Abstract:Abstract BACKGROUND AND AIMS Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) is a key outcome in dialysis as it stands at the vertex of the outcomes pyramid. The Kidney Disease Quality of Life (KDQOLTM-36) questionnaire has been specifically developed for patients affected by kidney disease and it combines both generic and disease-specific scales capturing unique facets of patients’ adaptation to the physical and mental burden of renal disease and dialysis treatment. We sought to evaluate the association between HRQOL scores and the prevalence of adverse outcomes such as mortality and hospitalization events among prevalent dialysis patients. METHOD This is a retrospective, observational analysis of patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) collected in NephroCare clinics in Spain in 2019. Clinical and socio-demographic patients’ information were abstracted from EuCliD® (the European Clinical Database) and merged to PROMs HRQOL was assessed by KDQOLTM-36 questionnaire and its scores for physical and mental composite (PCS and MCS) as well as for specific-disease dimensions (effects, burden and symptoms) were computed. A renal factor score (RFS) was calculated through principal component analysis to summarize the score of these latter. Mortality and hospitalizations events in the year following the survey administration date were collected and the possible association of these events with HRQOL scores was then explored. Cox and logistic regression models evaluated the relationship between KDQOLTM-36 scores and survival and hospitalization events, respectively. A hierarchical model building strategy was adopted to test the incremental discrimination provided by HRQOL scores. First, two outcome risk scores (ORS) were constructed to predict the likelihood of hospitalization and mortality within 12 months given traditional clinical and socio-demographic confounders. Second, KDQOLTM-36 scores were added to ORS in the fully adjusted model. We assessed both individual ORS-adjusted coefficient estimates for the KDQOL-36 scales and the KDQOL-36 associated increment in model ROC-AUC. RESULTS We enrolled 1838 prevalent dialysis patients in the present analysis with a response rate of 80.6% (study flowchart is reported in Figure 1). Mean age was 68.8 ± 14.4, 60% were men, 65% presented arteriovenous fistula as vascular access and 66% were on HDF modality. We observed a graded relationship between almost all KDQOLTM-36 scores and adverse patient-centred outcomes (average KDQOL-36TM scores are reported in Figure 2). These associations were robust to adjustment for potential confounders. ROC-AUC describe the discrimination accuracy of models predicting hospitalization and mortality events, where both improved after including KDQOL-36TM scores beyond traditional clinical and socio-demographic factors. CONCLUSION We observed a monotonic, clinically important association denoting increased hospitalization and mortality risk among patients with worse KDQOL-36TM scores. The association was robust to adjustment for potential confounders. The KDQOL-36TM score captures unique facets of health, which are not sufficiently accounted for by traditional clinical and socio-demographic correlates of hospitalization and survival. Careful assessment of HRQOL in routine practice can uncover important health trajectories otherwise overlooked by standard clinical care.

Estimating a Minimal Important Difference for the EQ-5D-5L Utility Index in Dialysis Patients

Estimating the minimally important difference for the EQ-5D-5L and EORTC QLQ-C30 in cancer

Minimally important differences for the EORTC QLQ-C30 in prostate cancer clinical trials

Minimal important differences for interpreting health-related quality of life scores from the EORTC QLQ-C30 in lung cancer patients participating in randomized controlled trials

Minimally Important Differences for Interpreting EORTC QLQ-C30 Scores in Patients With Advanced Breast Cancer

A Bayesian Approach for Incorporating the EQ-5D Visual Analog Scale When Estimating the Health-Related Quality of Life

How scoring limits the usability of minimal important differences (MIDs) as responder definition (RD): an exemplary demonstration using EORTC QLQ-C30 subscales

How the EQ-5D Utilities Are Derived Matters in Chinese Diabetes Patients: a Comparison Based on Different EQ-5D Scoring Functions for China.

Minimally important differences for interpreting the EORTC QLQ‐C30 in patients with advanced colorectal cancer treated with chemotherapy

Sample size determination for EQ-5D-5L value set studies

Developing mapping algorithms to predict EQ-5D health utility values from Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index and Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Functional Index among patients with Ankylosing Spondylitis

Determining the minimally clinically important difference for the pediatric liver transplant quality of life questionnaire

Minimal clinically important differences in patient-reported outcomes after coronary artery bypass surgery in the arterial revascularization trial

Evaluating the correspondence between the EQ-5D-5L and disease severity and quality of life in adults and adolescents with cystic fibrosis

FC004: Improved Prediction of Hospitalization and Mortality Risk by Addition of Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROM) into Risk Algorithms among Dialysis Patients

The Minimal Clinically Important Difference Changes Greatly Based on the Different Calculation Methods

Minimum clinically important differences in the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure questionnaire: from a study of heart failure patients treated with integrated Chinese and Western medicine

Individual quality of life in chronic kidney disease: influence of age and dialysis modality

Association of the modified creatinine index with quality of life in haemodialysis patients

Development of Conversion Functions Mapping the FACT-B Total Score to the EQ-5D-5L Utility Value by Three Linking Methods and Comparison with the Ordinary Least Square Method