ArticleInnovations in pharmacy2022
Concerns with Patient Reported Outcome Measurement and Value Claims for Therapy Response: The Case of Mavacamten and Symptomatic Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy (SHCM).
Article in Innovations in pharmacy, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Post-Menopausal Quality of Life Claims: Overlooking the Requirements of Normal Science and Fundamental Measurement in ICER'S Cost-Effectiveness Assessment of Fezolinetant for Moderate to Severe Vasomotor Symptoms.Innovations in pharmacy · 2023Article
- Formulary Submissions: Value Claims, Protocols and Outcomes Based Contracting in Rare Disease.Innovations in pharmacy · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Fundamental measurement is the basis for a rational assessment of patient reported outcome (PRO) value claims; both as response to therapy and the submission of credible and evaluable value claims to formulary committees and other health system decision makers. It is important to emphasize the importance of creating interval and ratio scales as opposed to nominal and ordinal scales to support value claims; a recognition that follows from acceptance of conjoint simultaneous measurement and the contribution of Rasch or modern measurement theory (RMT). Failure to appreciate the role of RMT has led thousands of researchers simply to apply numerals to events, inappropriately applying the techniques of classical statistical analysis, with the result that all that is produced are ordinal PRO scores. Instead, we should be aiming for interval and ratio scores based on a comprehensible latent trait and the application of the Rasch model. The purpose of this brief commentary is to review the measurement properties of PRO value claims for mavacamten (Camzyos; Bristol Myers Squibb) in symptomatic hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (SHCM) and to judge whether they have any validity when judged against the requirements of modern measurement theory. The assessment includes both the recent evidence report by the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) for mavacamten as well as pivotal randomized trial (RCT) value claims that combine clinical endpoints with PROs that fail the standards of fundamental evidence. These include the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ), the New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional classification and the EuroQuol EQ-5D-5L multiattribute health related quality of life (HRQoL) preference instrument. The review concludes that apart from purely clinical claims based on the various pivotal trials, there are no PRO claims for mavacamten in SHCM that meet the required measurement standards.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.