The Clinically Important Difference and Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State for Commonly Used Patient-Reported Outcomes After Knee Cartilage Repair

Abstract

Background:

In patients undergoing cartilage restoration of the knee, limited information is available regarding clinically important difference (CID) and Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State (PASS) estimates for commonly used patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs).

Purpose:

The objective of this study was to determine the CID and PASS in the population with knee cartilage restoration for the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS), the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form (IKDC) score, and the Lysholm score.

Study Design:

Cohort study (Diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2.

Methods:

Between 2012 and 2017, patients who underwent a cartilage restoration procedure were prospectively enrolled. Patients completed the KOOS, IKDC, and Lysholm, all of which were scored from 0 to 100, and completed relevant anchor questions at baseline and 1 year postoperatively. Receiver operating characteristic curve analyses were conducted to determine CID and PASS cutoff points. Multivariable regression analyses were performed to determine the effect of age, sex, and baseline score on likelihood of achieving CID and PASS.

Results:

Of the 113 patients enrolled, 53 (47%) were male, and the mean age was 36 years. The CID values for the PROMs were 10.7 for KOOS Symptoms, 8.3 for KOOS Pain, 8.8 for KOOS Activities of Daily Living (ADL), 30.0 for KOOS Sports and Recreation, 18.8 for KOOS Quality of Life (QOL), 9.2 for IKDC, and 13.0 for Lysholm. The PASS values were 71.5 for KOOS Symptoms, 72.2 for KOOS Pain, 86.8 for KOOS ADL, 43.8 for KOOS Sports and Recreation, 50.0 for KOOS QOL, 62.1 for IKDC, and 70.0 for Lysholm. Patients with higher baseline scores were more likely to achieve PASS for the IKDC (odds ratio, 2.28; P = .03). Baseline score did not have an effect on the likelihood of achieving CID. Younger age was an independent predictor of achieving PASS and CID across all outcomes (P < .05), but sex did not have such an effect.

Conclusion:

This study determined CID and PASS values for the KOOS, IKDC, and Lysholm scores among patients treated with knee cartilage restoration. Younger age was a positive prognostic variable, and higher baseline scores implied achieving PASS for the IKDC. The information in this study can be used in designing randomized controlled trials, counseling individual patients as to anticipated outcomes, and conducting responder analyses when evaluating new cartilage technology from a regulatory perspective.

Keywords

clinically important difference Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State patient-reported outcome measures cartilage restoration cartilage repair knee

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bekkers

de Windt

Raijmakers

Dhert

Saris

DB.

Validation of the Knee injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) for the treatment of focal cartilage lesions. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2009;17(11):1434-1439.

Copay

Subach

Glassman

Polly

DW Jr

Schuler

TC.

Understanding the minimum clinically important difference: a review of concepts and methods. Spine J. 2007;7(5):541-546.

Goksuluk

Korkmaz

Zararsiz

Karaag±aog±lu

AE.

easyROC: an interactive web-tool for ROC curve analysis using R language environment. The R Journal. 2016;8(2):213-230.

Greco

Anderson

Mann

, et al. Responsiveness of the International Knee Documentation Committee Subjective Knee Form in comparison to the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index, modified Cincinnati Knee Rating System, and Short Form 36 in patients with focal articular cartilage defects. Am J Sports Med. 2010;38(5):891-902.

Jaeschke

Singer

Guyatt

GH.

Measurement of health status: ascertaining the minimal clinically important difference. Control Clin Trials. 1989;10(4):407-415.

King

MT.

A point of minimal important difference (MID): a critique of terminology and methods. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;11(2):171-184.

Kvien

Heiberg

Hagen

KB.

Minimal clinically important improvement/difference (MCII/MCID) and patient acceptable symptom state (PASS): what do these concepts mean?

Ann Rheum Dis. 2007; 66(suppl 3):iii40-iii41.

Liu

Gowd

Redondo

, et al. Establishing clinically significant outcomes after meniscal allograft transplantation. Orthop J Sports Med. 2019;7(1):2325967118818462.

Nho

Pensak

Seigerman

Cole

BJ.

Rehabilitation after autologous chondrocyte implantation in athletes. Clin Sports Med. 2010;29(2):267-282, viii.

10.

Norman

Sloan

Wyrwich

KW.

Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: the remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Med Care. 2003;41(5):582-592.

11.

Ogura

Ackermann

Barbieri Mestriner

Merkely

Gomoll

AH.

Minimal clinically important differences and substantial clinical benefit in patient-reported outcome measures after autologous chondrocyte implantation. Cartilage. 2020;11(4):412-422.

12.

Ogura

Ackermann

Barbieri Mestriner

Merkely

Gomoll

AH.

The minimal clinically important difference and substantial clinical benefit in the patient-reported outcome measures of patients undergoing osteochondral allograft transplantation in the knee. Cartilage. Published online November 22, 2018. doi:10.1177/1947603518812552

13.

Roos

Engelhart

Ranstam

, et al. ICRS recommendation document: patient-reported outcome instruments for use in patients with articular cartilage defects. Cartilage. 2011;2(2):122-136.

14.

Tashjian

Deloach

Green

Porucznik

Powell

AP.

Minimal clinically important differences in ASES and simple shoulder test scores after nonoperative treatment of rotator cuff disease. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2010;92(2):296-303.

15.

Tashjian

Deloach

Porucznik

Powell

AP.

Minimal clinically important differences (MCID) and patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) for visual analog scales (VAS) measuring pain in patients treated for rotator cuff disease. J Shoulder Elbow Surg. 2009;18(6): 927-932.

16.

Tegner

Lysholm

Rating systems in the evaluation of knee ligament injuries. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1985;198:43-49.

17.

Tubach

Ravaud

Baron

, et al. Evaluation of clinically relevant states in patient reported outcomes in knee and hip osteoarthritis: the patient acceptable symptom state. Ann Rheum Dis. 2005;64(1):34-37.

18.

US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance document: patient-reported outcome measures. Use in medical product development to support labeling claims: guidance for industry. US Food and Drug Administration. December 2009. Accessed August 12, 2011. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf

19.

Wang

Chang

Coxe

, et al. Clinically meaningful improvement after treatment of cartilage defects of the knee with osteochondral grafts. Am J Sports Med. 2019;47(1):71-81.