SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Establishing minimally clinically important differences for the orthostatic hypotension questionnaire (OHQ).

Clin Auton Res · 2025-10-24

DOI: 10.1007/s10286-025-01168-yPMID: 41134458

Open accessClinical Trial, Phase III; research-article; Randomized Controlled Trial; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

PurposeEstablish the minimally clinically important difference (MCID) for the Orthostatic Hypotension Questionnaire (OHQ).BackgroundNeurogenic orthostatic hypotension (nOH) causes disabling symptoms that impair daily function and quality of life. The OHQ is a validated patient-reported outcome with a symptom assessment (OHSA) and daily activity scale (OHDAS), widely used in clinical trials, despite the MCID being unestablished.MethodsWe analyzed data from two phase 3, randomized placebo-controlled trials (SEQUOIA and REDWOOD), evaluating ampreloxetine for symptomatic nOH in patients with Parkinson disease, multiple system atrophy, and pure autonomic failure. Using anchor-based and distribution-based methods, we calculated the MCID for the total OHQ score, OHSA and OHDAS composite subscales, and for the single dizziness/lightheadedness question (OHSA1).ResultsThe analysis included 184 subjects from SEQUOIA and 128 from REDWOOD. The total OHQ MCID for improvement was a reduction of 0.9-1.2 points and for worsening was an increase of 0.7-1.1 points. The MCID for the OHSA composite ranged from a reduction of 0.9-1.3 points for improvement and an increase of 0.7-1.1 points for worsening. For the single-item OHSA1, the MCID was a reduction of 2.0-3.0 points for improvement and an increase of 1.0 point for worsening. Owing to poor correlation with the symptom-based anchors, a reliable MCID for the OHDAS component was not established.ConclusionsThese MCID thresholds for the OHQ, OHSA and OHSA item 1 alone, enhance the interpretability of scores and support their use in evaluating clinical benefit.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.