4.4 Article

Fear of hypoglycaemia: defining a minimum clinically important difference in patients with type 2 diabetes

Journal

HEALTH AND QUALITY OF LIFE OUTCOMES
Volume 7, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1477-7525-7-91

Keywords

-

Funding

  1. Merck Co., Inc
  2. Abbott Diabetes Care
  3. Abbott Labs. KJK

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: To explore the concept of the Minimum Clinically Important Difference (MID) of the Worry Scale of the Hypoglycaemia Fear Survey (HFS-II) and to quantify the clinical importance of different types of patient-reported hypoglycaemia. Methods: An observational study was conducted in Germany with 392 patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with combinations of oral anti-hyperglycaemic agents. Patients completed the HFS-II, the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM), and reported on severity of hypoglycaemia. Distribution-and anchor-based methods were used to determine MID. In turn, MID was used to determine if hypoglycaemia with or without need for assistance was clinically meaningful compared to having had no hypoglycaemia. Results: 112 patients (28.6%) reported hypoglycaemic episodes, with 15 patients (3.8%) reporting episodes that required assistance from others. Distribution-and anchor-based methods resulted in MID between 2.0 and 5.8 and 3.6 and 3.9 for the HFS-II, respectively. Patients who reported hypoglycaemia with (21.6) and without (12.1) need for assistance scored higher on the HFS-II (range 0 to 72) than patients who did not report hypoglycaemia (6.0). Conclusion: We provide MID for HFS-II. Our findings indicate that the differences between having reported no hypoglycaemia, hypoglycaemia without need for assistance, and hypoglycaemia with need for assistance appear to be clinically important in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus treated with oral anti-hyperglycaemic agents.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available