Search

Patient perspectives are now widely recognized as a key element in the evaluation of health interventions. Therefore, the provision of specific and validated Patient Reported Outcome Measures that emphasize the lived experience of patients suffering from specific diseases is very important. In the field of sarcopenia, the only validated specific health-related quality of life (HRQoL) instrument available is the Sarcopenia Quality of Life questionnaire (SarQoL). This self-administrated HRQoL questionnaire, developed in 2015, consists of 55 items arranged into 22 questions and has currently been translated into 35 languages. Nineteen validation studies performed on SarQoL have consensually confirmed the capacity of SarQoL to detect difference in HRQoL between older people with and without sarcopenia, its reliability and its validity. Two further observational studies have also indicated its responsiveness to change. A short form SarQoL, including only 14 items has further been developed and validated to reduce the potential burden of administration. Research on the psychometric properties of SarQoL questionnaire is still encouraged as the responsiveness to change of SarQoL has not yet been measured in the context of interventional studies, as limited prospective data currently exist and as there is still not cut-off score to define a low HRQoL. In addition, SarQoL has mainly been used in community-dwelling older individuals with sarcopenia and would benefit to be studied in other types of populations. This review aims to provide to researchers, clinicians, regulators, pharmaceutical industries and other stakeholders a clear summary of comprehensive evidence on the SarQoL questionnaire published up to January 2023Query.

Funding Information: Open access funding provided by Università degli Studi di Palermo within the Nicola Veronese reports personal fees from IBSA, Mylan, and Fidia outside of the submitted work. Cyrus Cooper reports personal fees from Alliance for Better Bone Health, Amgen, Eli Lilly, GSK, Medtronic, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Roche, Servier, Takeda, and UCB outside of the submitted work. Jean-Yves Reginster reports CRUI-CARE Agreement. Funding Information:grants from IBSA-Genevrier, Mylan, CNIEL, and Radius Health (through his institution); consulting fees from IBSA-Genevrier, Mylan, CNIEL, Radius Health, and Pierre Fabre; fees for participation in review activities from IBSA-Genevrier, Mylan, CNIEL, Radius Health, and Teva; and payment for lectures from Ag-Novos, CERIN, CNIEL, Dairy Research Council (DRC), Echolight, IBSA-Genevrier, Mylan, Pfizer Consumer Health, Teva, and Theramex outside of the submitted work. Olivier Bruyère reports grants or lecture fees from Amgen, Aptissen, Biophytis, IBSA, MEDA, Mylan, Novartis, Sanofi, Servier, SMB, TRB Chemedica, UCB, and Viatris outside of the submitted work. Ali Mobasheri declares personal fees from Abbott, Abbvie, Achē Laboratórios Farmacêuticos, Galapagos, GSK Consumer Healthcare, Kolon TissueGene, Laboratoires Expansciences, Merck, Pacira Biosciences, Pfizer, Sanofi, and Servier. François Rannou reports grants or lecture fees from Pierre Fabre, Mylan, MSD, Thuasne, IBSA, Pfizer, Genévrier, Expanscience, Scarcell, Skindermic, and Peptinov. Ida K. Haugen reports grants from Pfizer and is a consultant for Novartis outside of the submitted work. Elaine M. Dennison declares grants/fees from Pfizer, Lilly, UCB, and Viatris. Philip G. Conaghan is supported in part by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Leeds Biomedical Research Centre (the views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR, or the Department of Health), and reports consultancies or lecture fees from AbbVie, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Galapagos, GSK, Grunenthal, Pfizer, Novartis, and UCB. Nasser M. Al-Daaghri, Antonella Fioravanti, Sara Cheleschi, Jean-Pierre Pelletier, Maarten de Wit, Etienne Cavalier, Radmila Matijevic, Germain Honvo, Régis Pierre Radermecker, René Rizzoli, Jaime Branco, Andrea Laslop, María Concepción Prieto Yerro, Alberto Migliore, Gabriel Herrero-Beaumont, and Nicholas R. Fuggle declare that they have no conflicts of interest. Publisher Copyright: © 2022, The Author(s). Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is one of the most common and disabling medical conditions. In the case of moderate to severe pain, a single intervention may not be sufficient to allay symptoms and improve quality of life. Examples include first-line, background therapy with symptomatic slow-acting drugs for OA (SYSADOAs) or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Therefore, the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) performed a review of a multimodal/multicomponent approach for knee OA therapy. This strategy is a particularly appropriate solution for the management of patients affected by knee OA, including those with pain and dysfunction reaching various thresholds at the different joints. The multimodal/multicomponent approach should be based, firstly, on different combinations of non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions. Potential pharmacological combinations include SYSADOAs and NSAIDs, NSAIDs and weak opioids, and intra-articular treatments with SYSADOAs/NSAIDs. Based on the available evidence, most combined treatments provide benefit beyond single agents for the improvement of pain and other symptoms typical of knee OA, although further high-quality studies are required. In this work, we have therefore provided new, patient-centered perspectives for the management of knee OA, based on the concept that a multimodal, multicomponent, multidisciplinary approach, applied not only to non-pharmacological treatments but also to a combination of the currently available pharmacological options, will better meet the needs and expectations of patients with knee OA, who may present with various phenotypes and trajectories. publishersversion published

© The Author(s) 2022 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/., Knee osteoarthritis (OA) is one of the most common and disabling medical conditions. In the case of moderate to severe pain, a single intervention may not be sufficient to allay symptoms and improve quality of life. Examples include first-line, background therapy with symptomatic slow-acting drugs for OA (SYSADOAs) or non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Therefore, the European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis, Osteoarthritis and Musculoskeletal Diseases (ESCEO) performed a review of a multimodal/multicomponent approach for knee OA therapy. This strategy is a particularly appropriate solution for the management of patients affected by knee OA, including those with pain and dysfunction reaching various thresholds at the different joints. The multimodal/multicomponent approach should be based, firstly, on different combinations of non-pharmacological and pharmacological interventions. Potential pharmacological combinations include SYSADOAs and NSAIDs, NSAIDs and weak opioids, and intra-articular treatments with SYSADOAs/NSAIDs. Based on the available evidence, most combined treatments provide benefit beyond single agents for the improvement of pain and other symptoms typical of knee OA, although further high-quality studies are required. In this work, we have therefore provided new, patient-centered perspectives for the management of knee OA, based on the concept that a multimodal, multicomponent, multidisciplinary approach, applied not only to non-pharmacological treatments but also to a combination of the currently available pharmacological options, will better meet the needs and expectations of patients with knee OA, who may present with various phenotypes and trajectories.