Health Outcomes Research in Medicine RSS feed: Articles in Press. Health Outcomes Research in Medicine is committed to providing editorial content that advances the field of research and medicine through bridging patient reported outcomes with clinical practice decisions that are solidly evidence-based. The Journal's role is to encourage and disseminate three basic principles: 1) the need for evidence for effective patient care, 2) critical evaluation of that evidence, and 3) incorporating clinical judgment and patient-reported outcomes and preferences into decisions about treatment and treatment efficacy. Examples of types of articles would include those involving the development, cultural adaptation, and/or validation of patient-reported outcomes measures developed for general use in clinical practice or drug trials; the development and/or validation of novel measurement approaches (e.g., transcranial magnetic stimulation in studies of the effectiveness of migraine prophylactics); cost-effectiveness analyses conducted from the provider or hospital perspective or with implications for patient care; retrospective chart reviews that seek to assess the validity or reliability of outcome measures; and analyses of databases (e.g., claims data) on practice or prescribing patterns, or episodes of care. In summary, the journal should be a medium for discussion and debate about the principles and substance of health outcomes research. Reviews of theory, methodology, and study findings in special areas of health services research, clinical trials, systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses are welcome. Research must incorporate author assessment of the validity and implications of the study as well as a discussion of the study results.http://www.healthoutcomesresearch.org//inpress?rss=yesElsevier Inc.en © 2010 Published by Elsevier Inc. Health Outcomes Research in Medicine1877-13192010-09-01 © 2010 Published by Elsevier Inc. healthpermissions@elsevier.comhttp://www.healthoutcomesresearch.org/article/PIIS187713191000011X/abstract?rss=yesAbstract: Objective: To compare the incidence and time to onset of exacerbations among mild asthmatic non–controller-naive patients who began treatment with mometasone furoate via a dry powder inhaler (MF-DPI) or a beclomethasone dipropionate-hydrofluoroalkane (BDP-HFA) aerosol inhaler.Study design: An administrative claims database was retrospectively examined from January 1, 2005–June 30, 2008. Patients with mild asthma aged 12–65 years who were US residents and enrolled in their health plan for ≥1 year before and after the index date for MF-DPI or BDP-HFA treatment initiation were included (n=1273 matched patients per cohort). Primary evaluations included the incidence of and time to any asthma exacerbations and several asthma exacerbation subtypes. Multivariate generalized linear regression modeling analyses were used to compare the postindex incidence of exacerbations between cohorts. Cox regression analyses were conducted to control for the impact of input variables and evaluate the time to exacerbations.Results: Significantly fewer MF-DPI patients experienced an exacerbation compared with BDP-HFA patients (9.7% vs 11.5%, respectively; P=0.0002). Trends suggested that fewer MF-DPI patients compared with BDP-HFA patients experienced any exacerbation or an exacerbation requiring inpatient hospitalization at all postindex time points. The difference between cohorts in the incidence of inpatient exacerbations increased over time. MF-DPI patients experienced prolonged time to any asthma exacerbation (hazard ratio [HR]=0.77; P=0.0414) or exacerbations requiring inpatient hospitalization (HR=0.51; P=0.0191) compared with BDP-HFA patients.Conclusion: These analyses suggest that patients (previously receiving asthma-related therapy) with mild asthma receiving MF-DPI are at lower risk for asthma exacerbations compared with those receiving BDP-HFA.Incidence of Exacerbations and Hospitalizations Is Reduced and Time to Exacerbations Is Prolonged With Mometasone Furoate Dry Powder Inhaler Versus Beclomethasone Dipropionate Hydrofluoroalkane Aerosol in Patients With Mild Asthma - Accepted ManuscriptPrakash Navaratnam, Eduardo Urdaneta, John McLaughlin, Howard S. Friedman10.1016/j.ehrm.2010.08.001Health Outcomes Research in Medicine (2010)2010-09-01Health Outcomes Research in Medicine2010-09-01http://www.healthoutcomesresearch.org/article/PIIS1877131910000042/abstract?rss=yesAbstract: Objectives: The Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HDRS) is the most frequently used primary endpoint for antidepressant clinical trials. This study developed and evaluated the psychometric characteristics of 3 item response theory (IRT)-based short-form depression severity scales based on combinations of the HDRS and Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) items.Study Design: A secondary analysis was completed using data from 1027 subjects with major depressive disorder participating in 2 antidepressant clinical trials. Data were collected using the HDRS and MADRS throughout the 6-week clinical trials. Maier, Bech, and Gibbons brief depression scales were calculated based on the HDRS.Results: Three short-form depression severity (DS) scales were developed based on clinician recommendations and IRT analyses, (DS-1, 7 items; DS-2, 8 items; DS-3, 10 items). Internal consistency reliability of the short forms was 0.87 to 0.93. DS were more reliable across the range of the depression than the HDRS or MADRS. The DS scales were correlated 0.27 to 0.29 with HDRS, 0.55 to 0.85 with MADRS, and −0.25 to −0.34 with Quality of Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire scores at baseline. In 1 clinical trial, none of the depression outcome measures demonstrated statistically significant differences between the paroxetine and placebo groups. In the second clinical trial, there were significant between-group differences in DS-1 (P=.004; ES=0.46), DS-2 (P <.001; ES=0.59), DS-3 (P <.001; ES=0.63), Bech (P=.007; ES=0.43), Maier (P=.009; ES=0.41), Gibbon (P=.003; ES=0.47), HDRS (P=.007; ES=0.43), and MADRS (P=.001; ES=0.54) scores.Conclusions: The IRT-based short-form depression measures were reliable, valid, and responsive in patients with major depressive disorder. Effect sizes were comparable or better to other depression severity scales.Development and Analysis of Item Response Theory-based Short-form Depression Severity Scales Based on the HDRS and MADRS - Uncorrected ProofDennis A. Revicki, Wen-Hung Chen, Lori Frank, Douglas Feltner, Robert Morlock10.1016/j.ehrm.2009.11.001Health Outcomes Research in Medicine (2010)2010-05-17Health Outcomes Research in Medicine2010-05-17ORIGINAL RESEARCH ARTICLE