54) Age and gender have been shown to influence PROMs.(135,143) These factors require further assessment in the PAH population.(118,136,143,144) Perceptions and response to limitations in activity also vary with individual coping strategies and personality types.(142) Responses may therefore differ depending on the choice of PROM. No PROMs used in PAH trials have specifically addressed variations in activity perceptions in longitudinal subgroup analyses. Understanding PROM performance also requires consideration of PROMs across subgroups (e.g. WHO FC)(137), known as measurement invariance. As shown by the meta-analysis, EQ-5D-5L may be less responsive to changes in WHO FC II compared to WHO FC III, potentially underestimating the HRQoL treatment benefit in this subgroup. Similar comparison was shown with EQ-5D-5L and CAMPHOR.(145) While exemplifying the importance PROM selection, combining PROMs in a trial setting offers useful comparison of responsiveness.

Development of the conceptual framework helps recognise important HRQoL captured by PROMs. All PROMs capture limitations in activities, however two major themes identified (self-identity and autonomy) are unlikely to be captured by SF-36 and EQ-5D-5L (Figure 3B). While LPHQ has received critique for poor symptom saturation,(27,35) the conceptual framework does not support omitted symptoms of ‘palpitations’ or ‘problems with limbs’ as impactful.(6–9,35,46–52) Moreover, while some symptoms may be less relevant (e.g. diet/appetite), ‘time in hospital’ and ‘side effects’ are uniquely captured. LPHQ is also the only instrument to consider financial impact, which may have cultural relevance.(7,9,47,49) It is unclear whether PROMs adequately capture treatment burden (a key subtheme) in PAH, or whether this cross-loads with other concepts. Future cognitive interviewing should consider utilising the conceptual framework to elicit patient interpretation of PROM questions, in addition to modelling perceptions across the disease course. Mapping the PROM questions to framework will also establish likely relationships to concepts, helping to solidify PROM content validity from the patients’ perspective.

How do we advance HRQoL endpoints in PAH?

PROMs offer a descriptor for the patient voice, and this should be their primary purpose. Delivering a valid HRQoL trial endpoint requires appropriate PROM selection with a patient-centred MCID, and prioritisation of PPIE preferences which are reported in line with recommendations.(18) Greater consistency in PROM selection will improve knowledge of therapeutic outcomes according to lived patient experience. As a minimum, PAH clinical trials should select PROMs with grade A recommendation for use. PROMs further offer health economic evaluation to support regulatory decision-making. Following COSMIN review, neither generic PWM (EQ-5D-5L and SF-36) can be recommended, and therefore a condition-specific PWM with strong psychometric properties is preferentially considered.(145,146) CAMPHOR(147) is currently the only condition-specific PWM with a value set however, this is underutilised in RCTs and yet to undergo COSMIN evaluation. Future development of PWMs in PAH should focus on either improving PROMs with a B grade recommendation and/or developing a value set for those with a grade A recommendation. This will support robust evaluation for QALY outcomes.

Strengths and Limitations

Our systematic review of recent publications was designed with rigour, using multiple reviewers, a minimum of dual coders, and triangulation to enhance quality. Nevertheless, data informing the conceptual framework was not analysed at source and therefore may be subject to bias. However, following UK PPIE opinion, there were no additional concepts added to the framework and based on the authors experience in international studies in PAH, we consider the framework to be relevant for other countries. As with adaptation of PROMs cross-culturally, future research is required to ensure individual concepts are applicable to the chosen area. This process could offer further understanding of cultural differences in people living with PAH.

Analysis of instrument power was based on MCID; although, as discussed, this may be inadequate, potentially over- or under-estimating the RCTs included. Furthermore, these estimates are calculated for between-group rather than within-patient differences and insufficient to base regulatory decisions.(16) However, this is currently the only available measurement criteria for estimating sufficient responsiveness, and useful for calculating study size.(17,33,34) CAMPHOR has an MCID but did not meet inclusion due to insufficiently powered historical or forthcoming RCTs. As this is currently the only PAH-specific PWM,(145,147) independent COSMIN analysis is warranted. Finally, it is recognised that all PROMs considered in this analysis were developed prior to COSMIN guideline recommendations, and therefore some of the methodological concerns may be overstated due to missing publication details rather than instrument flaws. Despite these challenges and low quality of evidence, two instruments still achieved a grade A recommendation, showing promise for future HRQoL endpoints.

Conclusion

Global use of suitable PROMs in PAH occurred in 20 of 43 RCTs. Interpretation of HRQoL requires a MCID, yet only 8 trials were adequately powered to detect a meaningful change. All MCIDs require further validation, taking into consideration directionality and disease severity. Language availability is not necessarily concordant with cultural validity, and this should be considered in international and multi-centre RCT settings. LPHQ outperforms EmPHasis-10 regarding responsiveness whereas EmPHasis-10 demonstrates the strongest reliability and cross-cultural validity, however both can be recommended for use. SF-36 and EQ-5D-5L should be used with caution until further examination in people living with PAH. The conceptual framework, ratified without iterations, shows LPHQ and EmPHasis-10 are more likely to capture autonomy and self-identify. This should be developed further by mapping PROM items to the framework from the patient perspective. Concurrent cognitive interviewing is required for all PROMs to strengthen content validity. HRQoL outcomes should focus on appropriate PROM selection, powered for a valid MCID, with the aim of continued psychometric development and health economic analyses.

Contributions

All authors contributed to the development of the manuscript and approved the final version

Data Availability

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors

Statement of Guarantor

N/A

Contact emails and ORCID

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the patients from PHA UK and PHA UK representatives who supported the ratification of the conceptual framework. Thank you to Dr Charlie Eliot for ratifying the conceptual framework in addition to the authors.

Footnotes

  • Conflicting interests: Professor DG Kiely and Dr I Armstrong were involved in the derivation of EmPHasis-10 but remained independent in the risk of bias analysis for the COSMIN review. Professor Jill Carlton is a co-investigator for the UK EQ-5D-5L study team. Dr Tessa Peasgood is a member of EuroQol and involved in research development of the EuroQol Health and Wellbeing instrument. Other authors are not affiliated with PROMs evaluated in this review. The authors (FV/RB/CP/ZMG/JN) performing the data collection, selection and evaluation of review articles have no conflicts of interest.

  • Funding: Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Career Development Fellowship (AMKR: 206632/Z/17/Z), BHF Intermediate Fellowship (AART: FS/18/13/33281), MRC Confidence in Concepts (AMKR), Medtronic External Research Program Award (AMKR), MRC Experimental Medicine grant (AMKR/MT/DGK: MR/W026279/1), BHF Clinical Research Training Fellowship (HZ/AMKR: FS/CRTF/23/24465, MT/JN: FS/CRTF/22/24390). The research was carried out at the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Sheffield and Cambridge cardiorespiratory Biomedical Research Centres. AR is grateful to Richard Hughes, whose generous philanthropic support has helped to make this work possible.

  • Disclosures: AART research funding: Heart Research UK, Janssen-Cilang Ltd, British Heart Foundation, and honoraria from Janssen-Cilad ltd for lectures and education. AMKR: research funding: Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Career Development Fellowship (206632/Z/17/Z), Medical Research Council (UK) Experimental Medicine Award (MR/W026279/1), NIHR Biomedical Research Centre Sheffield, Contribution in kind: Medtronic, Abbott, Endotronix, Novartis, Janssen. Research support and consulting: NXT Biomedical, Endotronix, SoniVie, Neptune, Gradient. DGK has received personal funding from the NIHR Biomedical Research Centre Sheffield, research funding from Ferrer, GSK and Janssen and consulting and educational funding from Acceleron, Altivant, Ferrer, Gossamer, Janssen, MSD and United Therapeutics. FV has received educational funding from Janssen and is a Medical Research Council (UK) clinical fellow. JN Research funding: British Heart Foundation, education and travel funding Aparito Ltd, United Therapeutics, Pulmonary Vascular Research Institute. MT: Research funding: NIHR Biomedical Research Centre Cambridge, NIHR HTA. Personal support: GCK and Jansen. RC has received honoraria for speakers’ fees and conference travel from Janssen. All others: none.

References

  1. 1.↵
    Weatherald J, Boucly A, Peters A, Montani D, Prasad K, Psotka MA, et al. The evolving landscape of pulmonary arterial hypertension clinical trials. The Lancet [Internet]. 2022 Nov 26 [cited 2022 Dec 13];400(10366):1884–98. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36436527
    OpenUrl
  2. 2.↵
    Sitbon O, Nikkho S, Benza R, Deng C (CQ), Farber HW, Gomberg-Maitland M, et al. Novel composite clinical endpoints and risk scores used in clinical trials in pulmonary arterial hypertension. Pulm Circ. 2020 Oct;10(4):1–11.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  3. 3.↵
    Nafees B, de Freitas HM, Beaudet A, Todd E, Gin-Sing W. A Health State Utility Study to Elicit Societal Values Associated with Pulmonary Hypertension. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2023 Aug;Volume 17:2119–30.
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.
    Dong W, Zhang Z, Chu M, Gu P, Hu M, Liu L, et al. Cost-effectiveness analysis of selexipag for the combined treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension. Front Pharmacol. 2023 Aug 11;14.
  5. 5.↵
    Ekhlasi M, Sheikhi S, Majd ZK, Peiravian F, Yousefi N. Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Macitentan in Comparison With Bosentan in the Treatment of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension in Iran. Value Health Reg Issues. 2023 Mar;34:78–85.
    OpenUrl
  6. 6.↵
    Flattery MP, Pinson JM, Savage L, Salyer J. Living with pulmonary artery hypertension: Patients’ experiences. Heart & Lung. 2005 Mar;34(2):99–107.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  7. 7.↵
    Guillevin L, Armstrong I, Aldrighetti R, Howard LS, Ryftenius H, Fischer A, et al. Understanding the impact of pulmonary arterial hypertension on patients’ and carers’ lives. European Respiratory Review. 2013 Dec 1;22(130):535–42.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.
    PHA UK. What it means to live with PH today [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2023 Oct 5]. Available from: https://www.phauk.org/research-survey-work/living-ph-report/
  9. 9.↵
    Armstrong I, Billings C, Kiely DG, Yorke J, Harries C, Clayton S, et al. The patient experience of pulmonary hypertension: a large cross-sectional study of UK patients. BMC Pulm Med. 2019 Dec 21;19(1):67.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  10. 10.↵
    Tremblay É, Gosselin C, Mai V, Lajoie AC, Kilo R, Weatherald J, et al. Assessment of Clinical Worsening End Points as a Surrogate for Mortality in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials. Circulation. 2022 Aug 23;146(8):597–612.
    OpenUrl
  11. 11.↵
    Nancy Devlin KSYFBM and B van H. Valuing Health-Related Quality of Life: An EQ-5D-5L Value Set for England [Internet]. 2016 [cited 2024 Feb 18]. Available from: https://www.ohe.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/25-Jan-OHE-research-paper_value-set-paper-CORRECTED.pdf
  12. 12.↵
    Gerlinger C, Bamber L, Leverkus F, Schwenke C, Haberland C, Schmidt G, et al. Comparing the EQ-5D-5L utility index based on value sets of different countries: impact on the interpretation of clinical study results. BMC Res Notes. 2019 Dec 14;12(1):18.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  13. 13.↵
    Whitehead SJ, Ali S. Health outcomes in economic evaluation: the QALY and utilities. Br Med Bull. 2010 Dec 1;96(1):5–21.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. 14.↵
    Humbert M, Kovacs G, Hoeper MM, Badagliacca R, Berger RMF, Brida M, et al. 2022 ESC/ERS Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary hypertension. Eur Heart J. 2022 Oct 11;43(38):3618–731.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  15. 15.↵
    Yarlas A, Mathai SC, Nathan SD, DuBrock HM, Morland K, Anderson N, et al. Considerations When Selecting Patient-Reported Outcome Measures for Assessment of Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients With Pulmonary Hypertension. Chest. 2022 Nov;162(5):1163–75.
    OpenUrl
  16. 16.↵
    United States Food and Drug Administration. PATIENT-FOCUSED DRUG DEVELOPMENT GUIDANCE PUBLIC WORKSHOP Methods to Identify What is Important to Patients & Select, Develop or Modify Fit-for-Purpose Clinical Outcomes Assessments [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2024 Jul 15]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/media/116277/download
  17. 17.↵
    Terwee CB, Prinsen CAC, Chiarotto A, Westerman MJ, Patrick DL, Alonso J, et al. COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: a Delphi study. Quality of Life Research. 2018 May 17;27(5):1159–70.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. 18.↵
    Prinsen CAC, Vohra S, Rose MR, King-Jones S, Ishaque S, Bhaloo Z, et al. Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) initiative: protocol for an international Delphi study to achieve consensus on how to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a ‘core outcome set.’ Trials. 2014 Dec 25;15(1):247.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  19. 19.↵
    Lapin BR. Considerations for Reporting and Reviewing Studies Including Health-Related Quality of Life. Chest. 2020 Jul;158(1):S49–56.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  20. 20.
    Leidy NK, Revicki DA, Genesté B. Recommendations for Evaluating the Validity of Quality of Life Claims for Labeling and Promotion. Value in Health. 1999 Mar;2(2):113–27.
    OpenUrl
  21. 21.↵
    Calvert M, Kyte D, Mercieca-Bebber R, Slade A, Chan AW, King MT, et al. Guidelines for Inclusion of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Trial Protocols. JAMA. 2018 Feb 6;319(5):483.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. 22.↵
    Reeve BB, Wyrwich KW, Wu AW, Velikova G, Terwee CB, Snyder CF, et al. ISOQOL recommends minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures used in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research. Quality of Life Research. 2013 Oct 4;22(8):1889–905.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  23. 23.↵
    Elsman EBM, Mokkink LB, Terwee CB, Beaton D, Gagnier JJ, Tricco AC, et al. Guideline for reporting systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments (OMIs): PRISMA-COSMIN for OMIs 2024. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2024 Jul 9;22(1):48.
    OpenUrl
  24. 24.↵
    Finch AP, Brazier JE, Mukuria C. What is the evidence for the performance of generic preference-based measures? A systematic overview of reviews. The European Journal of Health Economics. 2018 May 30;19(4):557–70.
    OpenUrl
  25. 25.↵
    Wilson IB. Linking Clinical Variables With Health-Related Quality of Life. JAMA. 1995 Jan 4;273(1):59.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  26. 26.↵
    McDool E, Carlton J, Powell PA, Coates E, Knox L, Mayberry E, et al. Measuring Health-Related Quality of Life in Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis. Neurology. 2024 Jul 23;103(2).
  27. 27.↵
    Rose SW, Highland KB, Kelkar AA. Clinical Utility of Patient-Reported Outcome Instruments in the Management of Pulmonary Hypertension. JACC Heart Fail. 2024 Feb;12(2):366–76.
    OpenUrl
  28. 28.
    Chen H, Taichman DB, Doyle RL. Health-related Quality of Life and Patient-reported Outcomes in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension. Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2008 Jul 15;5(5):623–30.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. 29.↵
    Rival G, Lacasse Y, Martin S, Bonnet S, Provencher S. Effect of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension-Specific Therapies on Health-Related Quality of Life. Chest. 2014 Sep;146(3):686–708.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  30. 30.↵
    Prinsen CAC, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, Alonso J, Patrick DL, de Vet HCW, et al. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research. 2018 May 12;27(5):1147–57.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. 31.↵
    COSMIN. Guideline for Systematic Reviews of Outcome Measurement Instruments [Internet]. Amsterdam; 2020 Dec [cited 2023 Jun 1]. Available from: Guideline for Systematic Reviews of Outcome Measurement Instruments
  32. 32.↵
    U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Surrogate Endpoint Resources for Drug and Biologic Development [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2024 May 24]. Available from: https://www.fda.gov/drugs/development-resources/surrogate-endpoint-resources-drug-and-biologic-development
  33. 33.↵
    Prinsen CAC, Mokkink LB, Bouter LM, Alonso J, Patrick DL, de Vet HCW, et al. COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research. 2018 May 12;27(5):1147–57.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  34. 34.↵
    Mokkink LB, de Vet HCW, Prinsen CAC, Patrick DL, Alonso J, Bouter LM, et al. COSMIN Risk of Bias checklist for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures. Quality of Life Research. 2018 May 19;27(5):1171–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  35. 35.↵
    Bonner N, Abetz L, Meunier J, Sikirica M, Mathai SC. Development and validation of the living with pulmonary hypertension questionnaire in pulmonary arterial hypertension patients. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2013;11(1):161.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  36. 36.
    Witt S, Krauss E, Barbero MAN, Müller V, Bonniaud P, Vancheri C, et al. Psychometric properties and minimal important differences of SF-36 in Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis. Respir Res. 2019 Dec 1;20(1):47.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  37. 37.
    Gonzalez-Saenz de Tejada M, Bilbao A, Ansola L, Quirós R, García-Perez L, Navarro G, et al. Responsiveness and minimal clinically important difference of the Minnesota living with heart failure questionnaire. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2019 Dec 14;17(1):36.
    OpenUrl
  38. 38.
    Butler J, Shahzeb Khan M, Lindenfeld J, Abraham WT, Savarese G, Salsali A, et al. Minimally Clinically Important Difference in Health Status Scores in Patients With HFrEF vs HFpEF. JACC Heart Fail. 2022 Sep;10(9):651–61.
    OpenUrl
  39. 39.
    McClure NS, Sayah F Al, Xie F, Luo N, Johnson JA. Instrument-Defined Estimates of the Minimally Important Difference for EQ-5D-5L Index Scores. Value in Health. 2017 Apr;20(4):644–50.
    OpenUrl
  40. 40.↵
    Chin KM, Gomberg-Maitland M, Channick RN, Cuttica MJ, Fischer A, Frantz RP, et al. Psychometric Validation of the Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension-Symptoms and Impact (PAH-SYMPACT) Questionnaire: Results of the SYMPHONY Trial. Chest. 2018 Oct 1;154(4):848–61.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  41. 41.↵
    Ulrich S. A Further Step Toward Meaningful Trial Outcomes for Patients with Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: Minimal Important Difference in 6-minute-walk Distance. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2023 Apr 15;207(8):972–4.
    OpenUrl
  42. 42.↵
    Taichman DB, Shin J, Hud L, Archer-Chicko C, Kaplan S, Sager JS, et al. Health-related quality of life in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension. Respir Res. 2005 Dec 10;6(1):92.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  43. 43.↵
    Peasgood T, Brazier J. Is Meta-Analysis for Utility Values Appropriate Given the Potential Impact Different Elicitation Methods Have on Values? Pharmacoeconomics. 2015 Nov 2;33(11):1101–5.
    OpenUrl
  44. 44.↵
    Aiyegbusi OL, Nair D, Peipert JD, Schick-Makaroff K, Mucsi I. A narrative review of current evidence supporting the implementation of electronic patient-reported outcome measures in the management of chronic diseases. Ther Adv Chronic Dis. 2021 Jan 24;12:204062232110159.
  45. 45.↵
    Brazier J, Peasgood T, Mukuria C, Marten O, Kreimeier S, Luo N, et al. The EQ-HWB: Overview of the Development of a Measure of Health and Wellbeing and Key Results. Value in Health. 2022 Apr;25(4):482–91.
    OpenUrl
  46. 46.↵
    PHA UK. Breathless not voiceless: what it means to live with pulmonary hypertension today [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2024 Apr 2]. Available from: https://www.phauk.org/research/pha-uk-led-research/breathless-not-voiceless-what-it-means-to-live-with-ph-today/
  47. 47.↵
    Péloquin J, Robichaud-Ekstrand S, Pepin J. Quality of life perception by women suffering from stage III or IV primary pulmonary hypertension and receiving prostacyclin treatment. Can J Nurs Res. 1998;30(1):113–36.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  48. 48.
    Yorke J, Armstrong I, Bundock S. Impact of living with pulmonary hypertension: A qualitative exploration. Nurs Health Sci. 2014 Dec 15;16(4):454–60.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  49. 49.↵
    Zhai Z, Zhou X, Zhang S, Xie W, Wan J, Kuang T, et al. The impact and financial burden of pulmonary arterial hypertension on patients and caregivers. Medicine. 2017 Sep;96(39):e6783.
    OpenUrl
  50. 50.
    McDonough A, Matura LA, Carroll DL. Symptom Experience of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension Patients. Clin Nurs Res. 2011 May 3;20(2):120–34.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  51. 51.↵
    PHA UK. Helping people get the most from their PH treatments: Phoenix study proposal findings [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2023 Jul 18]. Available from: https://www.phauk.org/app/uploads/2021/04/Phoenix-study-research-report.pdf
  52. 52.↵
    Newman J, Armstrong I, PHA UK. 2022 [cited 2024 Apr 2]. Clinical trials: what matters to you. Available from: https://www.phauk.org/clinical-trials-what-matters-to-you/
  53. 53.↵
    McGoon MD, Ferrari P, Armstrong I, Denis M, Howard LS, Lowe G, et al. The importance of patient perspectives in pulmonary hypertension. European Respiratory Journal. 2019 Jan;53(1):1801919.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  54. 54.↵
    Rawlings GH, Beail N, Armstrong I, Condliffe R, Kiely DG, Sabroe I, et al. Adults’ experiences of living with pulmonary hypertension: a thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. BMJ Open. 2020 Dec 7;10(12):e041428.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  55. 55.↵
    McCollister D, Shaffer S, Badesch DB, Filusch A, Hunsche E, Schüler R, et al. Development of the Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension-Symptoms and Impact (PAH-SYMPACT®) questionnaire: a new patient-reported outcome instrument for PAH. Respir Res. 2016 Dec 14;17(1):72.
    OpenUrl
  56. 56.↵
    Hoeper MM, Badesch DB, Ghofrani HA, Gibbs JSR, Gomberg-Maitland M, McLaughlin V V., et al. Phase 3 Trial of Sotatercept for Treatment of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension. New England Journal of Medicine. 2023 Apr 20;388(16):1478–90.
    OpenUrl
  57. 57.
    Howard LS, Rosenkranz S, Frantz RP, Hemnes AR, Pfister T, Hsu Schmitz SF, et al. Assessing Daily Life Physical Activity by Actigraphy in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension: Insights From the Randomized Controlled Study With Selexipag (TRACE). Chest. 2023;163(2).
  58. 58.
    Ozcan Kahraman B, Tanriverdi A, Savci S, Odaman H, Akdeniz B, Sevinc C, et al. Effects of Inspiratory Muscle Training in Patients With Pulmonary Hypertension. Am J Cardiol. 2023 Sep;203:406–13.
    OpenUrl
  59. 59.
    Rosenkranz S, Feldman J, McLaughlin V V, Rischard F, Lange TJ, White RJ, et al. Selonsertib in adults with pulmonary arterial hypertension (ARROW): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet Respir Med. 2022 Jan;10(1):35–46.
    OpenUrl
  60. 60.
    Grünig E, MacKenzie A, Peacock AJ, Eichstaedt CA, Benjamin N, Nechwatal R, et al. Standardized exercise training is feasible, safe, and effective in pulmonary arterial and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension: Results from a large European multicentre randomized controlled trial. Eur Heart J. 2021;42(23).
  61. 61.
    Hemnes AR, Silverman-Lloyd LG, Huang S, MacKinnon G, Annis J, Whitmore CS, et al. A Mobile Health Intervention to Increase Physical Activity in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension. Chest. 2021;160(3).
  62. 62.
    Humbert M, McLaughlin V, Gibbs JSR, Gomberg-Maitland M, Hoeper MM, Preston IR, et al. Sotatercept for the Treatment of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension. New England Journal of Medicine. 2021 Apr 1;384(13):1204–15.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  63. 63.
    Hoeper MM, Al-Hiti H, Benza RL, Chang SA, Corris PA, Gibbs JSR, et al. Switching to riociguat versus maintenance therapy with phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension (REPLACE): a multicentre, open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet Respir Med. 2021 Jun;9(6):573–84.
    OpenUrl
  64. 64.
    Chin KM, Sitbon O, Doelberg M, Feldman J, Gibbs JSR, Grünig E, et al. Three-Versus Two-Drug Therapy for Patients With Newly Diagnosed Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2021 Oct;78(14):1393–403.
    OpenUrl
  65. 65.
    Aslan GK, Akıncı B, Yeldan I, Okumus G. A randomized controlled trial on inspiratory muscle training in pulmonary hypertension: Effects on respiratory functions, functional exercise capacity, physical activity, and quality of life. Heart & Lung. 2020 Jul;49(4):381–7.
    OpenUrl
  66. 66.
    Kahraman BO, Savci S, Ozsoy I, Baran A, Acar S, Ozpelit E, et al. Effects of neuromuscular electrical stimulation in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension: a randomized controlled pilot study. J Cardiol. 2020 Jun;75(6):702–8.
    OpenUrl
  67. 67.
    Yılmaz BC, Güçlü MB, Keleş MN, Taçoy GA, Çengel A. Effects of upper extremity aerobic exercise training on oxygen consumption, exercise capacity, dyspnea and quality of life in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension. Heart and Lung. 2020;49(5).
  68. 68.
    McLaughlin V V., Vachiery JL, Oudiz RJ, Rosenkranz S, Galiè N, Barberà JA, et al. Patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension with and without cardiovascular risk factors: Results from the AMBITION trial. The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation. 2019 Dec;38(12):1286–95.
    OpenUrl
  69. 69.
    Babu AS, Padmakumar R, Nayak K, Shetty R, Mohapatra AK, Maiya AG. Effects of home-based exercise training on functional outcomes and quality of life in patients with pulmonary hypertension: A randomized clinical trial. Indian Heart J. 2019;71(2).
  70. 70.
    Gerhardt F, Dumitrescu D, Gärtner C, Beccard R, Viethen T, Kramer T, et al. Oscillatory whole-body vibration improves exercise capacity and physical performance in pulmonary arterial hypertension: A randomised clinical study. Heart. 2017;103(8).
  71. 71.
    Tapson VF, Jing ZC, Xu KF, Pan L, Feldman J, Kiely DG, et al. Oral Treprostinil for the Treatment of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension in Patients Receiving Background Endothelin Receptor Antagonist and Phosphodiesterase Type 5 Inhibitor Therapy (The FREEDOM-C2 Study). Chest. 2013 Sep;144(3):952–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  72. 72.
    van Campen JSJA, de Boer K, van de Veerdonk MC, van der Bruggen CEE, Allaart CP, Raijmakers PG, et al. Bisoprolol in idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension: an explorative study. European Respiratory Journal. 2016 Sep;48(3):787–96.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  73. 73.
    Sitbon O, Channick R, Chin KM, Frey A, Gaine S, Galiè N, et al. Selexipag for the Treatment of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension. New England Journal of Medicine. 2015 Dec 24;373(26):2522– 33.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  74. 74.
    Ghofrani HA, Galiè N, Grimminger F, Grünig E, Humbert M, Jing ZC, et al. Riociguat for the Treatment of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension. New England Journal of Medicine. 2013 Jul 25;369(4):330–40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  75. 75.
    Rubin LJ, Galiè N, Grimminger F, Grünig E, Humbert M, Jing ZC, et al. Riociguat for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension: a long-term extension study (PATENT-2). European Respiratory Journal. 2015 May;45(5):1303–13.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  76. 76.
    Galiè N, Müller K, Scalise AV, Grünig E. PATENT PLUS: a blinded, randomised and extension study of riociguat plus sildenafil in pulmonary arterial hypertension. European Respiratory Journal. 2015 May;45(5):1314–22.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  77. 77.
    Saglam M, Arikan H, Vardar-Yagli N, Calik-Kutukcu E, Inal-Ince D, Savci S, et al. Inspiratory Muscle Training in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension. J Cardiopulm Rehabil Prev. 2015 May;35(3):198–206.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  78. 78.
    Ulrich S, Keusch S, Hildenbrand FF, Lo Cascio C, Huber LC, Tanner FC, et al. Effect of nocturnal oxygen and acetazolamide on exercise performance in patients with pre-capillary pulmonary hypertension and sleep-disturbed breathing: randomized, double-blind, cross-over trial. Eur Heart J. 2015 Mar 7;36(10):615–23.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  79. 79.
    Chan L, Chin LMK, Kennedy M, Woolstenhulme JG, Nathan SD, Weinstein AA, et al. Benefits of Intensive Treadmill Exercise Training on Cardiorespiratory Function and Quality of Life in Patients With Pulmonary Hypertension. Chest. 2013 Feb;143(2):333–43.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  80. 80.
    Weinstein AA, Chin LMK, Keyser RE, Kennedy M, Nathan SD, Woolstenhulme JG, et al. Effect of aerobic exercise training on fatigue and physical activity in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension. Respir Med. 2013;107(5).
  81. 81.
    Hoeper MM, Barst RJ, Bourge RC, Feldman J, Frost AE, Galié N, et al. Imatinib Mesylate as Add-on Therapy for Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension. Circulation. 2013 Mar 12;127(10):1128–38.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  82. 82.
    Tapson VF, Torres F, Kermeen F, Keogh AM, Allen RP, Frantz RP, et al. Oral Treprostinil for the Treatment of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension in Patients on Background Endothelin Receptor Antagonist and/or Phosphodiesterase Type 5 Inhibitor Therapy (The FREEDOM-C Study). Chest. 2012 Dec;142(6):1383–90.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  83. 83.
    Kawut SM, Bagiella E, Lederer DJ, Shimbo D, Horn EM, Roberts KE, et al. Randomized Clinical Trial of Aspirin and Simvastatin for Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension. Circulation. 2011 Jun 28;123(25):2985–93.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  84. 84.
    Ghofrani HA, Morrell NW, Hoeper MM, Olschewski H, Peacock AJ, Barst RJ, et al. Imatinib in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension Patients with Inadequate Response to Established Therapy. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2010 Nov 1;182(9):1171–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  85. 85.↵
    McLaughlin V V., Benza RL, Rubin LJ, Channick RN, Voswinckel R, Tapson VF, et al. Addition of Inhaled Treprostinil to Oral Therapy for Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010 May;55(18):1915–22.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  86. 86.↵
    Galiè N, Rubin L, Hoeper M, Jansa P, Al-Hiti H, Meyer G, et al. Treatment of patients with mildly symptomatic pulmonary arterial hypertension with bosentan (EARLY study): a double-blind, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. 2008 Jun;371(9630):2093–100.
    OpenUrl
  87. 87.
    Galiè N, Olschewski H, Oudiz RJ, Torres F, Frost A, Ghofrani HA, et al. Ambrisentan for the Treatment of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension. Circulation. 2008 Jun 10;117(23):3010–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  88. 88.↵
    Simonneau G, Rubin LJ, Galiè N, Barst RJ, Fleming TR, Frost AE, et al. Addition of sildenafil to long-term intravenous epoprostenol therapy in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2008 Oct 21;149(8):521–30.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  89. 89.
    Hoeper MM. Combining inhaled iloprost with bosentan in patients with idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension. European Respiratory Journal. 2006 Oct 1;28(4):691–4.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  90. 90.
    Mereles D, Ehlken N, Kreuscher S, Ghofrani S, Hoeper MM, Halank M, et al. Exercise and Respiratory Training Improve Exercise Capacity and Quality of Life in Patients With Severe Chronic Pulmonary Hypertension. Circulation. 2006 Oct 3;114(14):1482–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  91. 91.
    Galié N, Badesch D, Oudiz R, Simonneau G, McGoon MD, Keogh AM, et al. Ambrisentan Therapy for Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005 Aug;46(3):529–35.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  92. 92.
    Wilkins MR, Paul GA, Strange JW, Tunariu N, Gin-Sing W, Banya WA, et al. Sildenafil versus Endothelin Receptor Antagonist for Pulmonary Hypertension (SERAPH) Study. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2005 Jun 1;171(11):1292–7.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  93. 93.
    Humbert M, Barst RJ, Robbins IM, Channick RN, Galiè N, Boonstra A, et al. Combination of bosentan with epoprostenol in pulmonary arterial hypertension: BREATHE-2. Eur Respir J. 2004 Sep;24(3):353–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  94. 94.
    Barst RJ, McGoon M, McLaughlin V, Tapson V, Oudiz R, Shapiro S, et al. Beraprost therapy for pulmonary arterial hypertension. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003 Jun;41(12):2119–25.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  95. 95.
    Olschewski H, Simonneau G, Galiè N, Higenbottam T, Naeije R, Rubin LJ, et al. Inhaled Iloprost for Severe Pulmonary Hypertension. New England Journal of Medicine. 2002 Aug;347(5):322–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  96. 96.
    Barst RJ, Rubin LJ, Long WA, McGoon MD, Rich S, Badesch DB, et al. A Comparison of Continuous Intravenous Epoprostenol (Prostacyclin) with Conventional Therapy for Primary Pulmonary Hypertension. New England Journal of Medicine. 1996 Feb;334(5):296–301.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  97. 97.
    Farha S, Saygin D, Park MM, Cheong HI, Asosingh K, Comhair SAA, et al. Pulmonary arterial hypertension treatment with carvedilol for heart failure: a randomized controlled trial. JCI Insight. 2017 Aug 17;2(16).
  98. 98.
    Han X, Zhang Y, Dong L, Fang L, Chai Y, Niu M, et al. Treatment of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension Using Initial Combination Therapy of Bosentan and Iloprost. Respir Care. 2017 Apr;62(4):489–96.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  99. 99.↵
    Mehta S, Sastry BKS, Souza R, Torbicki A, Ghofrani HA, Channick RN, et al. Macitentan Improves Health-Related Quality of Life for Patients With Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension. Chest. 2017 Jan;151(1):106–18.
    OpenUrl
  100. 100.↵
    Tsai APY, Hur SA, Wong A, Safavi M, Assayag D, Johannson KA, et al. Minimum important difference of the EQ-5D-5L and EQ-VAS in fibrotic interstitial lung disease. Thorax. 2021 Jan;76(1):37–43.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  101. 101.↵
    Galiè N, Olschewski H, Oudiz RJ, Torres F, Frost A, Ghofrani HA, et al. Ambrisentan for the Treatment of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension. Circulation. 2008 Jun 10;117(23):3010–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  102. 102.↵
    Grünig E, MacKenzie A, Peacock AJ, Eichstaedt CA, Benjamin N, Nechwatal R, et al. Standardized exercise training is feasible, safe, and effective in pulmonary arterial and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension: Results from a large European multicentre randomized controlled trial. Eur Heart J. 2021;42(23).
  103. 103.↵
    Ghofrani HA, Galiè N, Grimminger F, Grünig E, Humbert M, Jing ZC, et al. Riociguat for the Treatment of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension. New England Journal of Medicine. 2013 Jul 25;369(4):330–40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  104. 104.↵
    Rubin LJ, Galiè N, Grimminger F, Grünig E, Humbert M, Jing ZC, et al. Riociguat for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension: a long-term extension study (PATENT-2). European Respiratory Journal. 2015 May;45(5):1303–13.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  105. 105.↵
    Ghofrani HA, Grimminger F, Grünig E, Huang Y, Jansa P, Jing ZC, et al. Predictors of long-term outcomes in patients treated with riociguat for pulmonary arterial hypertension: data from the PATENT-2 open-label, randomised, long-term extension trial. Lancet Respir Med. 2016 May;4(5):361–71.
    OpenUrl
  106. 106.
    Galiè N, Müller K, Scalise AV, Grünig E. PATENT PLUS: a blinded, randomised and extension study of riociguat plus sildenafil in pulmonary arterial hypertension. European Respiratory Journal. 2015 May;45(5):1314–22.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  107. 107.↵
    Ghofrani HA, Galiè N, Grimminger F, Grünig E, Humbert M, Jing ZC, et al. Riociguat for the Treatment of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension. New England Journal of Medicine. 2013 Jul 25;369(4):330–40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  108. 108.↵
    Xie F, Pickard AS, Krabbe PFM, Revicki D, Viney R, Devlin N, et al. A Checklist for Reporting Valuation Studies of Multi-Attribute Utility-Based Instruments (CREATE). Pharmacoeconomics. 2015 Aug 31;33(8):867–77.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  109. 109.↵
    Rubin LJ, Galiè N, Grimminger F, Grünig E, Humbert M, Jing ZC, et al. Riociguat for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension: a long-term extension study (PATENT-2). European Respiratory Journal. 2015 May;45(5):1303–13.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  110. 110.↵
    Varian F, Dick J, Battersby C, Roman S, Ablott J, Watson L, et al. Pulmonary Hypertension: Intensification and Personalization of Combination Rx (PHoenix): A phase IV randomized trial for the evaluation of dose-response and clinical efficacy of riociguat and selexipag using implanted technologies. Pulm Circ. 2024 Jan 17;14(1).
  111. 111.↵
    Deliu N, DR, MA, SJ, DM, JR, WM, TM, VS. StratosPHere 2: A response-adaptive randomised placebo-controlled Phase II trial to evaluate hydroxychloroquine and phenylbutyrate in pulmonary arterial hypertension caused by mutations in BMPR2. pre-print. 2023;
  112. 112.↵
    Chua R, Keogh AM, Byth K, O’Loughlin A. Comparison and validation of three measures of quality of life in patients with pulmonary hypertension. Intern Med J. 2006 Nov 13;36(11):705–10.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  113. 113.↵
    Zlupko M, Harhay MO, Gallop R, Shin J, Archer-Chicko C, Patel R, et al. Evaluation of disease-specific health-related quality of life in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension. Respir Med. 2008 Oct;102(10):1431–8.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  114. 114.↵
    Twiss J, McKenna S, Ganderton L, Jenkins S, Ben-L’amri M, Gain K, et al. Psychometric performance of the CAMPHOR and SF-36 in pulmonary hypertension. BMC Pulm Med. 2013 Dec 12;13(1):45.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  115. 115.↵
    Gilbert C, Brown MCJ, Cappelleri JC, Carlsson M, McKenna SP. Estimating a Minimally Important Difference in Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension Following Treatment With Sildenafil. Chest. 2009 Jan;135(1):137–42.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  116. 116.
    Gomberg-Maitland M, Thenappan T, Rizvi K, Chandra S, Meads DM, McKenna SP. United States Validation of the Cambridge Pulmonary Hypertension Outcome Review (CAMPHOR). The Journal of Heart and Lung Transplantation. 2008 Jan;27(1):124–30.
    OpenUrl
  117. 117.↵
    Li JL, Xiao F, Liu HT, Li HT, Zhao QH, Sun CY, et al. Long-term outcomes in health-related quality of life influence chronic disease management in patients with pulmonary hypertension. Front Cardiovasc Med. 2022 Nov 10;9.
  118. 118.↵
    Yorke J, Corris P, Gaine S, Gibbs JSR, Kiely DG, Harries C, et al. emPHasis-10: development of a health-related quality of life measure in pulmonary hypertension. European Respiratory Journal. 2014 Apr 1;43(4):1106–13.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  119. 119.↵
    Borgese M, Badesch D, Bull T, Chakinala M, DeMarco T, Feldman J, et al. EmPHasis-10 as a measure of health-related quality of life in pulmonary arterial hypertension: data from PHAR. European Respiratory Journal. 2021 Feb;57(2):2000414.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  120. 120.
    Favoccia C, Kempny A, Yorke J, Armstrong I, Price LC, McCabe C, et al. EmPHasis-10 score for the assessment of quality of life in various types of pulmonary hypertension and its relation to outcome. Eur J Prev Cardiol. 2019 Aug 19;26(12):1338–40.
    OpenUrl
  121. 121.↵
    Takeyasu R, Tamura Y, Abe K, Goda A, Satoh T, Suda R, et al. Psychometric Validation of a Japanese Version of the emPHasis-10 Questionnaire, a Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Pulmonary Hypertension ― Multicenter Study in Japan ―. Circ Rep. 2020 Apr 10;2(4):255–9.
    OpenUrl
  122. 122.↵
    Hendriks PM, van Thor MCJ, Wapenaar M, Chandoesing P, van den Toorn LM, van den Bosch AE, et al. The longitudinal use of EmPHasis-10 and CAMPHOR questionnaire health-related quality of life scores in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension and chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension. Respir Med. 2021 Sep 1;186:106525.
  123. 123.↵
    Shi Y, Dong X, Hu X, Weng L, Liu Y, Lai J, et al. Cross-cultural validation of the Chinese version of the EmPHasis-10 questionnaire in connective tissue disease patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension and its relationship with risk stratification. BMC Pulm Med. 2022 Dec 5;22(1):264.
    OpenUrl
  124. 124.↵
    Lewis RA, Armstrong I, Bergbaum C, Brewis MJ, Cannon J, Charalampopoulos A, et al. EmPHasis-10 health-related quality of life score predicts outcomes in patients with idiopathic and connective tissue disease-associated pulmonary arterial hypertension: results from a UK multicentre study. European Respiratory Journal. 2021 Feb;57(2):2000124.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  125. 125.↵
    Rawlings GH, Gaskell C, Beail N, Thompson A, Armstrong I. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis of emPHasis-10: The health-related quality-of-life measure in pulmonary hypertension. Pulm Circ. 2024 Apr 12;14(2).
  126. 126.↵
    Odevoglu P, Demir R, Okumus G, Kucukoglu MS, Kuran Aslan G. Validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the EmPHasis-10 questionnaire in patients with pulmonary hypertension. J Eval Clin Pract. 2019 Oct 22;25(5):896–902.
    OpenUrl
  127. 127.↵
    Surace A, Torre R, Di Simone E, Dionisi S, Giannetta N, Di Muzio M. Studio di validazione dell’emPHasis-10 per la popolazione italiana. Nsc Nursing. 2019 May 6;1(1):1–18.
    OpenUrl
  128. 128.↵
    Cenedese E. Measurement of quality of life in pulmonary hypertension and its significance. European Respiratory Journal. 2006 Oct 1;28(4):808–15.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  129. 129.↵
    Fernandes CJ, Martins BC, Jardim CV, Ciconelli RM, Morinaga LK, Breda AP, et al. Quality of life as a prognostic marker in pulmonary arterial hypertension. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2014 Dec 30;12(1):130.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  130. 130.↵
    Davies EW, Llewellyn S, Beaudet A, Kosmas CE, Gin-Sing W, Doll HA. Elicitation of health state utilities associated with the mode of administration of drugs acting on the prostacyclin pathway in pulmonary arterial hypertension. Patient Prefer Adherence. 2018 Jun;Volume 12:1079–88.
    OpenUrl
  131. 131.↵
    Mokkink LB PCPDAJBL de VHTC. COSMIN methodology for systematic reviews of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) user manual Version 1.0 [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2024 May 30]. Available from: https://cosmin.nl/wp-content/uploads/COSMIN-syst-review-for-PROMs-manual_version-1_feb-2018.pdf
  132. 132.↵
    Feng YS, Kohlmann T, Janssen MF, Buchholz I. Psychometric properties of the EQ-5D-5L: a systematic review of the literature. Quality of Life Research. 2021 Mar 7;30(3):647–73.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  133. 133.↵
    Alagappan T. The cross-cultural adaptation process of a patient-reported outcome measure. Journal of the Scientific Society. 2023;50(1):13.
    OpenUrl
  134. 134.↵
    Foster E, Guillen A, Lara K, Oh P, Popielnicki A, Walker G, et al. Linguistic Validation of The Emphasis-10 Questionnaire: A Patient-Reported Outcome Instrument For Assessing Qol In Pulmonary Hypertension (Ph). Value in Health. 2015 Nov;18(7):A744.
    OpenUrl
  135. 135.↵
    Calvert MJ, Cruz Rivera S, Retzer A, Hughes SE, Campbell L, Molony-Oates B, et al. Patient reported outcome assessment must be inclusive and equitable. Nat Med. 2022 Jun 5;28(6):1120– 4.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  136. 136.↵
    Mair KM, Johansen AKZ, Wright AF, Wallace E, MacLean MR. Pulmonary arterial hypertension: basis of sex differences in incidence and treatment response. Br J Pharmacol. 2014 Feb 13;171(3):567–79.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  137. 137.↵
    Hays RD, Peipert JD. Between-group minimally important change versus individual treatment responders. Quality of Life Research. 2021 Oct 15;30(10):2765–72.
    OpenUrl
  138. 138.↵
    Bunclark K, Doughty N, Michael A, Abraham N, Ali S, Cannon JE, et al. A minimal clinically important difference measured by the Cambridge Pulmonary Hypertension Outcome Review for patients with idiopathic pulmonary arterial hypertension. Pulm Circ. 2021 Apr;11(2):1–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  139. 139.↵
    Swigris J, Foster B, Johnson N. Determining and reporting minimal important change for patient-reported outcome instruments in pulmonary medicine. European Respiratory Journal. 2022 Oct;60(4):2200717.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  140. 140.↵
    Devji T, Carrasco-Labra A, Qasim A, Phillips M, Johnston BC, Devasenapathy N, et al. Evaluating the credibility of anchor based estimates of minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes: instrument development and reliability study. BMJ. 2020 Jun 4;m1714.
  141. 141.↵
    Hays RD, Woolley JM. The Concept of Clinically Meaningful Difference in Health-Related Quality of Life Research. Pharmacoeconomics. 2000 Nov;18(5):419–23.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  142. 142.↵
    Kingman M, Hinzmann B, Sweet O, Vachiéry JL. Living with pulmonary hypertension: unique insights from an international ethnographic study. BMJ Open. 2014 May;4(5):e004735.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  143. 143.↵
    Hertler C, Seiler A, Gramatzki D, Schettle M, Blum D. Sex-specific and gender-specific aspects in patient-reported outcomes. ESMO Open. 2020;5:e000837.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  144. 144.↵
    F. Salaffi MCACSGWG. A comparison of utility measurements using EQ-5D and SF-6D preference-based generic instruments in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Exp Rheumatol. 2011;661– 71.
  145. 145.↵
    McKenna SP, Ratcliffe J, Meads DM, Brazier JE. Development and validation of a preference based measure derived from the Cambridge Pulmonary Hypertension Outcome Review (CAMPHOR) for use in cost utility analyses. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2008 Dec 21;6(1):65.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  146. 146.↵
    National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. NICE health technology evaluations: the manual (PMG36) [Internet]. 2022 Jan [cited 2024 Jul 15]. Available from: https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg36/resources/nice-health-technology-evaluations-the-manual-pdf-72286779244741
  147. 147.↵
    Meads DM, McKenna SP, Doughty N, Das C, Gin-Sing W, Langley J, et al. The responsiveness and validity of the CAMPHOR Utility Index. European Respiratory Journal. 2008 Dec 1;32(6):1513–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  148. 148.
    Galiè N, Müller K, Scalise AV, Grünig E. PATENT PLUS: a blinded, randomised and extension study of riociguat plus sildenafil in pulmonary arterial hypertension. European Respiratory Journal. 2015 May;45(5):1314–22.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  149. 149.
    Ghofrani HA, Galiè N, Grimminger F, Grünig E, Humbert M, Jing ZC, et al. Riociguat for the Treatment of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension. New England Journal of Medicine. 2013 Jul 25;369(4):330–40.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  150. 150.
    McLaughlin V V., Benza RL, Rubin LJ, Channick RN, Voswinckel R, Tapson VF, et al. Addition of Inhaled Treprostinil to Oral Therapy for Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010 May;55(18):1915–22.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  151. 151.
    Galiè N, Rubin L, Hoeper M, Jansa P, Al-Hiti H, Meyer G, et al. Treatment of patients with mildly symptomatic pulmonary arterial hypertension with bosentan (EARLY study): a double-blind, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. 2008 Jun;371(9630):2093–100.
    OpenUrl
  152. 152.
    Simonneau G, Rubin LJ, Galiè N, Barst RJ, Fleming TR, Frost AE, et al. Addition of sildenafil to long-term intravenous epoprostenol therapy in patients with pulmonary arterial hypertension: a randomized trial. Ann Intern Med. 2008 Oct 21;149(8):521–30.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  153. 153.
    Olschewski H, Simonneau G, Galiè N, Higenbottam T, Naeije R, Rubin LJ, et al. Inhaled Iloprost for Severe Pulmonary Hypertension. New England Journal of Medicine. 2002 Aug;347(5):322–9.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  154. 154.
    Lewis RA, Armstrong I, Bergbaum C, Brewis MJ, Cannon J, Charalampopoulos A, et al. EmPHasis-10 health-related quality of life score predicts outcomes in patients with idiopathic and connective tissue disease-associated pulmonary arterial hypertension: results from a UK multicentre study. European Respiratory Journal. 2021 Feb;57(2):2000124.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  155. 155.
    Galiè N, Olschewski H, Oudiz RJ, Torres F, Frost A, Ghofrani HA, et al. Ambrisentan for the Treatment of Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension. Circulation. 2008 Jun 10;117(23):3010–9.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  156. 156.
    EuroQol Research Foundation. EQ-5D-5L User Guide [Internet]. 2019 Sep [cited 2024 Apr 15]. Available from: https://euroqol.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/EQ-5D-5LUserguide-23-07.pdf
  157. 157.
    University of Minnesota. Living with Pulmonary Hypertension Questionnaire (LPHQ) [Internet]. 2024 [cited 2024 Aug 1]. Available from: https://license.umn.edu/product/living-with-pulmonary-hypertension-questionnaire-lphq
  158. 158.
  159. 159.
    QualityMetric. The SF-36v2® Health Survey [Internet]. 2024 [cited 2024 Aug 1]. Available from: https://www.qualitymetric.com/health-surveys/the-sf-36v2-health-survey/
  160. 160.
  161. 161.↵
    Lins L, Carvalho FM. SF-36 total score as a single measure of health-related quality of life: Scoping review. SAGE Open Med. 2016 Jan 1;4:205031211667172.
Back to top
Posted August 09, 2024.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email
Health-related quality of life in pulmonary arterial hypertension trials: a review and conceptual map
Frances Varian, Rebecca Burney, Charlotte Pearson, Ze Ming Goh, Joseph Newman, Gregg Rawlings, Hamza Zafar, David G Kiely, AA Roger Thompson, Robin Condliffe, Mark Toshner, Ciara McCormack, Iain Armstrong, Tessa Peasgood, Jill Carlton, Alex Rothman
medRxiv 2024.08.09.24311740; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.08.09.24311740
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area