[Skip to Content]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 54.197.90.95. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
[Skip to Content Landing]
Download PDF
Table 1.  
LPR-HRQL Item-Level Response Scores Grouped by Domain at Baseline
LPR-HRQL Item-Level Response Scores Grouped by Domain at Baseline
Table 2.  
Scores on LPR-HRQL Domains, VHI, and QOLRAD
Scores on LPR-HRQL Domains, VHI, and QOLRAD
Table 3.  
Correlation of LPR-HRQL Domains With Validated Instruments*
Correlation of LPR-HRQL Domains With Validated Instruments*
Table 4.  
Correlation of LPR-HRQL Domains With SF-36 Domains*
Correlation of LPR-HRQL Domains With SF-36 Domains*
Table 5.  
Test of Responsiveness of LPR-HRQL Domains
Test of Responsiveness of LPR-HRQL Domains
1.
Koufman  JAAviv  JECasiano  RRShaw  GY Laryngopharyngeal reflux: position statement of the Committee on Speech, Voice, and Swallowing Disorders of the American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2002;12732- 35
PubMedArticle
2.
Koufman  JAWiener  GJWu  WCCastell  DO Reflux laryngitis and its sequelae: the diagnostic role of ambulatory 24-hour pH monitoring. J Voice 1988;278- 89Article
3.
Toohill  RJMushtag  ELehman  RH Otolaryngologic manifestations of gastroesophageal reflux.  In: Sacristan  T, Alvarez-Vincent  JJ, Bartual  J, eds.Proceedings of XIV World Congress of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Kugler & Ghedini Publications; 1990:3005-3009
4.
Richter  JE Extraesophageal presentations of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Semin Gastrointest Dis 1997;875- 89
PubMed
5.
Koufman  JSataloff  RTToohill  R Laryngopharyngeal reflux: consensus conference report. J Voice 1996;10215- 216
PubMedArticle
6.
Hawkins  BL Laryngopharyngeal reflux: a modern day “great masquerader”. J Ky Med Assoc 1997;95379- 385
PubMed
7.
Ahuja  VYencha  MWLassen  LF Head and neck manifestations of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am Fam Physician 1999;60873- 880
PubMed
8.
Gaynor  EB Laryngeal complications of GERD. J Clin Gastroenterol 2000;30S31- S34
PubMed
9.
Koufman  J The otolaryngologic manifestations of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Laryngoscope 1991;1011- 78
PubMedArticle
10.
Koufman  J Gastroesophageal reflux and voice disorders.  In: Rubin  JS, ed.Diagnosis and Treatment of Voice Disorders. New York, NY: Igaku-Shoin; 1995:161-175
11.
Eisen  GMLocke  GRProvenzale  D Health-related quality of life: a primer for gastroenterologists. Am J Gastroenterol 1999;942017- 2021
PubMedArticle
12.
Chassany  OMarquis  PScherrer  B  et al.  Validation of a specific quality of life questionnaire for functional digestive disorders. Gut 1999;44527- 533
PubMedArticle
13.
Dimenäs  EGlise  HHallerbäck  BHernqvist  HSvedlund  JWkilund  I Quality of life in patients with upper gastrointestinal symptoms: an improved evaluation of treatment regimens? Scand J Gastroenterol 1993;28681- 687
PubMedArticle
14.
Wilson  IBCleary  PD Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life: a conceptual model of patient outcomes. JAMA 1995;27359- 65
PubMedArticle
15.
Revicki  DAWood  MMaton  PNSorenson  S The impact of gastroesophageal reflux disease on health-related quality of life. Am J Med 1998;104252- 258
PubMedArticle
16.
Yacavone  RFLocke  IGProvenzale  DTEisen  GM Quality of life measurement in gastroenterology: what is available? Am J Gastroenterol 2001;96285- 297
PubMedArticle
17.
Revicki  DACrawley  JAZodet  MWLevine  DSJoelsson  BO Complete resolution of heartburn symptoms and health-related quality of life in patients with gastro-esophageal reflux disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1999;131621- 1630
PubMedArticle
18.
Mant  JWJenkinson  CMurphy  MFClipsham  KMarshall  PVessey  MP Use of the Short Form-36 to detect the influence of upper gastrointestinal disease on self-reported health status. Qual Life Res 1998;7221- 226
PubMedArticle
19.
Rentz  AMBattista  CTrudeau  E  et al.  Symptom and health-related quality-of life measures for use in selected gastrointestinal disease studies: a review and synthesis of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics 2001;19349- 363
PubMedArticle
20.
Talley  NJFullerton  SJunghard  OWiklund  I Quality of life in patients with endoscopy-negative heartburn. Am J Gastroenterol 2001;961998- 2004
PubMedArticle
21.
Colwell  HHMathias  SDPasta  DJHenning  JMHunt  RH Development of a health-related quality-of-life questionnaire for individuals with gastroesophageal reflux disease: a validation study. Dig Dis Sci 1999;441376- 1383
PubMedArticle
22.
Wiklund  IKJunghard  OGrace  E  et al.  Quality of life in reflux and dyspepsia patients: psychometric documentation of a new disease-specific questionnaire (QOLRAD). Eur J Surg Suppl 1998;(583)41- 49
PubMed
23.
Young  TLKirchdoerfer  LJOsterhaus  JT A development and validation process for a disease-specific quality of life instrument. Drug Inf J 1996;30185- 193
24.
Farup  CKleinman  LSloan  S  et al.  The impact of nocturnal symptoms associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease on health-related quality of life. Arch Intern Med 2001;16145- 52
PubMedArticle
25.
Revicki  DASorensen  SMaton  PNOrlando  RC Health-related quality of life outcomes of omeprazole versus ranitidine in poorly responsive symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease. Dig Dis 1998;16284- 291
PubMedArticle
26.
Havelund  TLind  TWiklund  I  et al.  Quality of life in patients with heartburn but without esophagitis: effects of treatment with omeprazole. Am J Gastroenterol 1999;941782- 1789
PubMedArticle
27.
Murry  TRosen  CA Outcome measurements and quality of life in voice disorders. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2000;33905- 916
PubMedArticle
28.
Benninger  MSAhuja  ASGardner  GGrywalski  C Assessing outcomes for dysphonic patients. J Voice 1998;12540- 550
PubMedArticle
29.
Hogikyan  NDSethuraman  G Validation of an instrument to measure voice-related quality of life (V-RQOL). J Voice 1999;13557- 569
PubMedArticle
30.
Hogikyan  NDRosen  CA A review of outcome measurements for voice disorders. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2002;126562- 572
PubMedArticle
31.
Lenderking  WRHillson  ECrawley  JAMoore  DBerzon  RPashos  CL The clinical characteristics and impact of laryngopharyngeal reflux disease on health-related quality of life. Value Health 2003;6560- 565
PubMedArticle
32.
Carrau  RLKhidr  ACrawley  JAHillson  EMDavis  JKPashos  CL The impact of laryngopharyngeal reflux on patient-reported quality of life. Laryngoscope 2004;114670- 674
PubMedArticle
33.
Belafsky  PCPostma  GNKoufman  JA The validity and reliability of the reflux finding score. Laryngoscope 2001;1111313- 1317
PubMedArticle
34.
McHorney  CAWare  JERaczek  AE The MOS 36-item short-form health survery (SF-36), II. Med Care 1993;31247- 263
PubMedArticle
35.
Ware  JESherbourne  CD The MOS 36-item short-form health survey. Med Care 1992;30473- 483
PubMedArticle
36.
Jacobson  BHJohnson  AGrywalski  C  et al.  The Voice Handicap Index (VHI): development and validation. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 1997;666- 70
37.
Jaeschke  RSinger  JGuyatt  GH Measurement of health status. Control Clin Trials 1989;10407- 415
PubMedArticle
Original Article
April 2005

Validation of a Quality-of-Life Instrument for Laryngopharyngeal Reflux

Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2005;131(4):315-320. doi:10.1001/archotol.131.4.315
Abstract

Objectives  To establish the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of a new, disease-specific assessment tool, the LPR-HRQL, which assesses patient-reported outcomes (PRO) with regard to health-related quality of life (HRQL) of patients with laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR).

Design  A prospective, open-label, repeated-measures study.

Setting  Six centers in 4 states in the eastern United States.

Patients  Patients with LPR.

Interventions  Open-label treatment with 20 mg of omeprazole twice daily. Clinical and PRO HRQL data were collected. Several PRO instruments were administered to patients at each of several time points; these instruments included the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36-Item Health Survey (SF-36), a general HRQL tool; the Voice Handicap Index (VHI), a symptom-specific tool for assessing voice problems; and the QOLRAD instrument (Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia), used to assess the impact of gastroesophageal reflux disease.

Results  Factor analyses of the LPR-HRQL scales confirmed single dimensions for each. All LPR-HRQL items contributed to internal consistency of scales and had substantial variability permitting useful information. Substantial evidence of convergent and divergent validity with SF-36, VHI, and QOLRAD items was observed. Test-retest validity was adequate for the time interval tested. Changes in domain scores of the LPR-HRQL at 4 and 6 months documented its responsiveness.

Conclusions  The LPR-HRQL displays reliability, validity, and responsiveness, has face validity, and is simple and not burdensome to administer, score, and analyze. Accordingly, it may be used to assist physicians and patients in understanding the HRQL burden of LPR and the impact of therapy.

The clinical impact of laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR) has recently been confirmed in a position statement of the American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery by Koufman et al,1 which outlines symptoms, clinical manifestations, diagnosis, and treatment. Laryngopharyngeal reflux is a gastrointestinal and otolaryngologic condition related to, but distinct from, gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). It is estimated that 4% to 10% of patients presenting to an otolaryngology practice have symptoms and/or findings related to LPR.2,3 Laryngopharyngeal reflux is increasingly recognized as a probable contributing factor to nonallergic asthma and many ear, nose, and throat complaints. Studies suggest that acid reflux is present in 50% to 80% of patients with asthma, 10% to 20% of patients with chronic cough, up to 80% of patients with difficult-to-manage hoarseness, and 25% to 50% of patients with globus sensation.26

The manifestations of LPR vary considerably.7 In contrast to GERD, in which heartburn is the primary symptom, there is no predominant sign or symptom for LPR. Typical symptoms of LPR are chronic but intermittent8 and may include dysphagia, throat clearing, hoarseness, chronic cough, globus sensation, and laryngospasm. Approximately 20% to 43% of patients with LPR experience heartburn,9 and 18% have esophagitis.10

Health-related quality of life (HRQL) has been studied in depth for many diseases, including gastrointestinal disorders.1114 A variety of generic and disease-specific instruments have been used to measure the impact on HRQL of GERD,1526 and other instruments have been used to evaluate the impact of voice disorders.2730 However, the HRQL impact of LPR has only recently begun to be evaluated and is not well understood.31,32 Although 1 study has compared the general HRQL impact of LPR with that of GERD and with a general US population,32 use of a validated disease-specific HRQL instrument would provide physicians, other health care providers, and patients more information on the disease-related HRQL impact of LPR. An LPR-specific instrument would address the HRQL domains affected by the disorder (ie, it would be more specific) and would be more sensitive to changes in HRQL, notably those due to treatment. Ultimately, such an instrument would then have greater utility in clinical practice as well as in research into new therapies.

Therefore, the objective of the present study was to evaluate the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of a new LPR-specific HRQL instrument, the LPR-HRQL, which was designed to be self-administered by the patient. While several related symptom scales exist, the LPR-HRQL is the first HRQL instrument to be developed specifically for LPR.

METHODS
THE INSTRUMENT

The LPR-HRQL was developed based on a literature review, patient input obtained in focus-group settings, and input from an expert panel of physicians specializing in otolaryngology, gastroenterology, and pulmonology. These 3 sources provided support for an instrument that would measure symptom distress and the important effects of LPR on social and occupational functioning, vitality, well-being, and perceived health. Accordingly, a brief 43-item questionnaire that uses Likert response scales was constructed that may be self-administered and fulfills these broad measurement needs. In its field-test version, the instrument had 43 items—specifically, questions about LPR and how it affects the patient. The recall period was the last 4 weeks.

A standard 7-point Likert scale was used to assess how much or how often each item described the feelings of the patient. Twelve questions assessed talking, singing, and voice (Voice/Hoarse domain) with a 13th asking how these voice issues affected overall quality of life. Six questions assessed coughing (Cough domain) with a follow-up asking how problems with coughing affected overall quality of life. Another 6 questions addressed clearing the throat (Clear Throat domain) with a follow-up question of how problems about clearing the throat affected overall quality of life. The next 5 questions assessed globus and general throat symptoms (Swallow domain) with a follow-up about general related problems affecting overall quality of life. The final part of the instrument, consisting of questions 34 through 43, assessed the combined impact of acid reflux–related symptoms (Overall Impact of Acid Reflux domain).

PATIENTS

To validate the LPR-HRQL, we enrolled patients presenting with symptoms at 6 sites in 4 states in the southern, mid-Atlantic, and northeastern regions of the United States. Sites included 4 academic medical centers, 1 regional medical center, and a multispecialty group practice, so that the study population included various sociodemographic groups receiving care in a variety of health care settings. Local institutional review boards at each site reviewed and approved the implementation of the study protocol.

Patients were all newly diagnosed as having LPR (diagnosis <1 month before enrollment) or were patients with relapse and not under current treatment; this was confirmed by a physician in each case by direct patient examination, as is typical practice. Each patient gave written informed consent prior to any study procedures. Enrolled patients were between 19 and 80 years old and had at least 1 of the following symptoms commonly associated with LPR within the previous month: hoarseness, chronic cough (defined as cough lasting >1 month), globus, laryngospasm, chronic throat clearing, or difficulty swallowing. Patients were not enrolled in the study if they manifested only GERD symptoms and not LPR.

A laryngoscopic examination documenting clinical signs consistent with a diagnosis of LPR was conducted within 1 month prior to patient enrollment for all patients. Furthermore, the presence and severity of LPR clinical signs for each patient were assessed using the Reflux Finding Score developed by Belafsky et al.33 The Reflux Finding Score facilitated evaluation of the presence and severity of the following clinical signs: subglottic edema, ventricular obliteration, arytenoid erythema, vocal fold edema, diffuse laryngeal edema, posterior commissure hypertrophy, granuloma and/or granulation, and pachydermia laryngis.

Patients with cancer, major psychiatric illness, and/or unstable chronic illnesses (such as diabetes) were excluded to eliminate comorbidities that might confound or inhibit an assessment of the effect of LPR on HRQL. In addition, patients requiring medications with known drug-drug interactions with omeprazole were also excluded, thus further reducing the number of participants with comorbid conditions.

STUDY DESIGN

Data were collected from patients with LPR at a baseline visit and 3 times subsequently during regularly scheduled study visits. Baseline and 2-month postbaseline data were used to establish the validity and reliability of the LPR-HRQL. Data from the 4-month and 6-month study visits were used to establish the instrument’s responsiveness.

INSTRUMENTATION

A battery of instruments was administered to patients at baseline and at 2, 4, and 6 months after baseline. Aside from the LPR-HRQL, these instruments included the Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form 36-Item Health Survey (SF-36), the Voice Handicap Index (VHI), the QOLRAD instrument (Quality of Life in Reflux and Dyspepsia), and Overall Treatment Effect (OTE) questionnaires. The SF-36, a self-administered, generic HRQL questionnaire containing 36 items, measures health in 8 multi-item dimensions, covering functional status, well-being, and overall evaluation of health. The reliability and validity of the SF-36 is well documented.34,35 The 30-item VHI measures the impact of voice problems on a person’s life.36 The QOLRAD measures the HRQL associated with GERD and dyspepsia.22 The 4-item OTE enables patients to rate whether and how their symptoms have changed since they began treatment, how much better or worse they feel, and how important this change is.37

Physicians evaluated each patient’s symptom severity subjectively on a scale of 0 to 3 (0, no symptoms; 1, mild; 2, moderate; and 3, severe). All patient-completed assessments were done prior to the performance of physical examinations or any other clinical procedures at baseline and follow-up visits. The physician assessments were completed at the end of the visit, independently of the patient-completed assessments and without reference to them.

To understand the instrument’s responsiveness, we treated all patients on an open-label basis with 20 mg of omeprazole taken twice daily for the duration of their enrollment in the study. The selection of an initial dose of 20 mg twice daily taken for 6 months was based on a recommendation by a panel of otolaryngologists with a high volume of referred patients with LPR as the minimum required to achieve relief of symptoms. For the purposes of homogeneity of effects in testing the sensitivity of the instrument to change, patients were instructed that no other prescription therapy for acid-related symptoms was permitted during the study. Previous use of antisecretory or promotility agents was permitted, as long as these treatments were discontinued at least 10 days prior to study enrollment and the baseline evaluation.

STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Validity

Face validity was established by the evaluation of the substantive content by a panel of physician experts. In addition, information was collected from patients during the pilot test to assess the patient perception of the face validity of the instrument. Statistical, construct, and concurrent validity were assessed. The primary tools for assessing statistical validity were descriptive statistics and distribution graphs. In the assessment of construct validity, factor analysis was conducted of all domains to determine if they reflected individual, coherent factors. Zero order correlations among the items and subscale scores were examined for discriminant and convergent validities, which provided an assessment of concurrent validity. Concurrent validity was further examined by analyzing the relationships between the LPR-HRQL and the VHI, SF-36, and QOLRAD.

Reliability

Reliability was established through item analysis. To assess internal consistency reliability, we computed a Cronbach α for each domain of the LPR-HRQL. To ensure that the questionnaire was stable across time, we performed a test-retest reliability analysis by examining Pearson correlations and comparing 4-month and 6-month evaluations. These time points were selected to coincide with the time subsequent to treatment initiation when the therapy should have achieved full efficacy (ie, month 4 and later) and the patient could be considered “treatment stable.”

Responsiveness

The responsiveness index was calculated as the change from baseline to end point to represent the improvement in function under a known effective treatment regimen. A paired t test compared baseline and 6-month scores. To facilitate a meaningful clinical interpretation of domain score changes, we calculated the minimum clinically meaningful change in each domain to correspond to a significant (1-point) decrease in the physician-reported symptom severity score.

Burden

The ability of respondents to complete the instrument was evaluated, and factors of time needed for completion and language complexity were considered.

RESULTS

In the assessment of the patient perception of the face validity of the instrument, no items were flagged by subjects as inappropriate or unclear.

Of the 117 subjects enrolled, 78 (66.7%) were women, 101 (86.3%) were white, and the mean (SD) age was 48.4 (14.6) years. Overall, 28.2% of the sample were younger than 40 years; 31.6% were aged between 40 and 50 years; and 40.2% were older than 50 years. This age group distribution did not differ significantly between men and women. At baseline, 85.5% reported chronic throat clearing, 82.1% globus, 80.3% hoarseness, 53.9% difficulty swallowing, 44.3% chronic cough, and 33.3% laryngospasm.

Table 1 lists the item-level descriptive statistics grouped by domain for the LPR-HRQL. All items showed good variability, and the ranges spanned all possible values. Histograms were examined, and no items showed evidence of multimodal distributions. There were no substantial floor or ceiling effects. There were no missing item patterns to be analyzed. Respondents completed the LPR-HRQL in approximately 30 minutes or less.

All but 1 domain showed a single-factor structure with items loading substantially on that factor. The Voice/Hoarse domain was the only domain that generated more than a 1-factor structure. Examination of the results revealed that the second factor, with an eigenvalue marginally greater than 1, was attributable to the item that required reverse scoring to be integrated into the scale correctly.

Table 2 lists the descriptive statistics for the 5 domains of the LPR-HRQL instrument as well as for 2 validated instruments used to assess convergent and divergent validity. Examination of the histograms of the scales indicates normal distributions with no substantial ceiling or floor effects. The variability, as compared with the potential range for each of the scores of the LPR-HRQL, compares favorably with that of the VHI and the QOLRAD.

Table 3 outlines the evidence of substantial convergent validity based on the VHI and QOLRAD but not the Reflux Finding Score. The LPR-HRQL Voice/Hoarse score is most highly correlated with the VHI, and the magnitude of the correlation is substantial. Both are indications of convergent validity for the LPR-HRQL Voice/Hoarse domain component. For the remaining 4 domains of the LPR-HRQL, while they are significantly correlated with the VHI (which is attributable to a general association among symptoms), the magnitude of the correlation is moderate. This indicates that the Cough, Clear Throat, Swallow, and Overall Impact of Acid Reflux scores represent variability in subject symptoms independent of the issues represented by the Voice/Hoarse questions.

Likewise, the relatively moderate or higher correlations with the QOLRAD (which assesses GERD and dyspepsia) are in the Swallow and Overall Impact of Acid Reflux scores. The LPR-HRQL scores reflecting the symptoms that we would expect to distinguish GERD and dyspepsia from LPR (Voice/Hoarse, Cough and Clear Throat) have moderate to low correlation with the QOLRAD, which provides divergent validity evidence for the LPR-HRQL. The Reflux Finding Score, documented by the physician at baseline, has somewhat limited convergent validity. It is an amalgam of symptom questions relating to all the domains covered in the LPR-HRQL, so the correlation reflects the relationship of a part (LPR-HRQL domain) to the whole (overall reflux finding score).

Table 4 reports the associations of the domains of the LPR-HRQL with the domains of the SF-36. These associations provide evidence of concurrent validation and also reveal how scores on the new disease-specific HRQL instrument relate to general domains of HRQL in an established instrument. The signs of the correlations are appropriately negative. The LPR-HRQL domains are most closely associated with the Vitality and Social Function domains of the SF-36. Voice/Hoarse issues are substantially correlated with Social Function (r = −0.51). Cough, Clear Throat, and Swallow are similarly associated with both Vitality and Social Function (mean r = −0.41). In addition, Swallow is substantially associated with Pain, Role Emotional, and Role Physical. There are smaller, though significant, levels of association across all the LPR-HRQL domains and the Mental Health domain. Significant correlations across the board indicate that the LPR-HRQL captures the impact of LPR on the overall HRQL as measured by a validated, general-profile instrument. Finally, the Overall Impact of Acid Reflux score has the highest correlations with the SF-36 domains compared with the other LPR-HRQL domains.

The overall reliabilities of the LPR-HRQL domains tend to be either superior or highly acceptable (α = .84-.93), though the Swallow score is somewhat lower (α = .69). Removal of any given single item from the score did not improve the LPR-HRQL’s reliability.

The data provide evidence of substantial test-retest reliability. The test-retest reliability correlation coefficients were all significant and substantial, ranging from 0.90 to 0.64, indicating very high to moderate levels of test-retest reliability. Specifically, correlation coefficients for domains were 0.77 for Voice, 0.64 for Cough, 0.86 for Clear Throat, 0.83 for Swallow, and 0.89 for Overall Impact of Acid Reflux. In comparison, the test-retest reliability coefficients for the VHI and the QOLRAD are 0.70 and 0.64, respectively.

The final set of results establishes the responsiveness of the instrument to changes over time and helps establish the minimal clinically meaningful difference for the LPR-HRQL scores. Table 5 lists the dependent t test results for each of the 5 domains of the LPR-HRQL for changes from baseline to 4 and 6 months. For all domains of the LPR-HRQL for both the 4- and 6-month measurements, HRQL problems significantly decreased. The minimum clinically meaningful change for each of the Voice/Hoarse, Cough, Clear Throat, and Swallow domains was 5 points, whereas the comparable minimum change for the Overall Impact of Acid Reflux score was 10 points. The Voice/Hoarse, Swallow, and Overall Impact of Acid Reflux scores of the LPR-HQRL exhibited average change in scores between baseline and 6 months that were at or greater than this clinically meaningful minimum difference. Given the standard deviations associated with each domain score, the instrument should detect this 5-point difference with a power of 80% or better in a study comparing 2 arms each of between 20 and 30 subjects.

COMMENT

The LPR-HRQL has been shown to be a reliable and valid instrument that poses no unusual burden on the subject, has face validity, and is simple to administer, score, and analyze. Furthermore, it has been documented to show significant responsiveness to changes in subjects’ HRQL associated with LPR.

Specific findings related to the LPR-HRQL are noteworthy. That there were no missing item patterns to be analyzed suggests that subjects understood the questions and were comfortable answering all of them. That all subjects completed the entire instrument also indicates that the instrument is not overly burdensome.

Significant correlations across the board between the LPR-HRQL domains and those of the SF-36 indicate that the LPR-HRQL captures the impact of LPR on the overall HRQL as measured by a validated, general-profile instrument. That the Overall Impact of Acid Reflux score has the highest correlations with the SF-36 domains compared with the other LPR-HRQL domains makes sense in that an overall disease-specific HRQL score should have a greater correlation with overall health domains than with more limited aspects such as Voice/Hoarse or Cough (the “whole to whole” correlations should be greater than the “part-to-whole” correlations).

The overall reliabilities of the LPR-HRQL domains tend to be highly acceptable, though the Swallow score was in the modest range. Examination of the Swallow scale revealed that the items had a far greater span of symptoms than the other scales, which would explain its reduced reliability. The decision was made to retain the domain to maintain the span of the instrument’s coverage. Given the standard for reliability in related disease instruments, it was decided that maintaining all domains would produce a more valuable instrument than one that was shortened and thereby reduced in its span of coverage. The test-retest reliability correlation coefficients were all significant and favorable compared with those of the VHI and QOLRAD, 2 frequently used and validated instruments, which suggests that the test-retest reliability for the LPR-HRQL meet the same standard of existing instruments.

We anticipated that an instrument useful in the study of LPR would show a significant improvement in scores between pretreatment and posttreatment status. This occurred for all domains of the LPR-HRQL at both the 4- and 6-month periods, which suggests that all LPR-HRQL domains are able to capture the response to an intervention as early as 4 months into treatment. The Voice/Hoarse, Swallow, and Overall Impact of Acid Reflux scores of the LPR-HRQL exhibited average changes between baseline and 6 months that were at or greater than the clinically meaningful minimum difference, which suggests that the minimum clinically meaningful difference of 5 points for each domain score may be conservative.

The introduction of this instrument to the armamentarium of disease-specific HRQL instruments will enable physicians and health care practitioners to assess the HRQL of their patients with LPR and to evaluate their response to therapy. This instrument can also assist researchers who are conducting clinical studies to assess the ability of new and/or existing therapies to reduce the HRQL burden of reflux laryngitis.

Back to top
Article Information

Correspondence: Chris L. Pashos, PhD, HERQuLES, Abt Associates Inc, 181 Spring St, Lexington, MA 02421 (chris_pashos@abtassoc.com).

Submitted for Publication: June 1, 2004; final revision received November 15, 2004; accepted January 14, 2005.

Funding/Support: Support for this research was provided by AstraZeneca LP.

Acknowledgment: We thank William Lenderking, PhD, Richard Berzon, DrPh, and Abt Associates Inc for their contributions to the design, data collection, and instrument development; Sandra Sweeney, AB, for initial project coordination; Judy Davis, MPH, MSW, for project management; and Lark Madoo, BA, for data processing and analysis. We also thank David Moore, MD, James Reibel, MD, Paul Castellanos, MD, Beverly Prince, MD, Kirk Tolhurst, MD, and their clinic staffs as well as the clinic staffs of Drs Carrau, Khidr, and Koufman for their assistance in enrollment of the subjects into the study.

References
1.
Koufman  JAAviv  JECasiano  RRShaw  GY Laryngopharyngeal reflux: position statement of the Committee on Speech, Voice, and Swallowing Disorders of the American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2002;12732- 35
PubMedArticle
2.
Koufman  JAWiener  GJWu  WCCastell  DO Reflux laryngitis and its sequelae: the diagnostic role of ambulatory 24-hour pH monitoring. J Voice 1988;278- 89Article
3.
Toohill  RJMushtag  ELehman  RH Otolaryngologic manifestations of gastroesophageal reflux.  In: Sacristan  T, Alvarez-Vincent  JJ, Bartual  J, eds.Proceedings of XIV World Congress of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Kugler & Ghedini Publications; 1990:3005-3009
4.
Richter  JE Extraesophageal presentations of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Semin Gastrointest Dis 1997;875- 89
PubMed
5.
Koufman  JSataloff  RTToohill  R Laryngopharyngeal reflux: consensus conference report. J Voice 1996;10215- 216
PubMedArticle
6.
Hawkins  BL Laryngopharyngeal reflux: a modern day “great masquerader”. J Ky Med Assoc 1997;95379- 385
PubMed
7.
Ahuja  VYencha  MWLassen  LF Head and neck manifestations of gastroesophageal reflux disease. Am Fam Physician 1999;60873- 880
PubMed
8.
Gaynor  EB Laryngeal complications of GERD. J Clin Gastroenterol 2000;30S31- S34
PubMed
9.
Koufman  J The otolaryngologic manifestations of gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). Laryngoscope 1991;1011- 78
PubMedArticle
10.
Koufman  J Gastroesophageal reflux and voice disorders.  In: Rubin  JS, ed.Diagnosis and Treatment of Voice Disorders. New York, NY: Igaku-Shoin; 1995:161-175
11.
Eisen  GMLocke  GRProvenzale  D Health-related quality of life: a primer for gastroenterologists. Am J Gastroenterol 1999;942017- 2021
PubMedArticle
12.
Chassany  OMarquis  PScherrer  B  et al.  Validation of a specific quality of life questionnaire for functional digestive disorders. Gut 1999;44527- 533
PubMedArticle
13.
Dimenäs  EGlise  HHallerbäck  BHernqvist  HSvedlund  JWkilund  I Quality of life in patients with upper gastrointestinal symptoms: an improved evaluation of treatment regimens? Scand J Gastroenterol 1993;28681- 687
PubMedArticle
14.
Wilson  IBCleary  PD Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life: a conceptual model of patient outcomes. JAMA 1995;27359- 65
PubMedArticle
15.
Revicki  DAWood  MMaton  PNSorenson  S The impact of gastroesophageal reflux disease on health-related quality of life. Am J Med 1998;104252- 258
PubMedArticle
16.
Yacavone  RFLocke  IGProvenzale  DTEisen  GM Quality of life measurement in gastroenterology: what is available? Am J Gastroenterol 2001;96285- 297
PubMedArticle
17.
Revicki  DACrawley  JAZodet  MWLevine  DSJoelsson  BO Complete resolution of heartburn symptoms and health-related quality of life in patients with gastro-esophageal reflux disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1999;131621- 1630
PubMedArticle
18.
Mant  JWJenkinson  CMurphy  MFClipsham  KMarshall  PVessey  MP Use of the Short Form-36 to detect the influence of upper gastrointestinal disease on self-reported health status. Qual Life Res 1998;7221- 226
PubMedArticle
19.
Rentz  AMBattista  CTrudeau  E  et al.  Symptom and health-related quality-of life measures for use in selected gastrointestinal disease studies: a review and synthesis of the literature. Pharmacoeconomics 2001;19349- 363
PubMedArticle
20.
Talley  NJFullerton  SJunghard  OWiklund  I Quality of life in patients with endoscopy-negative heartburn. Am J Gastroenterol 2001;961998- 2004
PubMedArticle
21.
Colwell  HHMathias  SDPasta  DJHenning  JMHunt  RH Development of a health-related quality-of-life questionnaire for individuals with gastroesophageal reflux disease: a validation study. Dig Dis Sci 1999;441376- 1383
PubMedArticle
22.
Wiklund  IKJunghard  OGrace  E  et al.  Quality of life in reflux and dyspepsia patients: psychometric documentation of a new disease-specific questionnaire (QOLRAD). Eur J Surg Suppl 1998;(583)41- 49
PubMed
23.
Young  TLKirchdoerfer  LJOsterhaus  JT A development and validation process for a disease-specific quality of life instrument. Drug Inf J 1996;30185- 193
24.
Farup  CKleinman  LSloan  S  et al.  The impact of nocturnal symptoms associated with gastroesophageal reflux disease on health-related quality of life. Arch Intern Med 2001;16145- 52
PubMedArticle
25.
Revicki  DASorensen  SMaton  PNOrlando  RC Health-related quality of life outcomes of omeprazole versus ranitidine in poorly responsive symptomatic gastroesophageal reflux disease. Dig Dis 1998;16284- 291
PubMedArticle
26.
Havelund  TLind  TWiklund  I  et al.  Quality of life in patients with heartburn but without esophagitis: effects of treatment with omeprazole. Am J Gastroenterol 1999;941782- 1789
PubMedArticle
27.
Murry  TRosen  CA Outcome measurements and quality of life in voice disorders. Otolaryngol Clin North Am 2000;33905- 916
PubMedArticle
28.
Benninger  MSAhuja  ASGardner  GGrywalski  C Assessing outcomes for dysphonic patients. J Voice 1998;12540- 550
PubMedArticle
29.
Hogikyan  NDSethuraman  G Validation of an instrument to measure voice-related quality of life (V-RQOL). J Voice 1999;13557- 569
PubMedArticle
30.
Hogikyan  NDRosen  CA A review of outcome measurements for voice disorders. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg 2002;126562- 572
PubMedArticle
31.
Lenderking  WRHillson  ECrawley  JAMoore  DBerzon  RPashos  CL The clinical characteristics and impact of laryngopharyngeal reflux disease on health-related quality of life. Value Health 2003;6560- 565
PubMedArticle
32.
Carrau  RLKhidr  ACrawley  JAHillson  EMDavis  JKPashos  CL The impact of laryngopharyngeal reflux on patient-reported quality of life. Laryngoscope 2004;114670- 674
PubMedArticle
33.
Belafsky  PCPostma  GNKoufman  JA The validity and reliability of the reflux finding score. Laryngoscope 2001;1111313- 1317
PubMedArticle
34.
McHorney  CAWare  JERaczek  AE The MOS 36-item short-form health survery (SF-36), II. Med Care 1993;31247- 263
PubMedArticle
35.
Ware  JESherbourne  CD The MOS 36-item short-form health survey. Med Care 1992;30473- 483
PubMedArticle
36.
Jacobson  BHJohnson  AGrywalski  C  et al.  The Voice Handicap Index (VHI): development and validation. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 1997;666- 70
37.
Jaeschke  RSinger  JGuyatt  GH Measurement of health status. Control Clin Trials 1989;10407- 415
PubMedArticle
×