Best Methods of Communicating Clinical Trial Data to Improve Understanding of Treatments for Patients with Multiple Sclerosis

Shared decision-making in underserved populations with multiple sclerosis: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

The concept of shared decision-making (SDM) is valuable to ensure patients receive individualized care. SDM occurs when healthcare providers engage patients in making personal healthcare decisions that could contribute to better long-term outcomes. With the ever-increasing landscape of treatment options available, SDM can be challenging but valuable for patients. Patients from underserved populations are potentially less likely to engage in SDM, impacting their long-term care. This systematic literature review aimed to explore SDM in these patient populations.

METHODS

Relevant articles were retrieved from PubMed using key search terms, without any restriction on publication date. All searches and data retrieval were conducted between May 25, 2022, and August 17, 2022, and abstracts were reviewed by two independent reviewers. A thematic analysis was used to present the data.

RESULTS

All search terms yielded 418 articles; 89 were included (33 involving patients with multiple sclerosis [MS]). Reported mean percentage of patients with MS (including from underserved populations) who preferred SDM was 52 % (range: 37.5-71.5; n = 4). Differences in racial/ethnic assimilation of information communicated by clinicians were reported, impacted by the lower literacy level and certain cultural health beliefs in groups of underserved populations. Primary care clinicians play a key role in providing information to patients in underserved populations.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a clear benefit for SDM for patients with MS, and without it, patients report dissatisfaction, decisional regret, and lack of confidence in the medical system. However, there are several challenges, including the need for further examination of social determinants of health, for underserved patient populations which still need to be addressed.

Laypersons' understanding of statistical concepts commonly used in prescription drug promotion: A review of the research literature

BACKGROUND

The prevalence of direct-to-consumer (DTC) advertising for prescription drugs has led to concerns about how consumers interpret the medical information conveyed in these ads. One strategy for improving lay understanding of medical information involves incorporating quantitative information about a treatment's potential benefits and risks.

OBJECTIVE

This literature review investigates laypersons' interpretations of statistical concepts, expanding on past reviews and including terms that may be used in DTC prescription drug advertising.

METHODS

We searched six databases for articles published from January 2000 to October 2021. Articles were included if they were in English and examined general or lay audiences' comprehension of quantitative or statistical concepts, without limiting the context of the studies to medical situations.

RESULTS

We identified 25 eligible articles. The evidence suggests that likelihood ratios, odds ratios, probabilities, numbers needed to treat/harm, and confidence intervals hinder comprehension of quantitative information. The results are mixed for information presented as frequencies, percentages, absolute risk reduction, and relative risk reduction. The mixed findings could be due to numeracy, framing as risks or benefits, and operationalization of the outcomes. We found no studies examining interpretations of minimum, maximum, central tendency, power, statistical significance, or hazard ratio.

CONCLUSION

Studies spanning several decades have examined how laypeople interpret statistical concepts. While a few terms are consistently studied, many questions still remain on how to make risk information more understandable to lay audiences, particularly those with low numeracy.

Insights for Healthcare Providers on Shared Decision-Making in Multiple Sclerosis: A Narrative Review

Shared decision-making (SDM) between the patient and their healthcare provider (HCP) in developing treatment plans is increasingly recognized as central to improving treatment adherence and, ultimately, patient outcomes. In multiple sclerosis (MS), SDM is particularly crucial for optimizing treatment in a landscape that has grown more complex with the availability of newer, high-efficacy MS therapies. However, little direct evidence on the effectiveness of SDM is available to guide practice. Multiple factors, including patient age, ethnic background, perceptions, invisible MS symptoms, and psychological comorbidities can influence a patient's willingness and ability to participate in SDM. HCPs need to appreciate these factors and ask the right questions to break down obstacles to SDM. The HCP has a responsibility to help patients feel adequately informed and comfortable in having an active role in their care. This review identifies potential barriers to SDM and provides a strategy for HCPs to overcome these obstacles through patient (and caregiver) discussions to ensure optimal patient satisfaction with treatment and thus the best possible outcomes for their patients.

Long-Term Disease Stability Assessed by the Expanded Disability Status Scale in Patients Treated with Cladribine Tablets 3.5 mg/kg for Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis: An Exploratory Post Hoc Analysis of the CLARITY and CLARITY Extension Studies

INTRODUCTION

In the Cladribine Tablets Treating Multiple Sclerosis Orally (CLARITY) study, cladribine tablets significantly reduced relapse rates and improved findings on magnetic resonance imaging versus placebo in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis. In the CLARITY Extension study, treatment with cladribine tablets for 2 years followed by placebo for 2 years produced similar clinical benefits to 4 years of cladribine tablets. The objective of this exploratory post hoc analysis was to evaluate long-term disease stability (assessed by the Expanded Disability Status Scale [EDSS] score) after treatment with cladribine tablets.

METHODS

Patients enrolled into CLARITY Extension who were previously randomized to cladribine tablets 3.5 mg/kg in the CLARITY study were included in this post hoc analysis. Two treatment groups were investigated-patients randomized to cladribine tablets 3.5 mg/kg in CLARITY and thereafter randomized to placebo in CLARITY Extension (the CP3.5 group) or to cladribine tablets 3.5 mg/kg in CLARITY Extension (the CC7 group). In each treatment group, EDSS scores at 6-month intervals, EDSS score improvement/worsening each year, and time to 3- and 6-month confirmed EDSS progression were assessed from CLARITY baseline over 5 years of follow-up (including a variable bridging interval between studies). All analyses are descriptive, and no statistical comparisons were performed for between-treatment group differences.

RESULTS

The median (95% confidence interval [CI]) EDSS score for patients in the CP3.5 group at 5 years was 2.5 (2.0-3.5) compared with 3.0 (2.5-3.5) at baseline. In the CC7 group, median EDSS score (95% CI) at 5 years was 2.0 (2.0-3.0) compared with 2.5 (2.5-3.0) at baseline. During year 5 for the CP3.5 group, and based on changes in minimum score each year, EDSS score stability was observed in 53.9% of patients, improvement in 21.3%, and worsening in 24.7%. In the CC7 group, EDSS score remained stable in 66.1%, improved in 18.1%, and worsened in 15.8% of patients. Over 70% of patients in both treatment groups did not show 3- or 6-month confirmed EDSS progression at 5 years from CLARITY baseline.

CONCLUSIONS

These findings confirm long-term beneficial effects on disability afforded by either the recommended dose of cladribine tablets over 4 years (cumulative dose, 3.5 mg/kg) or a higher cumulative dose.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00213135 (CLARITY); NCT00641537 (CLARITY Extension).

Improving MS patients' understanding of treatment risks and benefits in clinical consultations: A randomised crossover trial

BACKGROUND

Multiple Sclerosis (MS) patients find it difficult to understand the complex risk-benefit profiles of disease-modifying drugs. An evidence-based protocol was designed to improve patient's understanding of treatment information: Benefit and Risk Information for Medication in Multiple Sclerosis (BRIMMS).

OBJECTIVE

A feasibility study to evaluate whether the BRIMMS protocol can improve MS patients' treatment understanding and reduce conflict in treatment decisions compared to consultation as usual.

DESIGN

Single-blind 4-condition 4-period randomised crossover trial. Hypothetical treatment information was presented to MS patients in a faux 20 minute consultation session using the BRIMMS protocol (aural and visual) or as a usual consultation (aural and visual). Patients were randomised to the order in which they received the four consultation styles.

PARTICIPANTS

24 patients diagnosed with relapsing-remitting MS.

MEASURES

Patients were assessed on their comprehension of treatment information, decisional conflict and feedback on consultation styles. Disease and demographic information was also collected.

RESULTS

Treatment understanding was greater for both BRIMMS visual and BRIMMS aural, compared to usual consultations in visual or aural format. Similarly, BRIMMS visual and BRIMMS aural reduced decisional conflict compared to usual consultations in visual or aural formats. All comparisons were p<0.001. Cognitive status was not related to understanding in the BRIMMS protocol, but was negatively related with usual consultation. Conversely, mood influenced understanding on the BRIMMS protocol but not for usual consultation.

CONCLUSIONS

BRIMMS protocol offers an effective, evidence-based tool for presenting treatment information in consultations with MS patients and is not influenced by cognition.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN17318966.

"I Will Respect the Autonomy of My Patient": A Scoping Review of Shared Decision Making in Multiple Sclerosis

Background

Patient autonomy is a bioethical principle that was strengthened in the revised Declaration of Geneva. Shared decision making (SDM) is particularly relevant in the management of multiple sclerosis (MS) because many preference-sensitive decisions have to be made during the disease course. We aimed to summarize the available evidence on SDM in the MS field and to inform future research and practice.

Methods

We performed a scoping review by searching MEDLINE (past 5 years). Studies were included if they reported primary/secondary research and focused on SDM related to people with MS. Data were grouped into topics, with results presented in narrative form.

Results

From 865 references, we included 55 studies conducted mostly in Europe. Half of the studies were observational, followed by qualitative (20%), mixed-methods (17%), randomized controlled trials (RCTs, 5%), quasi-experimental (5%), and reviews (4%). Most studies addressed people with relapsing-remitting MS (85%); the remaining addressed health care professionals, patients' significant others, or a combination. We identified five main topics: decisions on disease-modifying drugs, decisions on chronic cerebrospinal venous insufficiency treatment, information provision and patient education, health literacy, and risk knowledge.

Conclusions

The high proportion of included studies on SDM in MS in Europe suggests an earlier adoption of these concepts in this area. Decisions on disease-modifying drugs was the prevalent topic. Only 5% of studies were RCTs, indicating that more research is needed to study the effectiveness of SDM interventions. Studies addressing people with primary and secondary progressive MS are also needed.

Determining medical decision-making capacity in brain tumor patients: why and how?

Background

Brain tumor patients are at high risk of impaired medical decision-making capacity (MDC), which can be ethically challenging because it limits their ability to give informed consent to medical treatments or participation in research. The European Association of Neuro-Oncology Palliative Care Multidisciplinary Task Force performed a systematic review to identify relevant evidence with respect to MDC that could be used to give recommendations on how to cope with reduced MDC in brain tumor patients.

Methods

A literature search in several electronic databases was conducted up to September 2019, including studies with brain tumor and other neurological patients. Information related to the following topics was extracted: tools to measure MDC, consent to treatment or research, predictive patient- and treatment-related factors, surrogate decision making, and interventions to improve MDC.

Results

A total of 138 articles were deemed eligible. Several structured capacity-assessment instruments are available to aid clinical decision making. These instruments revealed a high incidence of impaired MDC both in brain tumors and other neurological diseases for treatment- and research-related decisions. Incapacity appeared to be mostly determined by the level of cognitive impairment. Surrogate decision making should be considered in case a patient lacks capacity, ensuring that the patient's "best interests" and wishes are guaranteed. Several methods are available that may help to enhance patients' consent capacity.

Conclusions

Clinical recommendations on how to detect and manage reduced MDC in brain tumor patients were formulated, reflecting among others the timing of MDC assessments, methods to enhance patients' consent capacity, and alternative procedures, including surrogate consent.

The Inability to Calculate Predictive Values: an Old Problem that Has Not Gone Away

BACKGROUND

Previous studies suggest that many physicians and medical trainees have trouble calculating the probability that a patient has a condition, also known as the predictive value.

ACTIVITY

Two questions from the medical literature were administered to medical students, residents (post-medical school), fellows (post-residency), and faculty physicians.

RESULTS

Only 6% answered both questions correctly. Most commonly, the participants grossly overestimated the probability of disease.

DISCUSSION

Physicians still struggle with the ability to calculate predictive values, a skill that affects all branches of medicine and will become more consequential as new tests are administered to patients at low risk for disease.

Patient Power Revolution in Multiple Sclerosis: Navigating the New Frontier

A debate on shared decision making in multiple sclerosis (MS) was led by a patient advocate and leading neurologists from the MS in the 21st Century Steering Group. Key themes and salient points which emerged from the debate and audience discussions are reported in this article. Arguments against shared decision making included the fact that physicians study and practice for years to reach their level of expertise, and that the level of understanding required to make these decisions may not be possible to communicate to patients within time-limited consultations. Furthermore, unreliable online information, information overload or information with marketing bias may also cloud patients' judgements. Arguments for patient engagement focussed on how ownership of decisions can lead to improved adherence and outcomes, and a strengthening of the physician-patient relationship. Shared decision making requires educating patients to make informed decisions and to understand the risks and consequences of their choices. However, shared decision making may not be the correct option for every patient, and the level of involvement must be driven by the patient. To support patients' engagement and promote responsible management of their condition, physicians need to (1) foster and maintain a positive, ongoing relationship with their patients, and (2) provide patients with timely, accurate, and understandable information. There was broad agreement that the patient voice should be heard more in discussions around the future of MS care. MS in the 21st Century offers a model for patient involvement in partnership with MS healthcare specialists, and the steering group is currently considering these issues and developing tools and solutions to enhance patient-physician communication and relationships. Funding Merck KGaA, Darmstadt, Germany.