SPIRIT-PRO Extension explanation and elaboration: guidelines for inclusion of patient-reported outcomes in protocols of clinical trials

Impact of withholding early parenteral nutrition on 2-year mortality and functional outcome in critically ill adults

PURPOSE

In critically ill adults, withholding parenteral nutrition until 1 week after intensive care admission (Late-PN) facilitated recovery as compared with early supplementation of insufficient enteral nutrition with parenteral nutrition (Early-PN). However, the impact on long-term mortality and functional outcome, in relation to the estimated nutritional risk, remains unclear.

METHODS

In this prospective follow-up study of the multicenter EPaNIC randomized controlled trial, we investigated the impact of Late-PN on 2-year mortality (N = 4640) and physical functioning, assessed by the 36-Item Short Form Health Survey (SF-36; in 3292 survivors, responding 819 [738-1058] days post-randomization). To account for missing data, we repeated the analyses in two imputed models. To identify potential heterogeneity of treatment effects, we investigated the impact of Late-PN in different nutritional risk subgroups as defined by Nutritional Risk Screening-2002-score, modified NUTrition Risk in the Critically Ill-score, and age (above/below 70 years), and we evaluated whether there was statistically significant interaction between classification to a nutritional risk subgroup and the effect of the randomized intervention. Secondary outcomes were SF-36-derived physical and mental component scores (PCS & MCS).

RESULTS

Two-year mortality (20.5% in Late-PN, 19.8% in Early-PN; P = 0.54) and physical functioning (70 [40-90] in both study-arms; P = 0.99) were similar in both groups, also after imputation of missing physical functioning data. Likewise, Late-PN had no impact on 2-year mortality and physical functioning in any nutritional risk subgroup. PCS and MCS were similar in both groups.

CONCLUSION

Late-PN did not alter 2-year survival and physical functioning in adult critically ill patients, independent of anticipated nutritional risk.

The Dermatology Life Quality Index as the primary outcome in randomized clinical trials: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Primary endpoint measures in clinical trials are typically measures of disease severity, with patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) relegated as secondary endpoints. However, validation of some PROMs may be more rigorous than that of disease severity measures, which could provide support for a primary role for PROMs.

OBJECTIVES

This study reports on 24 peer reviewed journal articles that used the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) as primary outcome, derived from a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) utlizing DLQI, covering all diseases and interventions.

METHODS

The study protocol was prospectively published on the PROSPERO database, and the study followed PRISMA guidelines. Searches were made using MEDLINE, The Cochrane Library, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, CINAHL (EBSCO) and PsycINFO databases and records were combined into an Endnote database. Records were filtered for duplicates and selected based on study inclusion/exclusion criteria. Full-text articles were sourced and data were extracted by two reviewers into a bespoke REDCap database, with a third reviewer adjudicating disagreements. The Jadad scoring method was used to determine risk of bias.

RESULTS

Of the 3220 publications retrieved from online searching, 457 articles met the eligibility criteria and included 198 587 patients. DLQI scores were used as primary outcomes in 24 (5.3%) of these studies comprising 15 different diseases and 3436 patients. Most study interventions (17 of 24 studies, 68%) were systemic drugs, with biologics (liraglutide, alefacept, secukinumab, ustekinumab, adalimumab) accounting for 5 of 25 pharmacological interventions (20%). Topical treatments comprised 32% (8 studies), whereas nonpharmacological interventions (n = 8) were 24% of the total interventions (N = 33). Three studies used nontraditional medicines. Eight studies were multicentred (33.3%), with trials conducted in at least 14 different countries, and four studies (16.7%) were conducted in multiple countries. The Jadad risk of bias scale showed that bias was uncertain or low, as 87.5% of studies had Jadad scores of ≥ 3.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides evidence for use of the DLQI as a primary outcome in clinical trials. Researchers and clinicians can use this data to inform decisions about further use of the DLQI as a primary outcome.

Data collection methods for patient-reported outcome measures in cancer randomised controlled trials: a protocol for a rapid scoping review

BACKGROUND

There are different modes and ways to assess patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical trials. However, there is little systematic information on how often different modes of assessment (MOA) are used in cancer clinical trials and how exactly assessments are conducted. The goal of this scoping review is to gain an understanding of the MOA and data management of PROs in cancer randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and the reporting quality thereof.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This scoping review protocol follows the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Relevant trials will be identified via their indexed publications. We will search PubMed for RCTs conducted in cancer populations that evaluate a biomedical treatment with a PRO endpoint. Trials with publications published between January 2019 and November 2023 will be included. Two independent reviewers will review the references for both the abstract and full-text screening. We will extract data from the publications from a trial and the trial protocol if a protocol can be traced. Data will be summarised at the trial level. We will focus on a descriptive analysis of the MOA of PROs and on the relative frequencies of the different MOA. We will also evaluate the quality of reporting for the relevant SPIRIT and CONSORT guidelines that refer to the assessment of PROs in trials. Due to the scoping nature of our review, we will not perform a dedicated quality assessment of all trials.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The proposed review is based on secondary, published data. Hence, no ethics review is necessary. The review is part of an ongoing project on the use of electronic data capture methods in cancer clinical trials. The findings from the review will support the project and contribute to synthesising guidance to ultimately improve the (electronic) measurement of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical trials.

Critical Comments by Food and Drug Administration Reviewers on Patient-Reported Outcomes in Food and Drug Administration Regulatory Submissions (2018-2021)

OBJECTIVES

This article examined the inclusion of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data in new drug applications (NDAs) submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and approved from 2018 to 2021. The importance of assessing PROs, which capture patients' perspectives on the disease and treatment experience, has been underscored by many stakeholders, including regulatory authorities. Despite the increasing inclusion of PRO assessments in registration trials, inclusion of language related to PRO results in approved product labeling varies widely.

METHODS

This study examined FDA submission packages for NDAs approved by the FDA from 2018 to 2021 to identify critical reviewer comments related to PROs. Comments were identified and categorized by the type of criticism. Reviewers considered both oncology and nononcology indications.

RESULTS

Assessment of PROs was included in 66.2% of the 210 submissions reviewed. Critical comments were identified in 45.3% of these applications; comments most commonly related to statistical analysis considerations, fit for purpose, and study design. Other categories of critical comment included data quality, lack of treatment benefit, administrative considerations, and miscellaneous issues. Differences were observed between oncology and nononcology NDAs with regard to the number and type of comments included in each of these categories. The findings highlight the importance of planning statistical analyses, establishing content validity, carefully considering study design, maximizing data quality, and demonstrating treatment benefit, among other issues.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, this study offers insight into the landscape of PRO data included in recently approved NDAs, along with recommendations for improving the quality and reporting of PROs in clinical trials.

Toward a more patient-centered drug development process in clinical trials for patients with myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms (MDS): Practical considerations from the International Consortium for MDS (icMDS)

Notable treatment advances have been made in recent years for patients with myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms (MDS), and several new drugs are under development. For example, the emerging availability of oral MDS therapies holds the promise of improving patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Within this rapidly evolving landscape, the inclusion of HRQoL and other patient-reported outcomes (PROs) is critical to inform the benefit/risk assessment of new therapies or to assess whether patients live longer and better, for what will likely remain a largely incurable disease. We provide practical considerations to support investigators in generating high-quality PRO data in future MDS trials. We first describe several challenges that are to be thoughtfully considered when designing an MDS-focused clinical trial with a PRO endpoint. We then discuss aspects related to the design of the study, including PRO assessment strategies. We also discuss statistical approaches illustrating the potential value of time-to-event analyses and their implications within the estimand framework. Finally, based on a literature review of MDS randomized controlled trials with a PRO endpoint, we note the PRO items that deserve special attention when reporting future MDS trial results. We hope these practical considerations will facilitate the generation of rigorous PRO data that can robustly inform MDS patient care and support treatment decision-making for this patient population.

Dissecting Through the Literature: A Review of the Critical Appraisal Process

Critical appraisal is a crucial step in evidence-based practice, enabling researchers to evaluate the credibility and applicability of research findings. Healthcare professionals are encouraged to cultivate critical appraisal skills to assess the trustworthiness and value of available evidence. This process involves scrutinizing key components of a research publication, understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the study, and assessing its relevance to a specific context. It is essential for researchers to become familiar with the core elements of a research article and utilize key questions and guidelines to rigorously assess a study. This paper aims to provide an overview of the critical appraisal process. By understanding the main points of critical appraisal, researchers can assess the quality, relevance, and reliability of articles, thereby enhancing the validity of their findings and decision-making processes.

Recommendations to address respondent burden associated with patient-reported outcome assessment

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in healthcare research to provide evidence of the benefits and risks of interventions from the patient perspective and to inform regulatory decisions and health policy. The use of PROs in clinical practice can facilitate symptom monitoring, tailor care to individual needs, aid clinical decision-making and inform value-based healthcare initiatives. Despite their benefits, there are concerns that the potential burden on respondents may reduce their willingness to complete PROs, with potential impact on the completeness and quality of the data for decision-making. We therefore conducted an initial literature review to generate a list of candidate recommendations aimed at reducing respondent burden. This was followed by a two-stage Delphi survey by an international multi-stakeholder group. A consensus meeting was held to finalize the recommendations. The final consensus statement includes 19 recommendations to address PRO respondent burden in healthcare research and clinical practice. If implemented, these recommendations may reduce PRO respondent burden.

Patient-report and caregiver-report measures of rehabilitation service use following acquired brain injury: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To review patient-report/caregiver-report measures of rehabilitation service use following acquired brain injury (ABI).

DATA SOURCES

Medline, APA PsycINFO, Embase and CINAHL were searched on November 2021 and November 2022. Authors were contacted if measures were not included in manuscripts/appendices.

STUDY SELECTION

Included articles were empirical research or a research protocol, available in English and described measures of patient report/caregiver report of rehabilitation service use post-ABI via quantitative or qualitative methods. Two reviewers independently screened 5290 records using DistillerSR. Discrepancies were resolved by team adjudication.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data extraction was piloted with high levels of agreement (k=.94). Data were extracted by a single member with team meetings to seek guidance as needed. Data included administration characteristics (reporter, mode of administration, recall period), psychometric evidence and dimensions assessed (types of services, setting, frequency, duration, intensity, qualitative aspects).

DATA SYNTHESIS

One hundred and fifty-two measures were identified from 85 quantitative, 56 qualitative and 3 psychometric studies. Psychometric properties were reported for four measures, all of which focused on satisfaction. Most measures inquired about the type of rehabilitation services used, with more than half assessing functional (eg, physical therapy) and behavioural health rehabilitation services, but fewer than half assessing community and academic reintegration (eg, special education, vocational rehabilitation) or cognitive (eg, neuropsychology) services. Fewer than half assessed qualitative aspects (eg, satisfaction). Recall periods ranged from 1 month to 'since the ABI event' or focused on current use. Of measures that could be accessed (n=71), many included a limited checklist of types of services used. Very few measures assessed setting, frequency, intensity or duration.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite widespread interest, the vast majority of measures have not been validated and are limited in scope. Use of gold-standard psychometric methods to develop and validate a comprehensive patient-report/caregiver-report measure of rehabilitation service use would have wide-ranging implications for improving rehabilitation research in ABI.

Perceptions regarding the concept and definition of patient-reported outcomes among healthcare stakeholders in Japan with relation to quality of life: a cross-sectional study

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are frequently used in a variety of settings, including clinical trials and clinical practice. The definition of PRO and quality of life (QOL) and their relationship have been concluded through discussions among experts that has been the premise of PRO guidelines are not clearly stated in the guidelines. Therefore, the definition of PRO, especially in relation to QOL, is sometimes explained simply, as "PRO includes QOL," but this complicated matters. This study investigated the perceptions of PRO among various stakeholders (including patients and their families, the industry, clinicians, regulatory or health technology assessment personnel, and academic researchers) in Japan to clarify its definitions and that of QOL, including their relationship.We conducted a two-step survey: a qualitative interview survey and a web-based survey to ensure the validity of the survey. During the interviews, eight stakeholders described their perceptions and thoughts on PRO and its relationship to QOL, and their experience of using PRO. Overall 253 clinicians, 249 company employees, and 494 patients participated in the web survey to confirm how the findings of the interview survey supported the results.In the interview survey, patient advocates described various perspectives of PRO and QOL, including unexpected dynamic relationships, while the most other stakeholders explained PRO and QOL with the language used in the guidelines, but their responses were split. The web-based survey revealed that all stakeholders had a lower awareness of PRO than QOL. The most common perception of PRO, especially in the relationship to QOL, was "they did not fully overlap." Although there were differences in perceptions of the relationship between PRO and QOL among clinicians, company employees, and patients, all perceived PRO as a tool to facilitate communication in clinical practice.The present results are inconsistent with the simplified explanation of PRO, but consistent with the original PRO guideline definitions, which also considered the role of PRO in clinical practice. To make PRO a more potent tool, all stakeholders using PRO should confirm its definition and how it differs from QOL, have a unified recognition in each PRO use, and avoid miscommunication.

Obstetric Medicine: the protocol for a prospective three-dimensional cohort study to assess maternity care for women with pre-existing conditions (ForMaT)

Background

Pregnancies in women with pre-existing medical conditions are on the rise. These pregnancies are characterized by an increased rate of maternal and perinatal complications, which can result in higher health care expenditures and altered pregnancy experiences. The purpose of this study is to integrally analyze maternity care for women with pre-existing conditions in the framework of a risk-adapted, interdisciplinary care by recording three substantial parts of maternity care: (1) maternal and perinatal outcome; (2) hospital costs and reimbursements covering the period from preconception counseling or initial antenatal visit to discharge after birth; and (3) women's experience of reproductive choice and becoming a mother in the presence of a pre-existing condition.

Methods

In this observational, prospective, longitudinal, and monocentric cohort study, we aim to include a total of 1,500 women over a recruitment period of 15 months. Women registering for care at the Department of Obstetrics and Prenatal Medicine, University Hospital Bonn, Germany, are allocated to three groups based on their health and risk status: women with pre-existing conditions, as well as healthy women with obstetric risk factor and healthy women with a low-risk pregnancy. Participants are observed from time of initial consultation until discharge after birth. Analysis focuses on (1) maternal and perinatal outcome, especially rate of severe maternal and neonatal morbidity; (2) costs and reimbursements; and (3) surveys to capture of women's experience and health-related quality of life during the time of reproductive choice, pregnancy, and childbirth in the presence of pre-existing medical conditions.

Discussion

With its complex three-dimensional design, the ForMaT-Trial is aiming to provide a comprehensive analysis of pregnancy and childbirth in women with pre-existing conditions. The results may serve as a basis for counseling and care of these women. By analyzing costs of specialized care, data for discussing reimbursement are generated. Lastly, our results may increase awareness for the perception of reproductive choice, pregnancy and motherhood in this continuously rising population.Clinical trial registration: German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00030061, October 28, 2022.

Navigating the outcome maze: a scoping review of outcomes and instruments in clinical trials in genetic neurodevelopmental disorders and intellectual disability

Background

Individuals with genetic neurodevelopmental disorders (GNDs) or intellectual disability (ID) are often affected by complex neuropsychiatric comorbidities. Targeted treatments are increasingly available, but due to the heterogeneity of these patient populations, choosing a key outcome and corresponding outcome measurement instrument remains challenging.

Objectives

The aim of this scoping review was to describe the research on outcomes and instruments used in clinical trials in GNDs and ID.

Eligibility criteria

Clinical trials in individuals with GNDs and ID for any intervention over the past 10 years were included in the review.

Sources of evidence

MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched. Titles and abstracts were independently screened for eligibility with a subsample of 10% double-screening for interrater reliability. Data from full texts were independently reviewed. Discrepancies were discussed until consensus was reached.

Charting methods

Information was recorded on patient populations, interventions, designs, outcomes, measurement instruments, and type of reporter when applicable. Qualitative and descriptive analyses were performed.

Results

We included 312 studies reporting 91 different outcomes, with cognitive function most frequently measured (28%). Various outcome measurement instruments (n = 457) were used, with 288 in only a single clinical trial. There were 18 genetic condition-specific instruments and 16 measures were designed ad-hoc for one particular trial. Types of report included proxy-report (39%), self-report (22%), clinician-report (16%), observer-report (6%), self-assisted report (1%), or unknown (16%).

Conclusion

This scoping review of current practice reveals a myriad of outcomes and outcome measurement instruments for clinical trials in GNDs and ID. This complicates generalization, evidence synthesis, and evaluation. It underlines the need for consensus on suitability, validity, and relevancy of instruments, ultimately resulting in a core outcome set. A series of steps is proposed to move from the myriad of measures to a more unified approach.

Reflections on estimands for patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials

It is common and important to include the patient's perspective of the impact of treatment on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes. In this commentary, we focus on applying the new addendum to ICH E9 guideline E9 (R1) relating to the estimand framework to Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) collected in cancer clinical trials, from a statistician's viewpoint. Currently, common practice for statistical analysis of PRO endpoints of published cancer clinical trials demonstrates ambiguity, leaving critical questions unspecified, hindering conclusions about the effect of treatment on PRO endpoints as well as comparability between clinical trials. To avoid this scenario, we advocate the systematic use of the estimand framework which requires the prospective definition of clear PRO research questions. Among the five attributes of the estimands framework, the definition of the endpoint (what is the right PRO measure and timeframe to target and why?), the intercurrent event identification and management (what happens with PRO data post-disease progression, what is the impact of death?) and the population-level summary (what is an acceptable statistical summary for PRO data?) require the most attention for PRO estimands. We identify good practice and highlight discussion points including the challenges of statistical analysis in the presence of missing and/or unobservable data and in relation to death. Through this discussion we highlight that there is no "statistical magic", but that the estimand framework will help you find out what you really want to know when quantifying the benefit of treatments from the patients' perspective.

Low-quality of patient-reported outcome reporting in randomized clinical trials of major depressive disorder-a meta-epidemiological review

Objective

Our goal was to review current peer-reviewed articles in which the BDI (Beck Depression Inventory), PHQ-9 (Patient Health Questionnaire), or QIDS-SR16 (16-Item Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology) was used as the primary or secondary outcome measure and to evaluate the quality of PRO (Patient-Reported Outcome) reporting in RCTs (Randomized Controlled Trials) according to the 2013 PRO-specific CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) extension.

Methods

We systematically searched in electronic databases. A study would be included if it included patients diagnosed with major depressive disorder according to the criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or International Classification of Diseases, version 10 (ICD-10) as participants, was a randomized controlled trial, included the BDI, PHQ-9, or QIDS-SR16 as the primary or secondary outcome measure, published between 1990 and 2013, and was in English. Two of the authors evaluated the quality of PRO reporting according to the 2013 CONSORT-PRO. Logistic regression were used to evaluate the association between reporting completeness and trial characteristics.

Results

A total of 116 studies were included. These studies were conducted in 25 countries. Sample sizes ranged from 12 to 750. The CONSORT-PRO was not cited in any one of the included studies. Among the 116 studies, 2 (1.72%) studies introduced the rationale for PRO assessment, 60 (51.72%) studies explicitly stated statistical approaches for dealing with missing data, 87 (75.00%) studies reported PRO outcome data at baseline and at subsequent time points. The mean score of reporting completeness was 66.24%. Significantly higher reporting completeness was found for RCTs published after 2013 (OR, 95%CI: 3.81, 1.32-10.99). Studies with a higher sample size were more completely reported than studies with a lower sample size (OR, 95%CI: 1.01, 1.00-1.02).

Conclusion

The CONSORT-PRO guidance was rarely cited. The quality of PRO reporting in depression studies requires improvement. This result may be meaningful for the promotion of PRO reporting in RCTs.

Design and evaluation of a digital health intervention with proactive follow-up by nurses to improve healthcare and outcomes for patients with breast cancer in Mexico: protocol for a randomised clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Nearly 30 000 Mexican women develop breast cancer annually, frequently presenting unmet supportive care needs. In high-income countries, incorporating electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) into cancer care has demonstrated potential for increasing patient-centred care and reducing unmet needs. No such ePRO interventions have been implemented in Mexico. This paper presents the study protocol for designing and evaluating an ePRO digital health application combined with proactive follow-up by nurses.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We designed a two-component intervention for women receiving breast cancer treatment: a responsive web application for monitoring ePROs and clinical algorithms guiding proactive follow-up by nurses. We will conduct a pilot test of the intervention with 50 patients with breast cancer for 6 weeks to assess feasibility and adjust the application. We will conduct a parallel arm randomised controlled trial assigning 205 patients each to intervention and control in one of Mexico's largest public oncology hospitals. The intervention will be provided for 6 months, with additional 3 months of post-intervention observation. The control group will receive usual healthcare and a list of breast cancer information sources. Women diagnosed with stages I, II or III breast cancer who initiate chemotherapy and/or radiotherapy will be invited to participate. The primary study outcome will be supportive care needs; secondary outcomes include global quality of life and breast symptoms. Information on the outcomes will be obtained through web-based self-administered questionnaires collected at baseline, 1, 3, 6 and 9 months.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The National Research and Ethics Committees of the Mexican Institute of Social Security approved the study (R-2021-785-059). Participants will sign an informed consent form prior to their inclusion. Findings will be disseminated through a policy brief to the local authorities, a webinar for patients, publications in peer-reviewed journals and presentations at national and international conferences.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05925257.

The effect of disease modifying therapies on fatigue in multiple sclerosis

INTRODUCTION

Fatigue is one of the most common and debilitating symptoms in people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS). Disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) are currently the gold standard in the treatment of MS and their effectiveness has been assessed through randomized clinical trials (RCTs). However, there is limited evidence on the impact of DMTs on fatigue in (PwMS). We conducted a systematic review to 1) understand whether fatigue is included as an outcome in MS trials of DMTs; 2) determine the effects on fatigue of treating MS with DMTs and 3) assess the quality of MS trials including fatigue as an outcome.

METHODS

Two independent researchers systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov from 1993 to January 2023 for RCTs that measured fatigue as an outcome. Adherence to reporting standards was assessed with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)-Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO), while the risk of bias (RoB) was assessed with the RoB 2 tool by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The systematic review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022383321).

RESULTS

The search strategy identified 130 RCTs of DMTs of which 7 (5%) assessed fatigue as an outcome. Of the 7 trials, only two presented statistically significant results. In addition, the reporting of fatigue among RCTs was suboptimal with a mean adherence to the CONSORT-PRO Statement of 36% across all trials. Of the 7 trials included, four were assessed as 'high' RoB..

CONCLUSIONS

Fatigue has a major impact on PwMS yet there is limited trial-based evidence on the impact of DMTs on fatigue. Assessment of fatigue as an outcome is underrepresented in trials of DMTs and the reporting of PRO trial data is suboptimal. Thus, it is imperative that MS researchers conduct RCTs that include fatigue as an outcome, to support clinicians and people with MS (PwMS) to consider the impact of the different DMTs on fatigue.

Study protocol: combined N-of-1 trials to assess open-label placebo treatment for antidepressant discontinuation symptoms [FAB-study]

BACKGROUND

Antidepressant discontinuation is associated with a broad range of adverse effects. Debilitating discontinuation symptoms can impede the discontinuation process and contribute to unnecessary long-term use of antidepressants. Antidepressant trials reveal large placebo effects, indicating a potential use of open-label placebo (OLP) treatment to facilitate the discontinuation process. We aim to determine the effect of OLP treatment in reducing antidepressant discontinuation symptoms using a series of N-of-1 trials.

METHODS

A series of randomized, single-blinded N-of-1 trials will be conducted in 20 patients with fully remitted DSM-V major depressive disorder, experiencing moderate to severe discontinuation symptoms following antidepressant discontinuation. Each N-of-1 trial consists of two cycles, each comprising two-week alternating periods of OLP treatment and of no treatment in a random order, for a total of eight weeks. Our primary outcome will be self-reported discontinuation symptoms rated twice daily via the smartphone application 'StudyU'. Secondary outcomes include expectations about discontinuation symptoms and (depressed) mood. Statistical analyses will be based on a Bayesian multi-level random effects model, reporting posterior estimates of the overall and individual treatment effects.

DISCUSSION

Results of this trial will provide insight into the clinical application of OLP in treating antidepressant discontinuation symptoms, potentially offering a new cost-effective therapeutic tool. This trial will also determine the feasibility and applicability of a series of N-of-1 trials in a clinical discontinuation trial.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05051995, first registered September 20, 2021.

Perspectives on Patient-Reported Outcome Data After Treatment Discontinuation in Cancer Clinical Trials

OBJECTIVES

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) data are critical in understanding treatments from the patient perspective in cancer clinical trials. The potential benefits and methodological approaches to the collection of PRO data after treatment discontinuation (eg, because of progressive disease or unacceptable drug toxicity) are less clear. The purpose of this article is to describe the Food and Drug Administration's Oncology Center of Excellence and the Critical Path Institute cosponsored 2-hour virtual roundtable, held in 2020, to discuss this specific issue.

METHODS

We summarize key points from this discussion with 16 stakeholders representing academia, clinical practice, patients, international regulatory agencies, health technology assessment bodies/payers, industry, and PRO instrument development.

RESULTS

Stakeholders recognized that any PRO data collection after treatment discontinuation should have clearly defined objectives to ensure that data can be analyzed and reported.

CONCLUSIONS

Data collection after discontinuation without a justification for its use wastes patients' time and effort and is unethical.

Do anemia treatments improve quality of life and physical function in patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS)? A systematic review

Anemia is common in Myelodysplastic Syndromes (MDS). Different anemia treatments have been tested in clinical studies, but the full impact on patients' health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and physical function is unknown. The main aim of this review was to assess whether improvements in anemia are associated with changes in HRQoL/physical function. Twenty-six full-text publications were identified, enrolling 2211 patients: nine randomized trials (RCTs), fourteen non-randomized studies of interventions and three cross-sectional studies. Interventions included: growth factors/erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (n = 14), red cell transfusion (n = 9), erythroid maturation agents (n = 1), or a combination (n = 2). Five RCTs reported no changes in HRQoL despite erythroid response to the intervention, raising the question of whether anemia treatment alone can effectively improve HRQoL. Many studies were considered at high risk of bias for assessing HRQoL. There is a pressing need for future clinical trials to better define the nature of the relationship between anemia and HRQoL/functional outcomes.

Novel Endpoints in Solid Organ Transplantation: Targeting Patient-reported Outcome Measures

Although solid organ transplantation improves survival and quality of life in many patients with organ failure, treatment complications and side effects can have debilitating consequences for patients. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) capture how patients feel and function, including quality of life, symptoms, and side effects that are assessed directly by patients. Yet, they remain infrequently reported in trials in solid organ transplantation. Barriers to implementing PROMs in trials include uncertainty in selecting appropriate PROMs, concerns about resources limitations, patient burden, and limited evidence to support the psychometric robustness of measures for use in transplant recipients. In recent years, there have been increasing efforts to include patient-reported outcomes that are important to patients in trials to ensure that trials provide patient-centered information for decision-making. This article will provide an overview of PROMs, discuss PROs that are important to solid organ transplant recipients and those that are used in trials in solid organ transplantation, and outline approaches for selecting PROMs for clinical trials.

Whole-Body Photobiomodulation Therapy for Fibromyalgia: A Feasibility Trial

Effective treatment for fibromyalgia (FM) is lacking and further treatment options are needed. Photobiomodulation therapy (PBMT) represents one potential treatment option. Whilst favourable findings have been reported using localised PBMT, no investigations have established the value of whole-body PBMT for the complete set of symptom domains in FM. A single-arm feasibility study was conducted in accordance with CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) guidelines. A non-probability sampling method was used to access individuals with FM. The primary outcome measure was identified as the Revised Fibromyalgia Impact Questionnaire (FIQR). Forty-nine participants were screened and twenty-one trial participants entered the trial. Nineteen participants completed the intervention (18 whole-body PBMT sessions over approximately six weeks). Descriptive statistics and qualitative analysis was undertaken to represent feasibility outcomes. Acceptability of the trial device and processes were established. Outcome measures towards efficacy data were guided by core and peripheral OMERACT (outcomes measures in rheumatological clinical trials) domains, utilising a combination of participant-reported and performance-based outcome measures. Data for the embedded qualitative component of the trial were captured by participant-reported experience measures and audio-recorded semi-structured interviews. Positive changes were observed for FM-specific quality of life, pain, tenderness, stiffness, fatigue, sleep disturbance, anxiety, depression and cognitive impairment. Patient global assessment revealed improvements at 6 weeks, with continued effect at 24 weeks. FM-specific quality of life at 24 weeks remained improved compared with baseline scores. The findings provided evidence to support a full-scale trial and showed promise regarding potential efficacy of this novel non-invasive treatment in an FM population.

Do clinical trials prepare to fail by failing to prepare? An examination of MS trials and recommendations for patient-reported outcome measure selection

BACKGROUND

Many clinical trials use patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures, which can influence treatment decision-making, drug approval and label claims. Given that many PRO measure options exist, and there are conceptual and contextual complexities with PRO measurement, we aimed to evaluate how and why specific PRO measures have been selected for pivotal multiple sclerosis (MS) clinical trials. Specifically, we aimed to identify the reasons documented for PRO measure selection in contemporary phase III MS disease-modifying treatment (DMT) clinical trials.

METHODS

We searched for phase III clinical trials of MS DMTs published between 2015 and 2021 and evaluated trial protocols, or primary publications where available, for PRO measure selection information. Specifically, we examined study documents for their clarification of clinical concepts measured, definitions of concepts measured, explanations of which PRO measures were considered, why specific PRO measures were chosen, and trade-offs in PRO measure selection.

RESULTS

We identified 1705 abstracts containing 61 unique phase III MS DMT clinical trials. We obtained and examined 27/61 trial protocols. Six protocols were excluded: four contained no mention of PRO measures and two contained redacted sections preventing adequate assessment, leaving 21 protocols for assessment. For the remaining 34 trials (61-27), we retrieved 31 primary publications; 15 primary publications mentioned the use of a PRO measure. None of the 36 clinical trials that mentioned the use of PRO measures (21 protocols and 15 primary publications) documented clear PRO or clinical outcome assessment (COA) measurement strategies, provided clear justifications for PRO selection, or reasons why specific PRO measures were selected when alternatives existed.

CONCLUSION

PRO measure selection for clinical trials is not evidence-based or underpinned by structured systematic approaches. This represents a critical area for study design improvement as PRO measure results directly affect patient care, PRO measurement has conceptual and contextual complexities, and there is a wide range of options when selecting a PRO measure. We recommend trial designers use formal approaches for PRO measure selection to ensure PRO measurement-based decisions are optimised. We provide a simple, logical, five-stage approach for PRO measure selection in clinical trials.

Development and validation of a novel personalized electronic patient-reported outcome measure to assess quality of life (Q-LIFE): a prospective observational study in people with Cystic Fibrosis

BACKGROUND

Generic and disease-specific patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) may lack relevance and sensitivity on a patient-level in chronic diseases with differential disease expression and high individual variability, such as Cystic Fibrosis (CF). This study aimed to develop and validate a novel personalized electronic PROM (ePROM) that captures relevant aspects of quality of life in individuals with CF.

METHODS

The Q-Life app was developed as a short personalized ePROM to assess individual quality of life. Psychometric properties were assessed in a single-center cross-sectional study between September 2019 and September 2021 and in a prospective cohort study between September 2021 and September 2022.

FINDINGS

Combined studies included 223 participants (median age: 24 years, IQR: 19.0-32.5 years, range: 12.0-58.0 years). Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha: 0.83-0.90) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient: 0.90; 95% CI: 0.65-0.92; p < 0.001) of quality of life (Q-Life) scores were strong. Q-Life scores were associated with overall Cystic Fibrosis Questionnaire-Revised (CFQ-R) scores (ρ = 0.71; p < 0.001), CFQ-R respiratory domain scores (ρ = 0.57; p < 0.001) and forced expiratory volume in 1s (ρ = 0.41; p < 0.001). Furthermore, Q-Life scores improved from 65.0 (IQR: 45.0-63.3) at baseline to 84.2 (IQR: 75.0-95.0) and 87.5 (IQR: 75.0-100.0) after 3 and 6 months of elexacaftor/tezacaftor/ivacaftor treatment (change: 20.8; 95% CI: 17.5-25.0; p < 0.001), comparable to CFQ-R respiratory domain scores (change: 22.2, 95% CI: 19.4-25.0, p < 0.001).

INTERPRETATION

The Q-Life app is a reliable, valid and sensitive personalized ePROM to measure all aspects of quality of life that really matter to individuals with Cystic Fibrosis. This patient-centered approach could provide important advantages over generic and disease-specific PROMs in the era of personalized medicine and value-based healthcare.

FUNDING

Dutch Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, Health-Holland.

Efficacy of smartphone-based virtual reality relaxation in providing comfort to patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy in oncology outpatient setting in Indonesia: protocol for a randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy experience various physical and psychological problems and discomfort. Virtual reality (VR) can be used in technology-based non-pharmacological therapy that can serve as a potential distractor in the symptom management of patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy. We propose a smartphone-based virtual reality relaxation (S-VR) technique as a complementary modality to provide comfort to patients with cancer, and we will evaluate its effect on patients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will recruit 80 patients from the One Day Chemotherapy 'Tulip' Center of Dr. Sardjito General Hospital, Yogyakarta, Indonesia. This will be a two-arm parallel randomised controlled trial, with a 1:1 allocation and the primary outcome assessor blinded. This study will be divided into two groups: (1) an intervention group, with participants receiving 360° panoramic video content and music relaxation intervention through a VR device (head-mounted display) placed on their head during chemotherapy for ±10 min plus standard care and (2) a control group, with participants receiving guided imagery relaxation therapy in the form of a leaflet plus standard care. We will measure the outcomes after one chemotherapy cycle for each participant. The primary outcome is the effectiveness of the S-VR in improving the comfort of patients. The secondary outcome is the effect of the S-VR on the patients' symptom management self-efficacy, pain, anxiety, blood pressure (systolic blood pressure and diastolic blood pressure) and pulse rate.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was approved by the Medical and Health Research Ethics Committee of the Faculty of Medicine, Public Health and Nursing of Universitas Gadjah Mada-Dr. Sardjito General Hospital, Yogyakarta, Institutional Review Board (approval number: KE/FK/0301/EC/2023). Written informed consent will be obtained from all participants who enrol in the study. Dissemination will be conducted through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05756465.

Effects of whole-body vibration on sensorimotor deficits and brain plasticity among people with chronic ankle instability: a study protocol for a single-blind randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Chronic ankle instability (CAI) is a form of musculoskeletal disease that can occur after a lateral ankle sprain, and it is characterized by pain, recurrent ankle sprains, a feeling of "giving way" at the ankle joint, and sensorimotor deficits. There has been increasing evidence to suggest that plastic changes in the brain after the initial injury play an important role in CAI. As one modality to treat CAI, whole-body vibration (WBV) has been found to be beneficial for treating the sensorimotor deficits accompanying CAI, but whether these benefits are associated with brain plasticity remains unknown. Therefore, the current study aims to investigate the effect of WBV on sensorimotor deficits and determine its correlation with plastic changes in the brain.

METHODS

The present study is a single-blind randomized controlled trial. A total of 80 participants with CAI recruited from the university and local communities will be divided into 4 groups: whole-body vibration and balance training (WBVBT), balance training (BT), whole-body vibration (WBV), and control group. Participants will be given the WBV intervention (25-38 Hz, 1.3-2 mm, 3-time per week, 6-week) supervised by a professional therapist. Primary outcome measures are sensorimotor function including strength, balance, proprioception and functional performance. Brain plasticity will be evaluated by corticomotor excitability, inhibition, and representation of muscles, as measured by transcranial magnetic stimulation. Activation of brain areas will be assessed through functional near-infrared spectroscopy. Secondary outcome measures are self-reported functional outcomes involving the Cumberland Ankle Instability Tool and the Foot and Ankle Ability Measure. All tests will be conducted before and after the WBV intervention, and at 2-week follow-up. Per‑protocol and intention-to-treat analysis will be applied if any participants withdraw.

DISCUSSION

This is the first trial to investigate the role of brain plasticity in sensorimotor changes brought by WBV for individuals with CAI. As plastic changes in the brain have been an increasingly important aspect in CAI, the results of the current study can provide insight into the treatment of CAI from the perspective of brain plasticity.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR2300068972); registered on 02 March 2023.

Development of consensus-based considerations for use of adult proxy reporting: an ISOQOL task force initiative

AIMS

Many large-scale population-based surveys, research studies, and clinical care allow for inclusion of proxy reporting as a strategy to collect outcomes when patients are unavailable or unable to provide reliable self-report. Prior work identified an absence of methodological guidelines regarding proxy reporting in adult populations, including who can serve as a proxy, and considerations for data collection, analysis, and reporting. The primary objective of this work by the ISOQOL Proxy Task Force was to review documents and clinical outcome assessment measures with respect to proxy reporting and to develop, through consensus, considerations for proxy reporting.

METHODS

We assembled an international group with clinically relevant and/or methodological expertise on proxy use in adult populations. We conducted a targeted review of documentation based on regulatory, non-regulatory, professional society, and individual measure sources. Using a standardized collection form, proxy-related information was extracted from each source including definitions of a proxy, characteristics of a proxy, domains addressable or addressed by a proxy, and observer-reporting.

RESULTS

The definition of proxy was inconsistent across 39 sources, except regulatory documents which defined a proxy as a person other than the patient who reports on an outcome as if she/he were the patient. While proxy report was discouraged in regulatory documentation, it was acknowledged there were instances where self-report was impossible. Many documentation sources indicated proxies would be well-justified in certain contexts, but did not indicate who could act as a proxy, when proxies could be used, what domains of patient health they could report on, or how data should be reported. Observer-reported outcomes were typically defined as those based on observed behaviors, however there was not a consistent differentiation between proxy and observer reporting. Based on information extracted from these resources, we developed a checklist of considerations when including proxy-reported measures or using proxies in study design, data collection, analysis, interpretation and reporting of proxy reported data.

CONCLUSION

Our targeted review highlights a lack of clarity in capturing, interpreting and reporting data from proxies in adult populations. We provide a checklist of considerations to assist researchers and clinicians with including proxies in research studies and clinical care. Lastly, our review identified areas where further guidance and future research are necessary.

Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints in Cancer Clinical Trials-Innovative Medicines Initiative (SISAQOL-IMI): stakeholder views, objectives, and procedures

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as symptoms, functioning, and other health-related quality-of-life concepts are gaining a more prominent role in the benefit-risk assessment of cancer therapies. However, varying ways of analysing, presenting, and interpreting PRO data could lead to erroneous and inconsistent decisions on the part of stakeholders, adversely affecting patient care and outcomes. The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints in Cancer Clinical Trials-Innovative Medicines Initiative (SISAQOL-IMI) Consortium builds on the existing SISAQOL work to establish recommendations on design, analysis, presentation, and interpretation for PRO data in cancer clinical trials, with an expanded set of topics, including more in-depth recommendations for randomised controlled trials and single-arm studies, and for defining clinically meaningful change. This Policy Review presents international stakeholder views on the need for SISAQOL-IMI, the agreed on and prioritised set of PRO objectives, and a roadmap to ensure that international consensus recommendations are achieved.

International Society for Quality of Life Research commentary on the US Food and Drug Administration draft guidance for industry on core patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials

In June 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a draft guidance for industry on core patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and related considerations for instrument selection and trial design in registrational cancer clinical trials, building on prior communications about the use of PROs to assess efficacy and tolerability in oncology drug development. The International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) Standards and Best Practices Committee led an initiative to draft a commentary about the guidance, focusing on its positive aspects and areas that would benefit from additional clarification and consideration. For comprehensiveness, the authors reviewed existing public comments on the draft guidance, and the commentary underwent a thorough review process through three ISOQOL Special Interest Groups (Psychometrics, Clinical Practice, and Regulatory and Health Technology Assessment Engagement) followed by the ISOQOL Board. The goal of this commentary is to situate this new and relevant guidance document within the context of recent regulatory efforts on PROs and highlight areas in which further work may ultimately benefit the field.

Reporting quality of randomized controlled trials evaluating non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants in atrial fibrillation: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are subject to bias if they lack methodological quality. Furthermore, optimal and transparent reporting of RCT findings aids their critical appraisal and interpretation. This study aimed to comprehensively evaluate the report quality of RCTs of non-vitamin K oral anticoagulants (NOACs) for the treatment of atrial fibrillation (AF) and to analyze the factors influencing the quality.

METHODS

By searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases RCTs published from inception to 2022 evaluating the efficacy of NOACs on AF were collected. By using the 2010 Consolidated Standards for Reporting Tests (CONSORT) statement, the overall quality of each report was assessed.

RESULTS

Sixty-two RCTs were retrieved in this study. The median of overall quality score in 2010 was 14 (range: 8.5-20). The extent of compliance with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials reporting guideline differed substantially across items: 9 items were reported adequately (more than 90%), and 3 were reported adequately in less than 10% of trials. Multivariate linear regression analysis showed that the higher reporting scores were associated with higher journal impact factor (P = 0.01), international collaboration (P < 0.01), and Sources of trial funding (P = 0.02).

CONCLUSIONS

Although a large number of randomized controlled trials of NOACs for the treatment of AF were published after the CONSORT statement in 2010, the overall quality is still not satisfactory, thus weakening their potential utility and may mislead clinical decisions. This survey provides the first hint for researchers conducting trials of NOACs for AF to improve the quality of reports and to actively apply the CONSORT statement.

Patient-reported outcome measures and patient engagement in heart failure clinical trials: multi-stakeholder perspectives

There are many consequences of heart failure (HF), including symptoms, impaired health-related quality of life (HRQoL), and physical and social limitations (functional status). These have a substantial impact on patients' lives, yet are not routinely captured in clinical trials. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can quantify patients' experiences of their disease and its treatment. Steps can be taken to improve the use of PROs in HF trials, in regulatory and payer decisions, and in patient care. Importantly, PRO measures (PROMs) must be developed with involvement of patients, family members, and caregivers from diverse demographic groups and communities. PRO data collection should become more routine not only in clinical trials but also in clinical practice. This may be facilitated by the use of digital tools and interdisciplinary patient advocacy efforts. There is a need for standardization, not only of the PROM instruments, but also in procedures for analysis, interpretation and reporting PRO data. More work needs to be done to determine the degree of change that is important to patients and that is associated with increased risks of clinical events. This 'minimal clinically important difference' requires further research to determine thresholds for different PROMs, to assess consistency across trial populations, and to define standards for improvement that warrant regulatory and reimbursement approvals. PROs are a vital part of patient care and drug development, and more work should be done to ensure that these measures are both reflective of the patient experience and that they are more widely employed.

Changing Agendas on Sleep, Treatment and Learning in Epilepsy (CASTLE) Sleep-E: a protocol for a randomised controlled trial comparing an online behavioural sleep intervention with standard care in children with Rolandic epilepsy

INTRODUCTION

Sleep and epilepsy have an established bidirectional relationship yet only one randomised controlled clinical trial has assessed the effectiveness of behavioural sleep interventions for children with epilepsy. The intervention was successful, but was delivered via face-to-face educational sessions with parents, which are costly and non-scalable to population level. The Changing Agendas on Sleep, Treatment and Learning in Epilepsy (CASTLE) Sleep-E trial addresses this problem by comparing clinical and cost-effectiveness in children with Rolandic epilepsy between standard care (SC) and SC augmented with a novel, tailored parent-led CASTLE Online Sleep Intervention (COSI) that incorporates evidence-based behavioural components.

METHODS AND ANALYSES

CASTLE Sleep-E is a UK-based, multicentre, open-label, active concurrent control, randomised, parallel-group, pragmatic superiority trial. A total of 110 children with Rolandic epilepsy will be recruited in outpatient clinics and allocated 1:1 to SC or SC augmented with COSI (SC+COSI). Primary clinical outcome is parent-reported sleep problem score (Children's Sleep Habits Questionnaire). Primary health economic outcome is the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (National Health Service and Personal Social Services perspective, Child Health Utility 9D Instrument). Parents and children (≥7 years) can opt into qualitative interviews and activities to share their experiences and perceptions of trial participation and managing sleep with Rolandic epilepsy.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The CASTLE Sleep-E protocol was approved by the Health Research Authority East Midlands (HRA)-Nottingham 1 Research Ethics Committee (reference: 21/EM/0205). Trial results will be disseminated to scientific audiences, families, professional groups, managers, commissioners and policymakers. Pseudo-anonymised individual patient data will be made available after dissemination on reasonable request.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN13202325.

Intraoperative pharmacologic opioid minimisation strategies and patient-centred outcomes after surgery: a scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

For close to a century opioid administration has been a standard of care to complement anaesthesia during surgery. Considering the worldwide opioid epidemic, this practice is now being challenged and there is a growing use of systemic pharmacological opioid minimising strategies. Our aim is to conduct a scoping review that will examine clinical trials that have evaluated the impact of intraoperative opioid minimisation strategies on patient-centred outcomes and identify promising strategies.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Our scoping review will follow the framework developed by Arksey and O'Malley. We will search MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, Web of Science and CINAHL from their inception approximately in March 2023. We will include randomised controlled trials, assessing the impact of systemic intraoperative pharmacologic opioid minimisation strategies on patient-centred outcomes. We define an opioid minimisation strategy as any non-opioid drug with antinociceptive properties administered during the intraoperative period. Patient-centred outcomes will be defined and classified based on the consensus definitions established by the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine initiative (StEP-COMPAC group) and informed by knowledge users and patient partners. We will use a coproduction approach involving interested parties. Our multidisciplinary team includes knowledge users, patient partners, methodologists and knowledge user organisations. Knowledge users will provide input on methods, outcomes, clinical significance of findings, implementation and feasibility. Patient partners will participate in assessing the relevance of our design, methods and outcomes and help to facilitate evidence translation. We will provide a thorough description of available clinical trials, compare their reported patient-centred outcome measures with established recommendations and identify promising strategies.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval is not required for the review. Our scoping review will inform future research including clinical trials and systematic reviews through identification of important intraoperative interventions. Results will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication, presentation at conferences and through our network of knowledge user collaborators.

REGISTRATION

Open Science Foundation (currently embargoed).

Patient Reported Outcomes and Measures in Children with Rhabdomyosarcoma

In addition to optimising survival of children with rhabdomyosarcoma (RMS), more attention is now focused on improving their quality of life (QOL) and reducing symptoms during treatment, palliative care or into long-term survivorship. QOL and ongoing symptoms related to the disease and its treatment are outcomes that should ideally be patient-reported (patient-reported outcomes, PROs) and can be assessed using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMS). This commentary aims to encourage PRO and PROM use in RMS by informing professionals in the field of available PROMs for utilisation in paediatric RMS and provide considerations for future use in research and clinical practice. Despite the importance of using PROMs in research and practice, PROMs have been reported scarcely in paediatric RMS literature so far. Available literature suggests lower QOL of children with RMS compared to general populations and occurrence of disease-specific symptoms, but a lack of an RMS-specific PROM. Ongoing developments in the field include the development of PROMs targeted at children with RMS specifically and expansion of PROM evaluation within clinical trials.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Ovarian Cancer: Facilitating and Enhancing the Reporting of Symptoms, Adverse Events, and Subjective Benefit of Treatment in Clinical Trials and Clinical Practice

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide a valid, standardized way of assessing symptoms, adverse events and the subjective benefit of treatment from the patient's perspective. Assessment of PROs is critical in ovarian cancer due to the high morbidity of the disease and its treatments. Several well-validated PRO measures are available to assess PROs in ovarian cancer. Their inclusion in clinical trials can provide evidence on the benefits and harms of new treatments based on patients' experiences to guide improvements in clinical practice and health policy. Aggregate PRO data collected in clinical trials can be used to inform patients about likely treatment impacts and assist them to make informed treatment decisions. In clinical practice, PRO assessments can facilitate monitoring of a patient's symptoms throughout treatment and follow-up to guide their clinical management; in this context, an individual patient's responses can facilitate communication with their treating clinician about troublesome symptoms and their impact on their quality of life. This literature review aimed to provide clinicians and researchers with a better understanding of why and how PROs can be incorporated into ovarian cancer clinical trials and routine clinical practice. We discuss the importance of assessing PROs throughout the ovarian cancer disease and treatment trajectory in both clinical trials and clinical practice, and provide examples from existing literature to illustrate the uses of PROs as the goals of treatment change in each setting.

PATIENT-REPORTED OUTCOMES WHILE MANAGING OBSTRUCTIVE SLEEP APNEA WITH ORAL APPLIANCES: A SCOPING REVIEW

OBJECTIVE

This scoping review aims to describe dental treatment-related patient-reported outcomes (dPROs) while using oral appliances (OAs) to manage obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) in children and adults.

METHODS

Available literature that assessed dPROs in children and adults with OSA managed through OAs. Any clinical studies were included without restrictions of year or country. The results were analyzed and reported using narrative text and tables accompanying a descriptive summary.

RESULTS

The searches identified 1718 citations, and of these, forty-five studies were finally included. A total of 3498 adults were included in all 42 primary studies included in this review, in which all the studies presented adults as participants. The dPROs assessed were quality of life (QoL), reported side effects after OA usage, patient satisfaction, and experience with treatment, and subjective perception of occlusal changes after treatment.

CONCLUSION

This scoping review suggests that dPROs are mostly investigated as a secondary outcome from major studies exploring the effects of OAs on OSA severity, and often, dPROs are not well discussed or displayed on their report. As no risk of bias or certainty level assessment was completed, findings need to be carefully considered. Although in general terms management with OAs among adults with OSA does not seem to be uncomfortable or causing major problems to their lives, some mild discomfort and endured occlusal disturbances was reported in some studies. QoL seems to improve but consistent agreement was elusive. Data does not include experiences among those that dropped OA use. No data seems to exist about dPROs in children.

Development of a core outcome set for use in adult primary glioma phase III interventional trials: A mixed methods study

Background

Glioma interventional studies should collect data aligned with patient priorities, enabling treatment benefit assessment and informed decision-making. This requires effective data synthesis and meta-analyses, underpinned by consistent trial outcome measurement, analysis, and reporting. Development of a core outcome set (COS) may contribute to a solution.

Methods

A 5-stage process was used to develop a COS for glioma trials from the UK perspective. Outcome lists were generated in stages 1: a trial registry review and systematic review of qualitative studies and 2: interviews with glioma patients and caregivers. In stage 3, the outcome lists were de-duplicated with accessible terminology, in stage 4 outcomes were rated via a 2-round Delphi process, and stage 5 comprised a consensus meeting to finalize the COS. Patient-reportable COS outcomes were identified.

Results

In Delphi round 1, 96 participants rated 35 outcomes identified in stages 1 and 2, to which a further 10 were added. Participants (77/96) rated the resulting 45 outcomes in round 2. Of these, 22 outcomes met a priori threshold for inclusion in the COS. After further review, a COS consisting of 19 outcomes grouped into 7 outcome domains (survival, adverse events, activities of daily living, health-related quality of life, seizure activity, cognitive function, and physical function) was finalized by 13 participants at the consensus meeting.

Conclusions

A COS for glioma trials was developed, comprising 7 outcome domains. Additional research will identify appropriate measurement tools and further validate this COS.

Surrogate endpoints in trials: a call for better reporting

Using a surrogate endpoint as a substitute for a patient-relevant final outcome enables randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to be conducted more efficiently. However, the use of surrogates remains controversial and there is currently no guideline for the reporting of RCTs using surrogate endpoints; therefore, we seek to develop SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) and CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) extensions to improve the reporting of these trials. We would like to invite interested individuals (trial methodologists, journal editors, healthcare industry, regulators and payers, and patient/public representative groups), particularly those with experience in the use of surrogate endpoints in trials.

Clinician and Patient Reporting of Symptomatic Adverse Events in Cancer Clinical Trials: Using CTCAE and PRO-CTCAE® to Provide Two Distinct and Complementary Perspectives

Inclusion of the patient perspective in the reporting of symptomatic adverse events provides different and complementary information to clinician reporting using the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE). The National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE^®) is designed for patients to self-report their symptomatic adverse events in a manner that complements CTCAE reporting. Using CTCAE and PRO-CTCAE together offers the potential to refine our understanding of the prevalence and trajectory of lower grade AEs that can lead to elective discontinuation of therapy and diminished quality of life. This review addresses the development of PRO-CTCAE with an emphasis on the differences between PRO-CTCAE scores and CTCAE severity grades. This distinction is important when evaluating, grading and reporting toxicity and tolerability in cancer clinical trials.

Effect of compression by elastic bandages on pain and function in individuals with knee osteoarthritis: protocol of a randomised controlled clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Although compression is used to control pain in knee osteoarthritis (KOA), its clinical application is poorly supported, and there is a lack of scientific evidence to support its clinical use. As a low-cost and accessible protocol, compression using elastic bands could be a non-pharmacological intervention to reduce pain and improve physical function in individuals with KOA. This study aims to evaluate the effects of compression on pain and function in individuals with KOA.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A randomised controlled clinical trial will be conducted. Individuals with KOA (n=90; both sexes; between 40 and 75 years old) will be allocated to three groups (n=30/group): compression (compression by the elastic bandage on the affected knee, once a day for 20 min, on four consecutive days); sham (same protocol, but the elastic band is placed around the affected knee without compression) and control (no intervention). The individuals in the three groups will be evaluated 1 day before the first intervention, 1 day after the last intervention, and at the 12th and 24th weeks after the end of the intervention. Pain intensity by the Visual Analogue Scale and pain scale from Western Ontario & McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC) will be the primary outcomes. The secondary variables will be physical function assessed by the WOMAC questionnaire and physical tests (step test; 30 s sit and stand test; 40 m accelerated walk test). The Global Rating of Change Scale (GRC) will also be applied to quantify the volunteers' perceived change.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The project was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee of the Federal University of São Carlos, São Paulo, Brazil (3955692). The results will be published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04724902.

BeatPain Utah: study protocol for a pragmatic randomised trial examining telehealth strategies to provide non-pharmacologic pain care for persons with chronic low back pain receiving care in federally qualified health centers

INTRODUCTION

Although evidence-based guidelines recommend non-pharmacologic treatments as first-line care for chronic low back pain (LBP), uptake has been limited, particularly in rural, low-income and ethnically diverse communities. The BeatPain study will evaluate the implementation and compare the effectiveness of two strategies to provide non-pharmacologic treatment for chronic LBP. The study will use telehealth to overcome access barriers for persons receiving care in federally qualified health centres (FQHCs) in the state of Utah.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

BeatPain Utah is a pragmatic randomised clinical trial with a hybrid type I design investigating different strategies to provide non-pharmacologic care for adults with chronic LBP seen in Utah FQHCs. The intervention strategies include a brief pain consult (BPC) and telehealth physical therapy (PT) component provided using either an adaptive or sequenced delivery strategy across two 12-week treatment phases. Interventions are provided via telehealth by centrally located physical therapists. The sequenced delivery strategy provides the BPC, followed by telehealth PT in the first 12 weeks for all patients. The adaptive strategy uses a stepped care approach and provides the BPC in the first 12 weeks and telehealth PT to patients who are non-responders to the BPC component. We will recruit 500 English-speaking or Spanish-speaking participants who will be individually randomised with 1:1 allocation. The primary outcome is the Pain, Enjoyment and General Activity measure of pain impact with secondary outcomes including the additional pain assessment domains specified by the National Institutes (NIH) of Health Helping to End Addiction Long Initiative and implementation measures. Analyses of primary and secondary measures of effectiveness will be performed under longitudinal mixed effect models across assessments at baseline, and at 12, 26 and 52 weeks follow-ups.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval for the study was obtained from the University of Utah Institutional Review Board. On completion, study data will be made available in compliance with NIH data sharing policies.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT04923334.

[Extensions of guidelines for reporting types of study in medicine]

The use of different guides to report types of study in the medical field has been widely disseminated for decades, however, their adherence and use by an important part of researchers is still limited, this has negatively impacted the dissemination of new findings, which has generated criticism regarding how medical research is designed, conducted and reported. Parallel to this, there are extensions to these guidelines which are little known and used by the personnel involved in research work, they focus on more specific approaches to report different types of studies, among which are: meta-analysis, systematic reviews, clinical trials randomized, diagnostic accuracy studies, observational studies, among others; for this reason, its promotion, knowledge, and use is of vital importance. The objective of this review is to synthesize the main extensions of the guidelines used in medical research; for this purpose, its main characteristics were reviewed, as well as application scenarios according to the level of evidence; Its adequate adherence will allow health personnel involved in research work to increase the transparency and quality of their findings, contemplate potential sources of bias, as well as the development of good practices for the presentation of their results according to the type of study selected.

Protocol for the development of SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions for randomised controlled trials with surrogate primary endpoints: SPIRIT-SURROGATE and CONSORT-SURROGATE

INTRODUCTION

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) may use surrogate endpoints as substitutes and predictors of patient-relevant/participant-relevant final outcomes (eg, survival, health-related quality of life). Translation of effects measured on a surrogate endpoint into health benefits for patients/participants is dependent on the validity of the surrogate; hence, more accurate and transparent reporting on surrogate endpoints is needed to limit misleading interpretation of trial findings. However, there is currently no explicit guidance for the reporting of such trials. Therefore, we aim to develop extensions to the SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) and CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) reporting guidelines to improve the design and completeness of reporting of RCTs and their protocols using a surrogate endpoint as a primary outcome.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

The project will have four phases: phase 1 (literature reviews) to identify candidate reporting items to be rated in a Delphi study; phase 2 (Delphi study) to rate the importance of items identified in phase 1 and receive suggestions for additional items; phase 3 (consensus meeting) to agree on final set of items for inclusion in the extensions and phase 4 (knowledge translation) to engage stakeholders and disseminate the project outputs through various strategies including peer-reviewed publications. Patient and public involvement will be embedded into all project phases.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has received ethical approval from the University of Glasgow College of Medical, Veterinary and Life Sciences Ethics Committee (project no: 200210051). The findings will be published in open-access peer-reviewed publications and presented in conferences, meetings and relevant forums.

Listening to the Patient Voice Adds Value to Cancer Clinical Trials

Randomized clinical trials are critical for evaluating the safety and efficacy of interventions in oncology and informing regulatory decisions, practice guidelines, and health policy. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in randomized trials to reflect the impact of receiving cancer therapies from the patient perspective and can inform evaluations of interventions by providing evidence that cannot be obtained or deduced from clinicians' reports or from other biomedical measures. This commentary focuses on how PROs add value to clinical trials by representing the patient voice. We employed 2 previously published descriptive frameworks (addressing how PROs are used in clinical trials and how PROs have an impact, respectively) and selected 9 clinical trial publications that illustrate the value of PROs according to the framework categories. These include 3 trials where PROs were a primary trial endpoint, 3 trials where PROs as secondary endpoints supported the primary endpoint, and 3 trials where PROs as secondary endpoints contrast the primary endpoint findings in clinically important ways. The 9 examples illustrate that PROs add valuable data to the care and treatment context by informing future patients about how they may feel and function on different treatments and by providing clinicians with evidence to support changes to clinical practice and shared decision making. Beyond the patient and clinician, PROs can enable administrators to consider the cost-effectiveness of implementing new interventions and contribute vital information to policy makers, health technology assessors, and regulators. These examples provide a strong case for the wider implementation of PROs in cancer trials.

Outcomes addressed in randomized controlled lifestyle intervention trials in community-dwelling older people with (sarcopenic) obesity-An evidence map

Obesity and sarcopenic obesity (SO) are characterized by excess body fat with or without low muscle mass affecting bio-psycho-social health, functioning, and subsequently quality of life in older adults. We mapped outcomes addressed in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on lifestyle interventions in community-dwelling older people with (sarcopenic) obesity. Systematic searches in Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Web of Science were conducted. Two reviewers independently performed screening and extracted data on outcomes, outcome domains, assessment methods, units, and measurement time. A bubble chart and heat maps were generated to visually display results. Fifty-four RCTs (7 in SO) reporting 464 outcomes in the outcome domains: physical function (n = 42), body composition/anthropometry (n = 120), biomarkers (n = 190), physiological (n = 30), psychological (n = 47), quality of life (n = 14), pain (n = 4), sleep (n = 2), medications (n = 3), and risk of adverse health events (n = 5) were included. Heterogeneity in terms of outcome definition, assessment methods, measurement units, and measurement times was found. Psychological and quality of life domains were investigated in a minority of studies. There is almost no information beyond 52 weeks. This evidence map is the first step of a harmonization process to improve comparability of RCTs in older people with (sarcopenic) obesity and facilitate the derivation of evidence-based clinical decisions.

Evaluation of the Distal Radial Approach in percutaneous coronary interventions. Controlled, randomized non-inferiority trial

RESEARCH PROBLEM

The conventional radial approach is the recommended vascular access for percutaneous coronary interventions. It is effective and feasible but associated with a risk of occlusion of the radial artery. The distal radial approach is proposed as a new approach to reduce complications and preserve the radial artery. However, few clinical trials in real life were conducted in North African patients. This trial aims to evaluate the efficacy and safety of the distal radial approach versus the conventional radial approach. Investigative process : This trial is a non-inferiority, randomized controlled trial with two parallel arms: distal radial approach and conventional radial approach. Two hundred fifty patients scheduled for percutaneous coronary intervention will be included. The two main endpoints are the puncture success rate with a non-inferiority margin of 10% and the occlusion rate of the punctured radial artery attributed to the end of hemostasis and to 30 days. Secondary Endpoints : catheterization success, crossover rate, procedure time, radial artery spasm, bleeding complications, QuickDASH pain score, Operator satisfaction. A single blind analysis will be led according to the per-protocol and intention-to-treat methods.

RESEARCH PLAN

Ethical considerations will be undertaken and respected. This trial will run for four months from February 2022. The results will provide parameters related to the efficacy and safety of the distal radial approach, improving clinical practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT05311111.

A review of patient-reported outcomes used for regulatory approval of oncology medicinal products in the European Union between 2017 and 2020

Introduction

Cancer and corresponding available treatments are associated with substantial symptoms and functional limitations. In this context, collection of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in clinical trials gained special interest and is recommended by regulatory authorities. Within clinical trials framework, PRO may provide evidence to support medicines approval, labeling and marketing claims. This study aims to analyze the existing evidence based on PRO as part of new oncology indications receiving positive opinions issued by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) between 2017 and 2020 and to identify PRO related label claims granted.

Methodology

Oncology medicinal products and indications approved by the European Commission following a positive opinion from the EMA between 2017 and 2020 were identified. European Public Assessment Report (EPAR) and Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) were reviewed for each medicinal product to identify use of PRO and PRO label claims.

Results

A total of 128 oncology indications, corresponding to 76 medicines, were approved; of those, 100 (78.1%) included PRO in the confirmatory clinical trials. Thirty-seven indications were supported by double-blind randomized trials and the remainder 63 by open-label trials. Out of the 104 confirmatory trials analyzed, PRO were defined as a secondary endpoint in 60 studies (57.7%), exploratory in 31 (29.8%) and as both in 13 (12.5%). In total, 54 different PRO measures (PROM) were used, of those 41 (75.9%) were disease-specific measures. Nevertheless, PROM selected relied on the EORTC (41.3%), FACIT (17.1%) and EQ-5D (29.2%) measures. A total of 76 indications (59.4%) had PRO reviewers comments included in the EPAR, however only 22 indications (17.8%) included label claims in the SmPC. The reasons identified in the EMA assessment supporting the exclusion of PRO claims were described for 34 indications (44.7%).

Conclusions

Despite growing recognition of the value of PRO data for the development of improved cancer therapies, PRO implementation remains challenging. The main reasons identified in our study are related with study design, missing data, study conduct and PROM selection.