Patient perspectives in adverse event reporting after vaginal apical prolapse surgery

Abstract

BackgroundMany clinical trials use systematic methodology to monitor adverse events (AE) and determine grade (severity), expectedness, and relatedness to treatments as determined by clinicians. However, patient perspective in the process remains lacking. ObjectivesTo compare clinician versus patient grading of AE severity in a urogynecologic surgical trial. Secondary objectives were to estimate the association between patient grading of AEs with decision-making and quality of life outcomes and to determine if patient perspective changes over time. Study DesignThis was a planned supplementary study, “Patient-Perspectives in Adverse Event Reporting” (PPAR), to a randomized trial comparing 3 surgical approaches to vaginal apical prolapse. In the parent trial, AEs experienced by patients were collected per a standardized protocol every 6 months where clinicians graded AE severity (mild, moderate, severe/life threatening). In this sub-study, we obtained additional longitudinal patient perspectives for 19 predetermined “PPAR AEs”. Patients provided their own severity grading (mild, moderate, severe/very severe/ life threatening) at initial assessment and at 12 and 36 months postoperatively. Clinicians and patients were masked to each other’s reporting. The primary outcome was the interrater agreement (kappa statistic, κ) for AE severity between the initial clinician and patient assessment, combining patient grades of mild and moderate. Association between AE severity and the Decision-Regret Scale (DRS), Satisfaction with Decision Scale (SDS), the Short-Form Health Survey-12 (SF-12), and Patient-Global Impression of Improvement (PGI-I) scores were assessed utilizing Spearman’s correlation coefficient (ρ) for continuous scales, Mantel-Haenszel chi-squared test for PGI-I, and T-tests or chi-squared tests comparing assessments of severe vs other grades. To describe patient perspective changes over time, the intra-observer agreement was estimated for AE severity grade over time using weighted kappa-coefficients. ResultsOf 360 patients randomized, 219 (61%) experienced a total of 527 PPAR AEs (91% moderate and 9% severe/life threatening by clinician grading). Mean patient age was 67 years, 87% were White, and 12% Hispanic. Of patients reporting any PPAR event, the most common were urinary tract infection (61%), de novo urgency urinary incontinence (35%), stress urinary incontinence (22%), and fecal incontinence (13%).Overall agreement between clinician and participant grading of severity was poor (κ=0.24 (95%CI 0.14, 0.34). Of 414 AEs clinicians graded as moderate, patients graded 120 (29%) mild, and 80 (19%) severe. Of 39 AEs graded severe by clinicians, patients graded 15 (38%) mild or moderate. Initial patient grading of the most severe reported AE was mildly correlated with worse DRS (ρ=0.2, p=0.01), SF-12 (ρ=-0.24, p<0.01) and PGI-I (p<0.01). There was no association between AE severity and SDS. Patients with an initial grading of “severe” had more regret, lower quality of life, and poorer global impressions of health than those whose worst severity grade was mild (p<0.05). Agreement between the patients’ initial severity and later timepoints was fair at 12 months (κ=0.48 (95% CI 0.39, 0.58)) and 36 months (κ=0.45 (95% CI 0.37, 0.53)). ConclusionsClinician and patient perceptions of AE severity are discordant. Worse severity from the patient perspective was associated with patient-centered outcomes. Including the patient perspective provides additional information for evaluating surgical procedures.