Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2024 Jun;33(6):1527-1540.
doi: 10.1007/s11136-024-03622-2. Epub 2024 Apr 5.

Minimal clinically important differences in health-related quality of life after treatment with direct-acting antivirals for chronic hepatitis C: ANRS CO22 HEPATHER cohort (PROQOL-HCV)

Mourad Abbas  1 , Carrieri Patrizia  2   3 , Marcellin Fabienne  1 , Bourliere Marc  4 , Parlati Lucia  5   6 , Carrat Fabrice  7 , Duracinsky Martin  8 , Protopopescu Camelia  1
Affiliations

Minimal clinically important differences in health-related quality of life after treatment with direct-acting antivirals for chronic hepatitis C: ANRS CO22 HEPATHER cohort (PROQOL-HCV)

Mourad Abbas et al. Qual Life Res. 2024 Jun.

Abstract

Purpose: Patient Reported Outcomes Quality of Life survey for HCV (PROQOL-HCV) is a specific tool developed to assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with chronic hepatitis C receiving direct-acting antivirals (DAA). Thresholds for clinically meaningful changes in PROQOL-HCV scores should be documented to improve the tool's use in clinical practice. This study aimed to estimate the minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) in PROQOL-HCV scores before and after HCV cure by DAA among participants in the prospective cohort ANRS-CO22 HEPATHER.

Methods: Data from 460 chronic HCV patients were collected at DAA initiation (baseline) and 24 weeks after treatment end. MCIDs were estimated for the six HRQoL dimensions (Physical Health (PH), Emotional Health (EH), Future Uncertainty (FU), Intimate Relationships (IR), Social Health (SH), and Cognitive Functioning (CF)) using two approaches: anchor-based and score distribution-based. Each MCID was estimated for improvement/deterioration both globally and separately for patients with a baseline PRQoL-HCV score ≤ 50 (group1) and patients with a baseline PRQoL-HCV score > 50 (group2).

Results: The pooled MCIDs for improvement/deterioration globally, in group1, and in group2, respectively, were as follows: 8.8/- 7.6, 9.7/- 9.5, and 6.0/- 6.9 for PH; 7.1/- 4.6, 7.7/- 9.6, and 6.6/- 6.7 for EH; 6.7/- 6.7, 8.2/- 8.2, and 6.0/- 6.0 for FU; 7.0/- 7.0, 5.4/- 5.4, and 6.2/- 6.2 for IR; 7.7/- 7.7, 8.6/- 8.6, and 6.5/- 6.5 for SH; 7.3/- 5.6, 9.1/- 8.0, and 6.5/- 6.3 for CF.

Conclusions: The overall MCID for the PROQOL-HCV scores ranged from 6.7 to 8.8 for improvement and from - 7.7 to - 4.6 for deterioration. The effect of DAA on PROQOL-HCV scores seemed particularly beneficial for patients with lower baseline scores. This subgroup could be motivated to take DAA if they are informed of the benefits for their HRQoL.

Keywords: Anchor-based methods; Distribution-based methods; Health-related quality of life; Hepatitis C virus; Minimal clinically important difference; Patient-reported outcomes.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Marcellin, F., Roux, P., Protopopescu, C., Duracinsky, M., Spire, B., & Carrieri, M. P. (2017). Patient-reported outcomes with direct-acting antivirals for the treatment of chronic hepatitis C: Current knowledge and outstanding issues. Expert Review of Gastroenterology & Hepatology, 11(3), 259–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/17474124.2017.1285227 - DOI
    1. Younossi, Z. M., et al. (2014). Patient-reported outcomes assessment in chronic hepatitis C treated with sofosbuvir and ribavirin: The VALENCE study. Journal of Hepatology, 61(2), 228–234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhep.2014.04.003 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Osoba, D., Rodrigues, G., Myles, J., Zee, B., & Pater, J. (1998). Interpreting the significance of changes in health-related quality-of-life scores. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 16(1), 139–144. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.1998.16.1.139 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Jaeschke, R., Singer, J., & Guyatt, G. H. (1989). Measurement of health status. Ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Controlled Clinical Trials, 10(4), 407–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/0197-2456(89)90005-6 - DOI - PubMed
    1. King, M. T. (2011). A point of minimal important difference (MID): A critique of terminology and methods. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 11(2), 171–184. https://doi.org/10.1586/erp.11.9 - DOI

Substances

LinkOut - more resources