TY - JOUR
T1 - Development and Validation of a Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement for Symptom Assessment in Cirrhotic Ascites
AU - Neijenhuis, Myrte
AU - Gevers, Tom J.G.
AU - Atwell, Thomas D.
AU - Gunneson, Tim J.
AU - Schimek, Amanda C.
AU - Kievit, Wietske
AU - Drenth, Joost P.H.
AU - Kamath, Patrick S.
N1 - Funding Information:
This publication was funded by the Mayo Clinic CTSA through grant number UL1 RR024150 from the National Center for Research Resources (NCRR), a component of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Th is funding source had no role in the design, execution, analyses, interpretation, or decision to submit the results of this study.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2018 by the American College of Gastroenterology.
PY - 2018/4/1
Y1 - 2018/4/1
N2 - Objectives: As current treatments of cirrhotic ascites are not associated with survival benefit, symptom relief is the major therapeutic end point. We developed a questionnaire (Ascites-Q; modified polycystic liver disease questionnaire) and assessed validity and responsiveness for symptom assessment in cirrhotic ascites. Methods: Ascites-Q was compared with Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Ascites Index (FACIT-AI; developed for malignant ascites) and Japanese Ascites Symptom Inventory-7 (ASI-7) in cirrhotics undergoing large-volume paracentesis. Convergent validity was defined as correlation >0.4 between ascites questionnaires and quality of life (QoL) visual analog scale. Responsiveness was assessed by comparing scores at baseline and 7 days after large-volume paracentesis. To test discriminative ability, we compared scores of patients with cirrhotic controls without ascites (n=24) and diuretic-sensitive ascites (n=46). Results: We included 90 patients with refractory cirrhotic ascites (61% male, mean age 59 years, Model of End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score 16, median paracentesis volume 4,100 ml). Higher symptoms scores were correlated with lower QoL (Ascites-Q: r=0.479, P<0.001, FACIT-AI: r=0.313, P=0.007; ASI-7: r=0.340, P=0.004), but only Ascites-Q showed convergent validity (r>0.4). Symptoms decreased after paracentesis (Ascites-Q: 57 to 34, FACIT-AI: 44 to 33, and ASI-7: 57 to 25, all P<0.001). Ascites-Q and ASI-7 discriminated between controls without ascites, diuretic-sensitive, and refractory ascites (Ascites-Q: 16 vs. 35 vs. 56 points, ASI-7: 2 vs. 25 vs. 61 points, all P<0.05), whereas FACIT-AI (39 vs. 40 vs. 52 points) could not (P=0.314). Ascites-Q was validated at 3 months in an independent cohort with ascites controlled with a pump. Conclusions: The Ascites-Q is the best ascites-specific outcome to evaluate symptom relief in cirrhotic ascites.
AB - Objectives: As current treatments of cirrhotic ascites are not associated with survival benefit, symptom relief is the major therapeutic end point. We developed a questionnaire (Ascites-Q; modified polycystic liver disease questionnaire) and assessed validity and responsiveness for symptom assessment in cirrhotic ascites. Methods: Ascites-Q was compared with Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Ascites Index (FACIT-AI; developed for malignant ascites) and Japanese Ascites Symptom Inventory-7 (ASI-7) in cirrhotics undergoing large-volume paracentesis. Convergent validity was defined as correlation >0.4 between ascites questionnaires and quality of life (QoL) visual analog scale. Responsiveness was assessed by comparing scores at baseline and 7 days after large-volume paracentesis. To test discriminative ability, we compared scores of patients with cirrhotic controls without ascites (n=24) and diuretic-sensitive ascites (n=46). Results: We included 90 patients with refractory cirrhotic ascites (61% male, mean age 59 years, Model of End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score 16, median paracentesis volume 4,100 ml). Higher symptoms scores were correlated with lower QoL (Ascites-Q: r=0.479, P<0.001, FACIT-AI: r=0.313, P=0.007; ASI-7: r=0.340, P=0.004), but only Ascites-Q showed convergent validity (r>0.4). Symptoms decreased after paracentesis (Ascites-Q: 57 to 34, FACIT-AI: 44 to 33, and ASI-7: 57 to 25, all P<0.001). Ascites-Q and ASI-7 discriminated between controls without ascites, diuretic-sensitive, and refractory ascites (Ascites-Q: 16 vs. 35 vs. 56 points, ASI-7: 2 vs. 25 vs. 61 points, all P<0.05), whereas FACIT-AI (39 vs. 40 vs. 52 points) could not (P=0.314). Ascites-Q was validated at 3 months in an independent cohort with ascites controlled with a pump. Conclusions: The Ascites-Q is the best ascites-specific outcome to evaluate symptom relief in cirrhotic ascites.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85044822676&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85044822676&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1038/ajg.2018.18
DO - 10.1038/ajg.2018.18
M3 - Article
C2 - 29557942
AN - SCOPUS:85044822676
SN - 0002-9270
VL - 113
SP - 567
EP - 575
JO - American Journal of Gastroenterology
JF - American Journal of Gastroenterology
IS - 4
ER -