Measurement of Health-Related Quality of Life in the National Emphysema Treatment Trial

Robert M. Kaplan, PhD; Andrew L. Ries, MD, MPH, FCCP; John Reilly, MD; and Zab Mohsenifar, MD, FCCP

Disclosures

CHEST. 2004;126(3) 

In This Article

Discussion

There are very few published studies that have evaluated QOL measures for patients with advanced lung disease. Similarly, there are limited data on the impact of interventions on various lung-related QOL parameters. The NETT has provided the opportunity to study a large number of emphysema patients in a detailed manner. Disease-specific and general measures were included to elucidate any possible effect of surgery and pulmonary rehabilitation.

The disease-specific and general QOL measures used in the NETT are modestly correlated. These findings confirm those of previous reports[27] identifying relationships among QOL measures. Preliminary evidence from the NETT has suggested that QOL measures improve following pulmonary rehabilitation. Although the QOL changes following rehabilitation were small, they may be clinically meaningful. A change in the QWB-SA of 0.04 U, for example, if maintained for 1 year, would produce the equivalent of about 1 year of life for every 25 patients treated. Although some studies[28] have failed to find changes in QOL measures following rehabilitation, other studies[29,30] have confirmed improvements in QOL measures following pulmonary rehabilitation. The generic measures used in this study had low, but statistically significant, correlations with physiologic and functional measures. Other studies[31] have shown that disease-specific measures are more highly correlated with FEV1. In terms of responsiveness to clinical change, the disease-specific measures performed only slightly better than the generic measures.

This analysis confirms the findings of previous studies[32] suggesting that there are QOL benefits for pulmonary rehabilitation. In the NETT study, FEV1 changed only very slightly during the rehabilitation phase (about 0.01 L). The results are also consistent with studies that have failed to show changes in pulmonary function measures following rehabilitation[28] and with studies that have found low, but statistically significant, correlations between QOL and physiologic measures.[33]

Although the QOL measures in the NETT were modestly correlated with one another, each has a specific purpose. Disease-specific measures, such as the SOBQ and SGRQ, may be more sensitive to clinical improvement following pulmonary rehabilitation. However, evidence from the NETT indicates that general measures also detect significant clinical change following rehabilitation. Thus, we did not find clear evidence that disease-specific measures were significantly more responsive to clinical change. General measures have some advantages because they allow comparisons with other benchmarks. For example, the impact of COPD can be compared with the impact of other chronic diseases. Patients in the NETT, for example, had lower QWB scores than patients in other clinical trials of rehabilitation. NETT patients were comparable to patients with macular degeneration in terms of QOL.[34] Their QOL was higher than patients with Alzheimer disease.[21] These comparisons cannot be made with disease-specific measures. Further, utility-based QOL measures are required for analyzing the cost-effectiveness of complex treatments.[35] Because a utility-based measure was used in the NETT, it was possible to show that LVRS produces a quality-adjusted life-year for $190,000, when considered at 3 years, and $98,000 for a subgroup with predominantly upper lobe emphysema and lower exercise capacity at baseline.[10,36]These results contributed to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services decision to reimburse selected centers for LVRS. Finally, generic measures may capture unanticipated negative consequences of treatment.

In summary, the NETT offers an unusual opportunity to evaluate outcomes for patients with COPD. Evidence from the prerandomization phase of the trial suggests that the measurement of QOL is feasible, and that generic and disease-specific measures are associated with each other and with clinical changes following pulmonary rehabilitation. Furthermore, there are modest associations among QOL measures and measures of disease severity such as FEV1 and 6MWD. We concluded that QOL measures are meaningful indicators of outcome in clinical trials for patients with COPD. Disease-specific measures may be slightly more sensitive to clinical change, although the responsiveness of the generic measures was comparable in these analyses. On the basis of these evaluations, we recommend either the SGRQ or the SOBQ as COPD-specific outcome measures. The SF-36 is the preferred generic measure for studies requiring a profile of health outcomes, while the QWB-SA is recommended for studies considering companion cost-effectiveness.

Comments

3090D553-9492-4563-8681-AD288FA52ACE
Comments on Medscape are moderated and should be professional in tone and on topic. You must declare any conflicts of interest related to your comments and responses. Please see our Commenting Guide for further information. We reserve the right to remove posts at our sole discretion.

processing....