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
. 2025 Jun 19;65(6):2500198.
doi: 10.1183/13993003.00198-2025. Print 2025 Jun.

Comparability, acceptability and longitudinal adherence with digital emPHasis-10 in pulmonary arterial hypertension

Joseph Newman  1   2   3 , Frances Varian  4   5   3 , Felicity Hitchcock  4   5 , Rebecca Burney  4   5 , Gregg Harry Rawlings  6 , John Harrington  5 , Ze Ming Goh  4   5 , Jenna Ablott  5 , David G Kiely  4   5 , Iain Armstrong  4   5   7 , A A Roger Thompson  4   5 , Jill Carlton  8 , Elin Haf Davies  9 ; National Cohort Study of Pulmonary Hypertension Collaboration, UniPHy Clinical Trials Network; Alexander Rothman  4   5   10 , Mark Toshner  11   2   10
Affiliations

Comparability, acceptability and longitudinal adherence with digital emPHasis-10 in pulmonary arterial hypertension

Joseph Newman et al. Eur Respir J. .

Abstract

Digital emPHasis-10 is an app-based patient-reported outcome measure for trial or clinical use by patients with pulmonary hypertension. This letter demonstrates this novel tool's validity, longer-term adherence and high acceptability scores from patients. https://bit.ly/4lZiXkE

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Conflict of interest: D.G. Kiely and I. Armstrong were involved in the derivation of EmPHasis-10, and E.H. Davies is an employee of Aparito Ltd; these authors contributed to reviewing the manuscript, but statistical analysis was performed independently by J. Newman and F. Varian. J. Newman reports support for the present study from British Heart Foundation, and grants from Aparito Ltd and United Therapeutics. F. Varian has received educational funding from Janssen and is a Medical Research Council (UK) clinical fellow. D.G. Kiely reports grants from NIHR Biomedical Research Centre Sheffield, Ferrer, GSK and Janssen, and consulting fees from Acceleron, Altivant, Ferrer, Gossamer, Janssen, MSD and United Therapeutics. A.A.R. Thompson reports research funding from Heart Research UK, Janssen-Cilang Ltd and British Heart Foundation, and honoraria from Janssen-Cilad Ltd for lectures and education. A. Rothman reports support for the present study from Wellcome Trust Clinical Research Career Development Fellowship, EPSRC, Medical Research Council (UK) Experimental Medicine Award, BHF Clinical Research Training Fellowship and NIHR Biomedical Research Centre Sheffield, consulting fees from NXT Biomedical, Endotronix Inc., SoniVie, Neptune and Gradient, and receipt of equipment, materials, drugs, medical writing, gifts or other services from Medtronic Inc., Abbott Laboratories, Endotronix Inc., Novartis, Janssen and Merck. M. Toshner reports support for the present study from NIHR Biomedical Research Centre Cambridge and NIHR HTA, and grants from GSK and Jansen. The remaining authors report no competing interests.

Figures

FIGURE 1
FIGURE 1
a) Bland–Altman plot showing the level of agreement between digital and paper-based emPHasis-10. For reference, 50 is the maximum possible emPHasis-10 score. b) Plot of patient adherence with digital emPHasis-10 each fortnight for 6 months. c) Heatmap showing the percentage of patients who agree with each of the key usability/acceptability themes from the modified UTAUT (Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology) survey. MCID: minimal clinically important difference.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Humbert M, Kovacs G, Hoeper MM, et al. 2022 ESC/ERS Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of pulmonary hypertension. Eur Respir J 2023; 61: 2200879. doi: 10.1183/13993003.00879-2022 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Varian F, Burney R, Pearson C, et al. Selection of patient-reported outcome measures in pulmonary arterial hypertension clinical trials: a systematic review, meta-analysis and health-related quality of life framework. Eur Respir Rev 2025; 34: 250006. doi: 10.1183/16000617.0006-2025 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Yorke J, Corris P, Gaine S, et al. emPHasis-10: development of a health-related quality of life measure in pulmonary hypertension. Eur Respir J 2014; 43: 1106–1113. doi: 10.1183/09031936.00127113 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Rose SW, Highland KB, Kelkar AA. Clinical utility of patient-reported outcome instruments in the management of pulmonary hypertension: a systematic review. JACC Heart Fail 2024; 12: 366–376. doi: 10.1016/j.jchf.2023.09.008 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Aiyegbusi OL, Davies EH, Myles P, et al. Digitally enabled decentralised research: opportunities to improve the efficiency of clinical trials and observational studies. BMJ Evid Based Med 2023; 28: 328–331. doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112253 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources