Journal
JAMA NETWORK OPEN
Volume 3, Issue 4, Pages -Publisher
AMER MEDICAL ASSOC
DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.3767
Keywords
-
Categories
Funding
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research
- Canadian Stroke Trials for Optimized Results
- Medical Student Research Scholarship from the American Academy of Neurology
- Heart and Stroke Foundation of Canada
- Michael Smith Foundation for Health Research
- Vancouver Coastal Health Research Institute
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Question Is a preexisting health utility-weighted outcome scale suitable for use in a clinical trial, or is a study-specific approach more appropriate? Findings Among 24 studies including 22 389 individuals, this systematic review and meta-analysis found statistically significant between-study differences for studies reporting utility weighting of the modified Rankin Scale. When applied to the results of major acute stroke trials, different study-specific utility weights led to instability of the primary outcome in some cases. Meaning Utility weighting and its interpretation vary based on both the scale used for weighting and the study cohort; furthermore, the choice of utility-weighted outcome scale may alter a trial's outcome. Importance The utility-weighted modified Rankin Scale (UW-mRS) has been proposed as a patient-centered alternative primary outcome for stroke clinical trials. However, to date, there is no clear consensus on an approach to weighting the mRS. Objective To characterize the between-study variability in utility weighting of the mRS in a population of patients who experienced stroke and its implications when applied to the results of a clinical trial. Data Sources In this systematic review and meta-analysis, MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO were searched from January 1987 through May 2019 using major search terms for stroke, health utility, and mRS. Study Selection Original research articles published in English were reviewed. Included were studies with participants 18 years or older with ischemic or hemorrhagic stroke, transient ischemic attack, or subarachnoid hemorrhage, with mRS scores and utility weights evaluated concurrently. A total of 5725 unique articles were identified. Of these, 283 met criteria for full-text review, and 24 were included in the meta-analysis. Data Extraction and Synthesis PRISMA guidelines for systematic review were followed. Data extraction was performed independently by multiple researchers. Data were pooled using mixed models. Main Outcomes and Measures The mean utility weights and 95% CIs were calculated for each mRS score and health utility scale. Geographic differences in weighting for the EuroQoL 5-dimension (EQ-5D) and Stroke Impact Scale-based UW-mRS were explored using inverse variance-weighted linear models. The results of 18 major acute stroke trials cited in current guidelines were then reanalyzed using the UW-mRS weighting scales identified in the systematic review. Results The meta-analysis included 22 389 individuals; the mean (SD) age of participants was 65.9 (4.0) years, and the mean (SD) proportion of male participants was 58.2% (7.5%). For all health utility scales evaluated, statistically significant differences were observed between the mean utility weights by mRS score. For studies using an EQ-5D-weighted mRS, between-study variance was higher for worse (mRS 2-5) compared with better (mRS 0-1) scores. Of the 18 major acute stroke trials with reanalyzed results, 3 had an unstable outcome when using different UW-mRSs. Conclusions and Relevance Multiple factors, including cohort-specific characteristics and health utility scale selection, can influence mRS utility weighting. If the UW-mRS is selected as a primary outcome, the approach to weighting may alter the results of a clinical trial. Researchers using the UW-mRS should prospectively and concurrently obtain mRS scores and utility weights to characterize study-specific outcomes. This systematic review and meta-analysis characterizes the between-study variability in health utility weighting of the modified Rankin Scale in a population of patients with stroke and its implications when applied to the results of a clinical trial.
Authors
I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.
Reviews
Recommended
No Data Available