Establishing Minimally Clinically Important Differences for the Orthostatic Hypotension Questionnaire (OHQ)
Kaufmann, H.; Palma, J.-A.; Vickery, R.; Norcliffe-Kaufmann, L.; Zheng, B.; Lewin, D.; Guerin, T.
Show abstract
PurposeEstablish the minimally clinically important difference (MCID) for the Orthostatic Hypotension Questionnaire (OHQ). BackgroundNeurogenic orthostatic hypotension (nOH) causes disabling symptoms that impair daily function and quality of life. The OHQ is a validated patient reported outcome with a symptom assessment (OHSA) and daily activity scale (OHDAS), widely used in clinical trials, despite the MCID being unestablished. MethodsWe analyzed data from two phase 3, randomized placebo-controlled trials (SEQUOIA and REDWOOD), evaluating ampreloxetine for symptomatic nOH in patients with Parkinson disease, multiple system atrophy, and pure autonomic failure. Using anchor-based and distribution-based methods, we calculated the MCID for the total OHQ score, OHSA and OHDAS composite subscales, and for the single dizziness/lightheadedness question (OHSA1). ResultsThe analysis included 184 subjects from SEQUOIA and 128 from REDWOOD. The total OHQ MCID for improvement was a reduction of 0.9 to 1.2 points and for worsening was an increase of 0.7 to 1.1 points. The MCID for the OHSA composite ranged from a reduction of 0.9 to 1.3 points for improvement and an increase of 0.7 to 1.1 points for worsening. For the single item OHSA1, the MCID was a reduction of 2.0 to 3.0 points for improvement and an increase of 1.0 point for worsening. Due to poor correlation with the symptom-based anchors, a reliable MCID for the OHDAS component was not established. ConclusionThese MCID thresholds for the OHQ, OHSA and OHSA item 1 alone, enhance the interpretability of scores and support their use in evaluating clinical benefit.
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Connecting real-world digital mobility assessment to clinical outcomes for regulatory and clinical endorsement – the Mobilise-D study protocol 92%
- Self-reported health, neuropsychological tests and biomarkers in fully recovered COVID-19 patients vs patients with post-COVID cognitive symptoms: a pilot study 92%
- Can a specific biobehavioral based therapeutic education program lead to changes in pain perception and brain plasticity biomarkers in chronic pain patients? A study protocol for a randomized clinical trial 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Assessment of the Reliability, Responsiveness, and Meaningfulness of the Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA) for Lysosomal Storage Disorders 96%
- Acetyl-L-leucine for Niemann-Pick type C – a multi-national, rater-blinded phase II trial 94%
- Coffee, smoking and aspirin are associated with age at onset and clinical severity in idiopathic Parkinson’s disease 90%
Similar papers in this journal
- Factors Impacting Quality of Life in Multiple System Atrophy 95%
- A Phase II study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of prasinezumab in early Parkinson’s disease (PASADENA): rationale, design and baseline data 91%
- Preliminary outcomes of combined treadmill and overground high-intensity interval training in ambulatory chronic stroke 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Timely referral for advanced therapy in Parkinson’s disease. Development of a screening tool 93%
- A Pilot Interventional Study on Feasibility and Effectiveness of the CUE1 device in Parkinson’s disease 92%
- Online unsupervised performance-based cognitive testing: a feasible and reliable approach to scalable cognitive phenotyping of Parkinson’s patients 91%
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.