Individual patient monitoring in daily clinical practice: a critical evaluation of minimal important change
In daily practice, physicians translate knowledge from clinical trials to practice, to improve health in individual patients. To help interpret meaningful change on disease outcome measures, the concept of minimal important change (MIC) was conceived. The objective of this study was to investigate whether MIC values are suited for individual patient monitoring.
Three main elements of the MIC concept were evaluated: (1) MIC values for improvement and deterioration were determined, and the amount of misclassification present in quantifying minimal change was analyzed. (2) Discordance between change categories (improved, unchanged, deteriorated), defined by the MIC values, and patients’ satisfaction with their health was inspected. (3) Discordance between change categories, defined by MIC values, and patients’ willingness to alter therapy was inspected.
MIC value analysis was based on 469 patients with RA seen in daily practice. The chance of falsely classifying health change of an individual patient was high (false-positive range 19–30 % and false-negative range 43–72 %). Of patients classified as improved, 24 % were not satisfied with their health and 69 % were not willing to change therapy. Of patients classified as deteriorated, 54 % were satisfied with their health and 57 % were not willing to change therapy.
The misclassification in the quantification of change and high proportions of discordance between change categories defined by MIC cutoff values and patients’ satisfaction and willingness to alter therapy indicate that MIC values as such are not suited for individual patient monitoring.
KeywordsPersonalized care Outcome assessment Psychometrics Clinimetrics Satisfaction Rheumatoid arthritis
The authors thank the following people for their help in recruiting patients and ensuring excellent data management: Joke Alberts-Pijnenborg, Erik Brummelkamp, Thea van Gaalen, Rienke Korver, Marion de Lange-Brandt, Lia Schalkwijk, Diana van Tuijl, Inge Verhagen-Stolk and Carine Vogel.
For this study, patients were required to fill out a one page questionnaire before their outpatient clinic visit. Data of these questionnaires were combined with data from a daily practice registry and were only used for research purposes. This type of study is classified as a non-invasive, observational study with a negligible risk and low respondent burden. According to Dutch legal and medical ethical standards, approval of an ethics committee is not required for this type of study and was therefore not obtained. All patients were informed by a specialized rheumatology nurse about the aim and duration of the study and the requirements for participants prior to their inclusion. All participants were free to revoke their participation in the study at any time and without notice of a reason. All data disclosing the identity of subjects were removed before analysis.
- 2.Ferreira, M. L., Herbert, R. D., Ferreira, P. H., Latimer, J., Ostelo, R. W., Nascimento, D. P., et al. (2012). A critical review of methods used to determine the smallest worthwhile effect of interventions for low back pain. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 65(3), 253–261.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 7.Tubach, F., Ravaud, P., Beaton, D., Boers, M., Bombardier, C., Felson, D. T., et al. (2007). Minimal clinically important improvement and patient acceptable symptom state for subjective outcome measures in rheumatic disorders. Journal of Rheumatology, 34(5), 1188–1193.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 10.Curtis, J. R., Shan, Y., Harrold, L., Zhang, J., Greenberg, J. D., & Reed, G. W. (2013). Patient perspectives on achieving treat-to-target goals: A critical examination of patient-reported outcomes. Arthritis Care & Research, 65(10), 1707–1712.Google Scholar
- 13.van Hulst, L. T., Kievit, W., van Bommel, R., van Riel, P. L., & Fraenkel, L. (2011). Rheumatoid arthritis patients and rheumatologists approach the decision to escalate care differently: Results of a maximum difference scaling experiment. Arthritis Care & Research, 63(10), 1407–1414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Wyrwich, K. W., Norquist, J. M., Lenderking, W. R., Acaster, S., & Industry Advisory Committee of International Society for Quality of Life, R. (2013). Methods for interpreting change over time in patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research, 22(3), 475–483.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 25.DREAM. (2013). Retrieved 2013 May 3, from www.dreamregistry.nl.
- 26.Smolen, J. S., Landewe, R., Breedveld, F. C., Buch, M., Burmester, G., Dougados, M., et al. (2014). EULAR recommendations for the management of rheumatoid arthritis with synthetic and biological disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs: 2013 update. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 73(3), 492–509.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 29.Rouquette, A., Blanchin, M., Sebille, V., Guillemin, F., Cote, S. M., Falissard, B., et al. (2014). The minimal clinically important difference determined using item response theory models: an attempt to solve the issue of the association with baseline score. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(4), 433–440.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 31.Perrot, S., & Bertin, P. (2013). “Feeling better” or “feeling well” in usual care of hip and knee osteoarthritis pain: Determination of cutoff points for patient acceptable symptom state (PASS) and minimal clinically important improvement (MCII) at rest and on movement in a national multicenter cohort study of 2414 patients with painful osteoarthritis. Pain, 154(2), 248–256.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 33.DAS28.nl. (2013). Retrieved 2013 May 3, from http://www.das28.nl.
- 34.Anderson, J. K., Zimmerman, L., Caplan, L., & Michaud, K. (2011). Measures of rheumatoid arthritis disease activity: Patient (PtGA) and Provider (PrGA) Global Assessment of Disease Activity, Disease Activity Score (DAS) and Disease Activity Score with 28-Joint Counts (DAS28), Simplified Disease Activity Index (SDAI), Clinical Disease Activity Index (CDAI), Patient Activity Score (PAS) and Patient Activity Score-II (PASII), Routine Assessment of Patient Index Data (RAPID), Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity Index (RADAI) and Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity Index-5 (RADAI-5), Chronic Arthritis Systemic Index (CASI), Patient-Based Disease Activity Score With ESR (PDAS1) and Patient-Based Disease Activity Score without ESR (PDAS2), and Mean Overall Index for Rheumatoid Arthritis (MOI-RA). Arthritis Care & Research, 63(Suppl 11), S14–S36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 35.Association of Rheumatology Health Professionals Outcomes Measures Task, F. (2003). Patient outcomes in rheumatology. A review of measures. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 49(5 Suppl), S1–S232.Google Scholar
- 42.Maxwell, J. L., Felson, D. T., Niu, J., Wise, B., Nevitt, M. C., Singh, J. A., et al. (2014). Does clinically important change in function after knee replacement guarantee good absolute function? The multicenter osteoarthritis study. Journal of Rheumatology, 41(1), 60–64.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 44.Ward, M. M., Guthrie, L. C., & Alba, M. I. (2014). Clinically important changes in individual and composite measures of rheumatoid arthritis activity: Thresholds applicable in clinical trials. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases. doi: 10.1136/annrheumdis-2013-205079.
- 45.Dougados, M., Brault, Y., Logeart, I., van der Heijde, D., Gossec, L., & Kvien, T. (2012). Defining cut-off values for disease activity states and improvement scores for patient-reported outcomes: The example of the Rheumatoid Arthritis Impact of Disease (RAID). Arthritis Research & Therapy, 14(3), R129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 46.Kvamme, M. K., Kristiansen, I. S., Lie, E., & Kvien, T. K. (2010). Identification of cutpoints for acceptable health status and important improvement in patient-reported outcomes, in rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis. Journal of Rheumatology, 37(1), 26–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 47.Cheung, Y. T., Foo, Y. L., Shwe, M., Tan, Y. P., Fan, G., Yong, W. S., et al. (2014). Minimal clinically important difference (MCID) for the functional assessment of cancer therapy: Cognitive function (FACT-Cog) in breast cancer patients. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67(7), 811–820.Google Scholar
- 49.Heidemann, C. H., Godballe, C., Kjeldsen, A. D., Johansen, E. C. J., Faber, C. E., & Lauridsen, H. H. (2013). The Otitis Media-6 questionnaire: Psychometric properties with emphasis on factor structure and interpretability. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 11, 201.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 50.Holland, A. E., Hill, C. J., Rasekaba, T., Lee, A., Naughton, M. T., & McDonald, C. F. (2010). Updating the minimal important difference for six-minute walk distance in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 91(2), 221–225.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 51.Johnsen, L. G., Hellum, C., Nygaard, O. P., Storheim, K., Brox, J. I., Rossvoll, I., et al. (2013). Comparison of the SF6D, the EQ5D, and the oswestry disability index in patients with chronic low back pain and degenerative disc disease. BMC Musculoskeletal Disorders, 14, 148.CrossRefPubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 53.Kon, S. S., Dilaver, D., Mittal, M., Nolan, C. M., Clark, A. L., Canavan, J. L., et al. (2013). The Clinical COPD Questionnaire: Response to pulmonary rehabilitation and minimal clinically important difference. Thorax.Google Scholar
- 60.Kamper, S. J., Ostelo, R. W., Knol, D. L., Maher, C. G., de Vet, H. C., & Hancock, M. J. (2010). Global Perceived Effect scales provided reliable assessments of health transition in people with musculoskeletal disorders, but ratings are strongly influenced by current status. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 63(7), 760–766.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 73.Strand, V., Boers, M., Idzerda, L., Kirwan, J. R., Kvien, T. K., Tugwell, P. S., et al. (2011). It’s good to feel better but it’s better to feel good and even better to feel good as soon as possible for as long as possible. Response criteria and the importance of change at OMERACT 10. Journal of Rheumatology, 38(8), 1720–1727.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 75.Heiberg, T., Kvien, T. K., Mowinckel, P., Aletaha, D., Smolen, J. S., & Hagen, K. B. (2008). Identification of disease activity and health status cut-off points for the symptom state acceptable to patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, 67(7), 967–971.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar