Patient-reported outcomes measures and patient preferences for minimally invasive glaucoma surgical devices

• Published in: Eye (London) Vol. 34; no. 1; pp. 205 - 210
• Main Authors: Li, Tianjing, Le, Jimmy T., Hays, Ronald D., Cui, Qi N., Eydelman, Malvina, Spaeth, George, Tarver, Michelle E., Singh, Kuldev
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London Nature Publishing Group UK 01-01-2020; Nature Publishing Group
• Subjects: 692/308/409; 692/699/3161/3169/3170; Glaucoma; Glaucoma - surgery; Humans; Intraocular Pressure; Laboratory Medicine; Medicine; Medicine & Public Health; Ophthalmology; Patient Preference; Patient Reported Outcome Measures; Patients; Pharmaceutical Sciences/Technology; Preferences; Reproducibility of Results; Surgery; Surgical Oncology
• ISSN: 0950-222X; 1476-5454
• DOI: 10.1038/s41433-019-0676-8

Background
Many therapeutic options are available to glaucoma patients. One recent therapeutic option is minimally invasive glaucoma surgical (MIGS) devices. It is unclear how patients view different treatments and which patient-reported outcomes would be most relevant in patients with mild to moderate glaucoma. We developed a questionnaire for patients eligible for MIGS devices and a patient preference study to examine the value patients place on certain outcomes associated with glaucoma and its therapies.
Objectives
To summarize the progress to date.
Methods
Questionnaire development:
We drafted the questionnaire items based on input from one physician and four patient focus groups, and a review of the literature. We tested item clarity with six cognitive interviews. These items were further refined.
Patient preference study:
We identified important benefit and risk outcomes qualitatively using semi-structured, one-on-one interviews with patients who were eligible for MIGS devices. We then prioritized these outcomes quantitatively using best-worst scaling methods.
Results
Questionnaire testing
: Three concepts were deemed relevant for the questionnaire: functional limitations, symptoms, and psychosocial factors. We will evaluate the reliability and validity of the 52-item draft questionnaire in an upcoming field test.
Patient preference study:
We identified 13 outcomes that participants perceived as important. Outcomes with the largest relative importance weights were “adequate IOP control” and “drive a car during the day.”
Conclusions
Patients have the potential to steer clinical research towards outcomes that are important to them. Incorporating patients’ perspectives into the MIGS device development and evaluation process may expedite innovation and availability of these devices.