Patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessment in clinical trials: a systematic review of guidance for trial protocol writers

Health-related Quality of Life in Patients with Previously Treated Advanced Urothelial Carcinoma from EV-301: A Phase 3 Trial of Enfortumab Vedotin Versus Chemotherapy

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

In comparison to chemotherapy, enfortumab vedotin (EV) prolonged overall survival in patients with previously treated advanced urothelial carcinoma in EV-301. The objective of the present study was to assess patient experiences of EV versus chemotherapy using patient-reported outcome (PRO) analysis of health-related quality of life (HRQoL).

METHODS

For patients in the phase 3 EV-301 trial randomized to EV or chemotherapy we assessed responses to the validated European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 (QLQ-C30) at baseline, weekly for the first 12 wk, and then every 12 wk until discontinuation. We analyzed the QLQ-C30 change from baseline to week 12, the confirmed improvement rate, and the time to improvement or deterioration.

KEY FINDINGS AND LIMITATIONS

Baseline PRO compliance rates were 91% for the EV arm (n = 301) and 89% for the chemotherapy arm (n = 307); the corresponding average rates from baseline to week 12 were 70% and 67%. Patients receiving EV versus chemotherapy had reduced pain (difference in change from baseline to week 12: -5.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] -10.8 to -0.7; p = 0.027) and worsening appetite loss (7.3, 95% CI 0.90-13.69; p = 0.026). Larger proportions of patients in the EV arm reported HRQoL improvement from baseline than in the chemotherapy arm; the odds of a confirmed improvement across ten QLQ-C30 function/symptom scales were 1.67 to 2.76 times higher for EV than for chemotherapy. Patients in the EV arm had a shorter time to first confirmed improvement in global health status (GHS)/QoL, fatigue, pain, and physical, role, emotional, and social functioning (all p < 0.05). EV delayed the time to first confirmed deterioration in GHS/QoL (p = 0.027), but worsening appetite loss occurred earlier (p = 0.009) in comparison to chemotherapy.

CONCLUSIONS AND CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS

HRQoL with EV was maintained, and deterioration in HRQoL was delayed with EV in comparison to chemotherapy. Better results with EV were reported for some scales, with the greatest difference observed for pain. These findings reinforce the EV safety and efficacy outcomes and benefits observed in EV-301.

PATIENT SUMMARY

Patients with previously treated advanced cancer of the urinary tract receiving the drug enfortumab vedotin maintained their HRQoL in comparison to patients treated with chemotherapy. The EV-301 trial is registered on ClinicalTrials.gov as NCT03474107 and on EudraCT as 2017-003344-21.

Health-Related Quality of Life in Patients with Spinocerebellar Ataxia: a Validation Study of the EQ-5D-3L

Although health-related quality of life (HRQoL) has developed into a crucial outcome parameter in clinical research, evidence of the EQ-5D-3L validation performance is lacking in patients with spinocerebellar ataxia (SCA) types 1, 2, 3, and 6. The objective of this study is to assess the acceptability, validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the EQ-5D-3L. For n = 842 predominantly European SCA patients of two longitudinal cohort studies, the EQ-5D-3L, PHQ-9 (Patient Health Questionnaire), and ataxia-specific clinical assessments (SARA: Scale for Assessment and Rating of Ataxia; ADL: activities of daily living as part of Friedreich's Ataxia Rating Scale; INAS: Inventory of Non-Ataxia Signs) were assessed at baseline and multiple annual follow-ups. The EQ-5D-3L was evaluated regarding acceptability, distribution properties, convergent and known-groups validity, test-retest reliability, and effect size measures to analyze health changes. The non-item response was low (EQ-5D-3L index: 0.8%; EQ-VAS: 3.4%). Ceiling effects occurred in 9.9% (EQ-5D-3L) and 3.0% (EQ-VAS) with a mean EQ-5D-3L index of 0.65 ± 0.21. In total, convergent validity showed moderate to strong Spearman's rho (rs > 0.3) coefficients comparing EQ-5D-3L and EQ-VAS with PHQ-9, SARA, ADL, and INAS. EQ-5D-3L could discriminate between groups of age, SARA, ADL, and INAS. Intra-class correlation coefficients (EQ-5D-3LICC: 0.95/EQ-VASICC: 0.88) and Kappa statistics (range 0.44 to 0.93 for EQ-5D-3L items) indicated tolerable reliability. EQ-5D-3L shows small (effect size < 0.3) to moderate (effect size 0.3-0.59) health changes regarding ataxia severity. The analysis confirms an acceptable, reliable, valid, and responsive recommended EQ-5D-3L in SCA patients, measuring the HRQoL adequately, besides well-established clinical instruments.

How to select and understand guidelines for patient-reported outcomes: a scoping review of existing guidance

BACKGROUND

Over the past few decades, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have been used to understand patient health conditions better. Therefore, numerous PRO measures (questionnaires) and guidelines or guidance have been developed. However, it is challenging to select target guidance from among the many available guidance and to understand the chosen guidance. This study comprehensively collected the existing PRO guidance for clinical trials or studies and practices to support novice PRO users in academia, industry, clinical practice, and regulatory and reimbursement decision-making.

METHODS

For the scoping review, we searched the MEDLINE, Embase, Google Books, WorldCat, and the National Library of Medicine (NLM) Bookshelf databases from 2009 to 2023. The eligibility criteria were PRO guidance for clinical trials, clinical practice, or application such as health technology assessment. Those guidance cover aspects such as quality of life (QOL), PRO, health-related QOL, health state utilities, psychometric requirements, implementation methods, analysis and interpretation, or clinical practice applications. After the systematic search, three researchers individually reviewed the collected data, and the reviewed articles and books were scrutinized using the same criteria.

RESULTS

We collected the PRO guidance published in articles and books between 2009 and 2023. From the database searches, 1,455 articles and 387 books were identified, of which one book and 33 articles were finally selected. The collected PRO guidance was categorized into the adoption of PRO measures, design and reporting of trials or studies using PROs, implementation of PRO evaluation in clinical trials or studies or clinical practice, analysis and interpretation of PROs, and application of PRO evaluation. Based on this categorization, we suggest the following for novices: When selecting guidance, novices should clarify the "place" and "purpose" where the guidance will be used. Additionally, they should know that the terminology related to PRO and the scope and expectations of PROs vary by "places" and "purposes".

CONCLUSIONS

From this scoping review of existing PRO guidance, we provided summaries and caveats to assist novices in selecting guidance that fits their purpose and understanding it.

What can the citations of systematic reviews of ethical literature tell us about their use?-an explorative empirical analysis of 31 reviews

Background

Systematic reviews of ethical literature (SREL) aim at providing an overview of ethical issues, arguments, or concepts on a specific ethical topic. As SREL are becoming more common, their methodology and possible impact are increasingly subjected to critical considerations. Because they analyse and synthetise normative literature, SREL are likely to be used differently than typical systematic reviews. Still, the uses and the expected purposes of SREL were, to date, mainly theoretically discussed. Our explorative study aimed at gaining preliminary empirical insights into the actual uses of SREL.

Methods

Citations of SREL in publications, both scientific and non-scientific, were taken as proxy for SREL uses. The citations of 31 published SREL were systematically searched on Google Scholar. Each citation was qualitatively analysed to determine its function. The resulting categorisation of SREL citations was further quantitatively investigated to unveil possible trends.

Results

The analysis of the resulting sample of SREL citations (n=1812) showed that the selected SREL were mostly cited to support claims about ethical issues, arguments, or concepts, but also to merely mention the existence of literature on a given topic. In this sample, SREL were cited predominantly within empirical publications in journals from various academic fields, indicating a broad, field-independent use of such systematic reviews. The selected SREL were also used as methodological orientations either for the conduct of SREL or for the practical and ethically sensitive conduct of empirical studies.

Conclusions

In our sample, SREL were rarely used to develop guidelines or to derive ethical recommendations, as it is often postulated in the theoretical literature. The findings of this study constitute a valuable preliminary empirical input in the current methodological debate on SREL and could contribute to developing strategies to align expected purposes with actual uses of SREL.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13643-023-02341-y.

Investigating the trends in patient-reported outcomes pre-treatment and implications to efficacy analyses: A post-hoc analysis of a cancer clinical trial

Background

Uncertainty around key elements of an appropriate patient-reported outcome (PRO) baseline assessment introduces trial-specific variation in oncology clinical trials with a poorly understood consequence on drug evaluation decisions. This research investigated the impact of multiple pre-treatment PRO assessments and timing of assessments in a clinical trial.

Methods

A post-hoc analysis of a completed phase 3, open-label, randomized, parallel arm clinical trial in non-small cell lung cancer with two pre-treatment PRO assessments (screening and Week 1 Day 1 [W1D1]). Descriptive analyses, mixed models for repeated measures and time until definitive deterioration analyses were performed to estimate differences between treatment arms. Through model adjustments, different baseline specifications and assessment timing (pre/post-randomization) on W1D1 PROs were evaluated.

Results

Patients with both pre-treatment PRO assessments were included in the analysis (N = 535). Numerically small average change scores were observed between screening and W1D1 (mean change, 0-100 scale ranges): Chest pain (-0.94), Cough (-0.94), Dyspnea (1.27), Physical functioning (-1.19). Both pre-treatment assessments were moderately-highly correlated (r: 0.55-0.78) and no trend was found for deterioration or improvement during this period. Varying baseline definitions in the models produced slight differences in model fit but no impact on the between treatment group effect estimate. W1D1 PRO scores were not statistically influenced by assessment timing pre/post-randomization (p-values: 0.142-0.628).

Conclusion

Findings from this study question the need for multiple pre-treatment PRO assessments in oncology drug development trials and the degree of bias thought to be introduced through patient knowledge of treatment assignment. Implications for researchers are presented.

The Technical Ability and Performing Scale (TAPS): A newly developed patient-reported functional rating scale for Musician's focal dystonia

BACKGROUND

Musician's Focal Dystonia (MFD) is the most common adult-onset dystonia involving the hand and can cause a professional music career to end. MFD affects about 1% of professional musicians and is a challenging clinical condition to treat. This work aimed to validate the Technical Ability and Performing Scale (TAPS), a newly-developed patient-reported functional rating scale for the clinical assessment of the MFD burden.

METHODS

Seventy-seven musicians with MFD (40.84 ± 13.14 years) who accessed "Sol Diesis Service" were consecutively enrolled. Each subject filled in the TAPS after playing six technical passages of different complexity for 45 s each. The clinicians also collected the Arm Dystonia Disability Scale (ADDS) and Tubiana-Chamagne Scale (TCS). Cronbach's α coefficient was used to assess reliability; concurrent validity was measured using correlation with validated tools (ADDS and TCS).

RESULTS

Our results showed that the symptoms of dystonia appeared at around 33 years of age and lasted for at least three years. The Cronbach's α displayed good internal consistency (0.817) for Technical Ability (TA). The two TAPS scores, TA and Performing Score (PS), positively correlated with TCS total score and negatively with ADDS total score (concurrent validity).

CONCLUSIONS

The TAPS is a reliable and valid tool for the clinical assessment of the MFD burden. This patient-reported outcome measure may facilitate patient engagement in decision-making about their care and can help healthcare professionals to monitor the musician's change during the rehabilitative intervention.

Improving the patient-reported outcome sections of clinical trial protocols: a mixed methods evaluation of educational workshops

Introduction

Failure to incorporate key patient-reported outcome (PRO) content in trial protocols affects the quality and interpretability of the collected data, contributing to research waste. Our group developed evidence-based training specifically addressing PRO components of protocols. We aimed to assess whether 2-day educational workshops improved the PRO completeness of protocols against consensus-based minimum standards provided in the SPIRIT-PRO Extension in 2018.

Method

Annual workshops were conducted 2011–2017. Participants were investigators/trialists from cancer clinical trials groups. Although developed before 2018, workshops covered 15/16 SPIRIT-PRO items. Participant feedback immediately post-workshop and, retrospectively, in November 2017 was summarised descriptively. Protocols were evaluated against SPIRIT-PRO by two independent raters for workshop protocols (developed post-workshop by participants) and control protocols (contemporaneous non-workshop protocols). SPIRIT-PRO items were assessed for completeness (0 = not addressed, 10 = fully addressed). Mann–Whitney U tests assessed whether workshop protocols scored higher than controls by item and overall.

Results

Participants (n = 107) evaluated the workshop positively. In 2017, 16/41 survey responders (39%) reported never applying in practice; barriers included role restrictions (14/41, 34%) and lack of time (5/41, 12%). SPIRIT-PRO overall scores did not differ between workshop (n = 13, median = 3.81/10, interquartile range = 3.24) and control protocols (n = 9, 3.51/10 (2.14)), (p = 0.35). Workshop protocols scored higher than controls on two items: ‘specify PRO concepts/domains’ (p = 0.05); ‘methods for handling missing data’ (p = 0.044).

Conclusion

Although participants were highly satisfied with these workshops, the completeness of PRO protocol content generally did not improve. Additional knowledge translation efforts are needed to assist protocol writers address SPIRIT-PRO guidance and avoid research waste that may eventuate from sub-optimal PRO protocol content.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11136-022-03127-w.

Attitudes and Expectations of Clinical Research Participants Toward Digital Health and Mobile Dietary Assessment Tools: Cross-Sectional Survey Study

Background

The adoption of health technologies is key to empower research participants and collect quality data. However, the acceptance of health technologies is usually evaluated in patients or healthcare practitioners, but not in clinical research participants.

Methods

A 27-item online questionnaire was provided to the 11,695 members of a nutrition clinical research participant database from the Nantes area (France), to assess (1) participants' social and demography parameters, (2) equipment and usage of health apps and devices, (3) expectations in research setting and (4) opinion about the future of clinical research. Each item was described using frequency and percentage overall and by age classes. A global proportion comparison was performed using chi-square or Fisher-exact tests.

Results

A total of 1529 respondents (81.0% women, 19.0% men) completed the survey. Main uses of health apps included physical activity tracking (54.7%, age-related group difference, p < 0.001) and food quality assessment (45.7%, unrelated to age groups). Overall, 20.4% of respondents declared owning a connected wristband or watch. Most participants (93.8%) expected the use of connected devices in research. However, protection of personal data (37.5%), reliability (35.5%) and skilled use of devices (28.5%) were perceived as the main barriers. Most participants (93.3%) would agree to track their food intake using a mobile app, and 80.5% would complete it for at least a week while taking part in a clinical study. Only 13.2% would devote more than 10 min per meal to such record. A majority (60.4%) of respondents would accept to share their social media posts in an anonymous way and most (82.2%) of them would accept to interact with a chatbot for research purposes.

Conclusions

Our cross-sectional study suggests that clinical study participants are enthusiastic about all forms of digital health technologies and participant-centered studies but remain concerned about the use of personal data. Repeated assessments are suggested to evaluate the research participant's interest in technologies following the increase in use and demand for innovative health services during the pandemic of COVID-19.

Oncologic Drugs Approval in Europe for Solid Tumors: Overview of the Last 6 Years

Simple Summary

We present a systematic overview of EMA-approved oncologic drugs, both as new or extensions of indications, over 6 years, from 2015 to 2020. Our analysis confirms a long-standing trend in drug development for which most of the efforts led to broadening indications of pre-existing molecules, with immunotherapy and signal transduction inhibitors contending the leadership. Many drugs with the same or a very similar mechanism of action are approved for the same indication without a direct head-to-head comparison. Moreover, we show that the majority of drugs entered the market without evidence of overall survival or quality of life benefit but based on surrogate outcomes. Our data support some considerations about the modern drug development in oncology, where the goal is to provide the patients with the fastest possible access to new drugs. The debate on the optimal methodology to develop new drugs remains an unmet need.

Abstract

(1) Background: Drug development in oncology is changing rapidly. The aim of the present study was to provide an insight into the features of anti-tumor drugs approved in Europe; (2) Methods: We included all the indications for solid tumors issued by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) between 2015 and 2020. We extracted data from European Public Assessments Reports (EPAR), including drug name, mechanism of action, setting, features of pivotal clinical trials, primary end-points, quality of life (QoL); (3) Results: In the explored period, EMA issued 132 new indications (81 indications’ extensions) for 62 oncology drugs. In about half of indications (47%), the approval was biomarker-based. Immune check point inhibitors (ICIs) and signal transduction inhibitors were the two most representative drug categories (62%). Most of the indications were for the advanced setting (91%) and front-line therapy (66%). The most common tumor types were non-small cell lung cancer (24%), breast (16%), and melanoma (10%). Two thirds of the indications (73%) were approved based on phase III trials. Overall survival (OS) represented the primary end-point only in 39% of indications, mainly limited to advanced setting (98%) and ICI trials (80%). Almost all (94%) cell cycle and DNA repair mechanism inhibitors were approved based on progression free survival (PFS) data. In pivotal trials with signal transduction inhibitors, objective response rate (ORR) was the prevalent (45%) primary end-point. QoL was never considered as primary end-point; (4) Conclusions: In this analysis, we intended to offer an updated picture of the recent drug development in oncology. Most of the efforts led to broadening indications of pre-existing molecules, with signal transduction inhibitor and ICIs contending the leadership. Twenty-seven percent of the indication were approved without a phase III trial. The majority of drugs entered the market without evidence of OS or QoL benefit but based on surrogate outcomes.

Results on patient-reported outcomes are underreported in summaries of product characteristics for new drugs

BACKGROUND

Summaries of product characteristics (SmPCs) are regulatory documents published upon drug approval. They should report all relevant study data and advise how to use drugs safely and effectively. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in clinical trials to incorporate the patient perspective-SmPCs should thus adequately report PROs. In Germany, new drugs undergo mandatory early benefit assessment. Pharmaceutical companies submit dossiers containing all evidence; the subsequent dossier assessments focus on patient-relevant outcomes and comprehensively report PROs.

OBJECTIVE

The primary aim was to investigate to what extent PROs recorded as outcomes in clinical trials of new drugs are reported in SmPCs.

METHODS

We analysed dossier assessments with randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of new drugs entering the market between 01/2014 and 07/2018 and the corresponding SmPCs, and compared PRO reporting in both document types. For this purpose, we evaluated dossier assessment characteristics (e.g. drug name, indication, disease category) and study characteristics (e.g. evaluable PROs available?). PROs were divided into symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). SmPCs were screened to identify RCTs. We conducted 3 main evaluation steps: (1) Did the RCT included in the dossier assessment contain evaluable PROs? (2) If yes, was the RCT included in the SmPC? (3) If yes, were the PROs reported in the SmPC? Results are presented descriptively.

RESULTS

88 dossier assessments including 143 RCTs on 72 drugs were considered: 109 (76.2%) RCTs included evaluable PROs, of which 89 were included in SmPCs. 38 RCTs (42.7%) investigated oncologics, 18 (20.2%) anti-infectives, and 33 (37.1%) other drugs. The RCTs considered symptoms more often than HRQoL (82 vs. 66 RCTs). In SmPCs, PROs were reported for 41 RCTs (46.1%), with a slightly higher reporting rate for RCTs considering HRQoL (43.9%) than for RCTs considering symptoms (41.5%). In oncologic indications, PROs were reported for 36.7% of RCTs considering HRQoL and 33.3% of RCTs considering symptoms. In infectious diseases, the rates were 21.4% (symptoms) and 0% (HRQoL), and for other diseases about 60% (symptoms) to 70% (HRQoL).

CONCLUSION

Even though a large amount of PRO data on new drugs is available from clinical trials included in SmPCs, the corresponding results are underreported.

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

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used in clinical trials to provide valuable evidence on the impact of disease and treatment on patients' symptoms, function and quality of life. High-quality PRO data from trials can inform shared decision-making, regulatory and economic analyses and health policy. Recent evidence suggests the PRO content of past trial protocols was often incomplete or unclear, leading to research waste. To address this issue, international, consensus-based, PRO-specific guidelines were developed: the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT)-PRO Extension. The SPIRIT-PRO Extension is a 16-item checklist which aims to improve the content and quality of aspects of clinical trial protocols relating to PRO data collection to minimise research waste, and ultimately better inform patient-centred care. This SPIRIT-PRO explanation and elaboration (E&E) paper provides information to promote understanding and facilitate uptake of the recommended checklist items, including a comprehensive protocol template. For each SPIRIT-PRO item, we provide a detailed description, one or more examples from existing trial protocols and supporting empirical evidence of the item's importance. We recommend this paper and protocol template be used alongside the SPIRIT 2013 and SPIRIT-PRO Extension paper to optimise the transparent development and review of trial protocols with PROs.

Translation and adaptation of the German version of the Veterans Rand-36/12 Item Health Survey

BACKGROUND

The translated and culturally adapted German version of the Veterans Rand 36 Items Health Survey (VR-36), and its short form, the VR-12 counterpart, were validated in a German sample of orthopedic (n = 399) and psychosomatic (n = 292) inpatient rehabilitation patients.

METHODS

The instruments were analyzed regarding their acceptance, distributional properties, validity, responsiveness and ability to discriminate between groups by age, sex and clinically specific groups. Eligible study participants completed the VR-36 (n = 169) and the VR-12 (n = 177). They also completed validated patient-reported outcome measures (PROs) including the Euroqol-5 Dimensions 5 Level (EQ-5D-5L); Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS); Hannover Functional Abilities Questionnaire (HFAQ); and CDC Healthy Days. The VR-12 and the VR-36 were compared to the reference instruments MOS Short Form-12 Items Health Survey (SF-12) version 1.0 and MOS Short Form-36 Items Health Survey (SF-36) version 1.0, using percent of completed items, distributional properties, correlation patterns, distribution measures of known groups validity, and effect size measures.

RESULTS

Item non-response varied between 1.8%/1.1% (SFVR-36/RESF-36) and 6.5%/8.6% (GHVR-36/GHSF-36). PCS was normally distributed (Kolmogorov-Smirnov tests: p > 0.05) with means, standard deviations and ranges very similar between SF-36 (37.5 ± 11.7 [13.8-66.1]) and VR-36 (38.5 ± 10.1 [11.7-67.8]), SF-12 (36.9 ± 10.9 [15.5-61.6]) and VR-12 (36.2 ± 11.5 [12.7-59.3]). MCS was not normally distributed with slightly differing means and ranges between the instruments (MCSVR-36: 36.2 ± 14.2 [12.9-66.6], MCSSF-36: 39.0 ± 15.6 [2.0-73.2], MCSVR-12: 37.2 ± 13.8 [8.4-70.2], MCSSF-12: 39.0 ± 12.3 [17.6-65.4]). Construct validity was established by comparing correlation patterns of the MCSVR and PCSVR with measures of physical and mental health. For both PCSVR and MCSVR there were moderate (≥ 0.3) to high (≥ 0.5) correlations with convergent (PCSVR: 0.55-0.76, MCSVR: 0.60-0.78) and small correlations (< 0.1) with divergent (PCSVR: < 0.12, MCSVR: < 0.16) self-report measures. Known-groups validity was demonstrated for both VR-12 and VR-36 (MCS and PCS) via comparisons of distribution parameters with significant higher mean PCS and MCS scores in both VR instruments found in younger patients with fewer sick days in the last year and a shorter duration of rehabilitation.

CONCLUSIONS

The psychometric analysis confirmed that the German VR is a valid and reliable instrument for use in orthopedic and psychosomatic rehabilitation. Yet further research is needed to evaluate its usefulness in other populations.

Systematic review of the use of translated patient-reported outcome measures in cancer trials

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used in clinical trials to assess the effectiveness and tolerability of interventions. Inclusion of participants from different ethnic backgrounds is essential for generalisability of cancer trial results. PRO data collection should include appropriately translated patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to minimise missing data and sample attrition.

METHODS

Protocols and/or publications from cancer clinical trials using a PRO endpoint and registered on the National Institute for Health Research Portfolio were systematically reviewed for information on recruitment, inclusion of ethnicity data, and use of appropriately translated PROMs. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with key stakeholders to explore barriers and facilitators for optimal PRO trial design, diverse recruitment and reporting, and use of appropriately translated PROMs.

RESULTS

Eighty-four trials met the inclusion criteria, only 14 (17%) (n = 4754) reported ethnic group data, and ethnic group recruitment was low, 611 (13%). Although 8 (57%) studies were multi-centred and multi-national, none reported using translated PROMs, although available for 7 (88%) of the studies. Interviews with 44 international stakeholders identified a number of perceived barriers to ethnically diverse recruitment including diverse participant engagement, relevance of ethnicity to research question, prominence of PROs, and need to minimise investigator burden. Stakeholders had differing opinions on the use of translated PROMs, the impact of trial designs, and recruitment strategies on diverse recruitment. Facilitators of inclusive research were described and examples of good practice identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Greater transparency is required when PROs are used as primary or secondary outcomes in clinical trials. Protocols and publications should demonstrate that recruitment was accessible to diverse populations and facilitated by trial design, recruitment strategies, and appropriate PROM usage. The use of translated PROMs should be made explicit when used in cancer clinical trials.

Cardioprotection by remote ischemic conditioning is transferable by plasma and mediated by extracellular vesicles

BACKGROUND

Remote ischemic conditioning (RIC) by brief periods of limb ischemia and reperfusion protects against ischemia-reperfusion injury. We studied the cardioprotective role of extracellular vesicles (EV)s released into the circulation after RIC and EV accumulation in injured myocardium.

METHODS

We used plasma from healthy human volunteers before and after RIC (pre-PLA and post-PLA) to evaluate the transferability of RIC. Pre- and post-RIC plasma samples were separated into an EV enriched fraction (pre-EV + and post-EV +) and an EV poor fraction (pre-EV- and post-EV-) by size exclusion chromatography. Small non-coding RNAs from pre-EV + and post-EV + were purified and profiled by NanoString Technology. Infarct size was compared in Sprague-Dawley rat hearts perfused with isolated plasma and fractions in a Langendorff model. In addition, fluorescently labeled EVs were used to assess homing in an in vivo rat model. (ClinicalTrials.gov, number: NCT03380663) RESULTS: Post-PLA reduced infarct size by 15% points compared with Pre-PLA (55 ± 4% (n = 7) vs 70 ± 6% (n = 8), p = 0.03). Post-EV + reduced infarct size by 16% points compared with pre-EV + (53 ± 15% (n = 13) vs 68 ± 12% (n = 14), p = 0.03). Post-EV- did not affect infarct size compared to pre-EV- (64 ± 3% (n = 15) and 68 ± 10% (n = 16), p > 0.99). Three miRNAs (miR-16-5p, miR-144-3p and miR-451a) that target the mTOR pathway were significantly up-regulated in the post-EV + group. Labelled EVs accumulated more intensely in the infarct area than in sham hearts.

CONCLUSION

Cardioprotection by RIC can be mediated by circulating EVs that accumulate in injured myocardium. The underlying mechanism involves modulation of EV miRNA that may promote cell survival during reperfusion.

The Impact of the Timing of Health-Related Quality of Life Assessments on the Actual Results in Glioma Patients: A Randomized Prospective Study

Background: The aim of this study was to explore the impact of the timing of Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) measurements in clinical care on the obtained HRQoL scores in glioma patients, and the association with feelings of anxiety or depression. Methods: Patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC)’s Quality of Life Questionnaires (QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BN20), and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) twice. All patients completed the first measurement on the day of the Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scan (t = 0), but the second measurement (t = 1) depended on randomization; Group 1 (n = 49) completed the questionnaires before and Group 2 (n = 51) after the consultation with the physician. Results: median HRQoL scale scores on t0/t1 and change scores were comparable between the two groups. Between 8–58% of patients changed to a clinically relevant extent (i.e., ≥10 points) on the evaluated HRQoL scales in about one-week time, in both directions, with only 3% of patients remaining stable in all scales. Patients with a stable role functioning had a lower HADS anxiety change score. The HADS depression score was not associated with a change in HRQoL. Conclusions: Measuring HRQoL before or after the consultation did not impact HRQoL scores on a group level. However, most patients reported a clinically relevant difference in at least one HRQoL scale between the two time points. These findings highlight the importance of standardized moments of HRQoL assessments, or patient-reported outcomes in general, during treatment and follow-up in clinical trials.

Outcome reporting recommendations for clinical trial protocols and reports: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Clinicians, patients, and policy-makers rely on published evidence from clinical trials to help inform decision-making. A lack of complete and transparent reporting of the investigated trial outcomes limits reproducibility of results and knowledge synthesis efforts, and contributes to outcome switching and other reporting biases. Outcome-specific extensions for the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT-Outcomes) and Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT-Outcomes) reporting guidelines are under development to facilitate harmonized reporting of outcomes in trial protocols and reports. The aim of this review was to identify and synthesize existing guidance for trial outcome reporting to inform extension development.

METHODS

We searched for documents published in the last 10 years that provided guidance on trial outcome reporting using: an electronic bibliographic database search (MEDLINE and the Cochrane Methodology Register); a grey literature search; and solicitation of colleagues using a snowballing approach. Two reviewers completed title and abstract screening, full-text screening, and data charting after training. Extracted trial outcome reporting guidance was compared with candidate reporting items to support, refute, or refine the items and to assess the need for the development of additional items.

RESULTS

In total, 1758 trial outcome reporting recommendations were identified within 244 eligible documents. The majority of documents were published by academic journals (72%). Comparison of each recommendation with the initial list of 70 candidate items led to the development of an additional 62 items, producing 132 candidate items. The items encompassed outcome selection, definition, measurement, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of modifications between trial documents. The total number of documents supporting each candidate item ranged widely (median 5, range 0-84 documents per item), illustrating heterogeneity in the recommendations currently available for outcome reporting across a large and diverse sample of sources.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcome reporting guidance for clinical trial protocols and reports lacks consistency and is spread across a large number of sources that may be challenging to access and implement in practice. Evidence and consensus-based guidance, currently in development (SPIRIT-Outcomes and CONSORT-Outcomes), may help authors adequately describe trial outcomes in protocols and reports transparently and completely to help reduce avoidable research waste.

A systematic review and meta-analysis of clinician-reported versus patient-reported outcomes of radiation dermatitis

Radiation dermatitis is a common adverse effect of radiotherapy (RT) in breast cancer patients. Although radiation dermatitis is reported by either the clinician or the patient, previous studies have shown disagreement between clinician-reported outcomes (CROs) and patient-reported outcomes (PROs). This review evaluated the extent of discordance between CROs and PROs for radiation dermatitis. Studies reporting both clinician and patient-reported outcomes for external beam RT were eligible. Nine studies met the inclusion criteria for the systematic review, while 8 of these studies were eligible for inclusion in a meta-analysis of acute and late skin toxicities. We found an overall agreement between CROs and PROs of acute skin colour change, fibrosis and/or retraction, and moist desquamation (p > 0.005). Reporting of late breast pain, breast edema, skin colour change, telangiectasia, fibrosis and/or retraction and induration/fibrosis alone (p > 0.005) were also in agreement between clinicians and patients. Our meta-analysis revealed a greater reporting of acute breast pain by patients (RR = 0.89, 95% CI 0.87-0.92, p < 0.001), greater reporting of acute breast edema by physicians (RR = 1.80, 95% CI 1.65-1.97, p < 0.001) and a greater reporting of late breast shrinkage by patients (RR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.44-0.86, p = 0.005). However, our review was limited by the discrepancies between PRO and CRO measurement tools as well as the absence of standard time points for evaluation of radiation dermatitis. Given potential discrepancies between CROs and PROs, both measures should be reported in future studies. Ultimately, we advocate for the development of a single tool to assess symptoms from both perspectives.

How to tackle the conundrum of quality appraisal in systematic reviews of normative literature/information? Analysing the problems of three possible strategies (translation of a German paper)

BACKGROUND

In the last years, there has been an increase in publication of systematic reviews of normative ("argument-based") literature or of normative information (such as ethical issues) in bioethics. The aim of a systematic review is to search, select, analyse and synthesise literature in a transparent and systematic way in order to provide a comprehensive and unbiased overview of the information sought, predominantly as a basis for informed decision-making in health care. Traditionally, one part of the procedure when conducting a systematic review is an appraisal of the quality of the literature that could be included.

MAIN TEXT

However, while there are established methods and standards for appraising e.g. clinical studies or other empirical research, quality appraisal of normative literature (or normative information) in the context of a systematic review is still rather a conundrum - not only is it unclear how it could or should be done, but also the question whether it necessarily must be done is not settled yet. Based on a pragmatic definition of "normative literature" as well as on a typology of different types of systematic reviews of normative literature/information, this paper identifies and critically discusses three possible strategies of conducting quality appraisal.

CONCLUSIONS

The paper will argue that none of the three strategies is able to provide a general and satisfying solution to the problems associated with quality appraisal of normative literature/information. Still, the discussion of the three strategies allows outlining minimal conditions that elaborated strategies have to meet in future, and facilitates sketching a theoretically and practically promising strategy.

Systematic Evaluation of Patient-Reported Outcome Protocol Content and Reporting in Cancer Trials

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are captured within cancer trials to help future patients and their clinicians make more informed treatment decisions. However, variability in standards of PRO trial design and reporting threaten the validity of these endpoints for application in clinical practice.

METHODS

We systematically investigated a cohort of randomized controlled cancer trials that included a primary or secondary PRO. For each trial, an evaluation of protocol and reporting quality was undertaken using standard checklists. General patterns of reporting where also explored.

RESULTS

Protocols (101 sourced, 44.3%) included a mean (SD) of 10 (4) of 33 (range = 2-19) PRO protocol checklist items. Recommended items frequently omitted included the rationale and objectives underpinning PRO collection and approaches to minimize/address missing PRO data. Of 160 trials with published results, 61 (38.1%, 95% confidence interval = 30.6% to 45.7%) failed to include their PRO findings in any publication (mean 6.43-year follow-up); these trials included 49 568 participants. Although two-thirds of included trials published PRO findings, reporting standards were often inadequate according to international guidelines (mean [SD] inclusion of 3 [3] of 14 [range = 0-11]) CONSORT PRO Extension checklist items). More than one-half of trials publishing PRO results in a secondary publication (12 of 22, 54.5%) took 4 or more years to do so following trial closure, with eight (36.4%) taking 5-8 years and one trial publishing after 14 years.

CONCLUSIONS

PRO protocol content is frequently inadequate, and nonreporting of PRO findings is widespread, meaning patient-important information may not be available to benefit patients, clinicians, and regulators. Even where PRO data are published, there is often considerable delay and reporting quality is suboptimal. This study presents key recommendations to enhance the likelihood of successful delivery of PROs in the future.

Developing and validating utility parameters to establish patient-reported outcome-based perioperative symptom management in patients with lung cancer: a multicentre, prospective, observational cohort study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Patient-reported outcome-based symptom monitoring and alerting have been attractive for patient care after a tumour-removal surgery. However, the implementation parameters of this patient-centred symptom management system in perioperative patients with lung cancer are still lacking. We aim to develop a perioperative symptom scale (PSS) for monitoring, to determine the optimal time points for symptom assessment and to define the alert thresholds for medical intervention.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study will prospectively recruit 300 patients undergoing lung cancer surgery in six hospitals. The MD Anderson Symptom Inventory-Lung Cancer Module (MDASI-LC) is used to collect longitudinal symptom data preoperatively, daily postoperatively during in-hospital stay and weekly after discharge until 4 weeks or the start of postoperative oncological therapy. Symptoms that change significantly over time will be generated as the PSS. We will determine the optimal time points for follow-up using the generalised linear mixed-effects models. The MDASI-LC interference-measured functional status will be used as the anchor for the alert thresholds.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics Committee of Sichuan Cancer Hospital approved this study on 16 October 2017 (No. SCCHEC-02-2017-042). The manuscript is based on the latest protocol of Version 3.0, 15 September 2019. The results of this study will be presented at medical conferences and published in peer-reviewed journals.

TRIALS REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT03341377.

Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Substantial Clinical Benefit Values for a Pain Visual Analog Scale After Hip Arthroscopy

PURPOSE

To define minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) values for a pain visual analog scale (VAS) in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement or chondrolabral pathology.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of prospective collected data on patients having hip arthroscopy for femoroacetabular impingement and/or chondrolabral pathology. On initial assessment and follow-up between 335 and 395 days postsurgery, subjects completed a pain VAS and categorical self-rating of function. MCID was calculated using one-half the standard deviation (SD) of the change in 1-year pain VAS values. Receiver operator characteristic analysis was performed to determine SCB values. A change in SCB value was determined based on change in categorical self-rating of function to create "improved" and "not improved" groups. Absolute postoperative SCB scores were calculated to determine scores that would be associated with "normal" or "abnormal" function ratings.

RESULTS

Of 1,034 eligible patients, 733 (71%) met the inclusion criteria, with 537 (73%) women and 196 (27%) men having a mean age of 35.3 years (SD 13). At a mean of 352 (SD 21) days postsurgery, 536 (73%) were in the improved group and 197 (27%) in the not improved group. MCID was -15.0 mm. A change of -22.7 mm on the pain VAS was able to identify those that improved with high sensitivity (0.74) and specificity (0.63). Values of ≤10.4 mm and ≥29.0 mm were cutoffs identifying subjects that rated their function as normal or abnormal, respectively, with high sensitivity (0.79 and 0.76) and specificity (0.88 and 0.76).

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides surgeons with information to help interpret pain VAS values at a follow-up period ranging from 335 to 395 days with MCID and SCB values of -15.0 mm and -22.7 mm, respectively. Additionally, a patient who assesses a pain level at ≤10.4 mm is likely to have a normal rating of function, whereas a patient who assesses a pain level at ≥29.0 mm is likely to have an abnormal rating of function.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

III, retrospective comparative study.

The Patient Acceptable Symptomatic State of the 12-Item International Hip Outcome Tool at 1-Year Follow-Up of Hip-Preservation Surgery

PURPOSE

To determine the patient acceptable symptomatic state (PASS) cutoff score for the 12-item International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12) for patients after hip-preservation surgery.

METHODS

A multicenter hip arthroscopy registry containing deidentified patient data was analyzed to discriminate patients who achieved satisfactory results from patients who did not. Patients eligible for inclusion in the study were between 18 and 75 years of age, consented to undergo elective hip arthroscopy, and completed preoperative patient-reported outcome questionnaires. A receiver operating characteristic analysis was performed to determine the PASS cutoff score for the iHOT-12 at 1 year after surgery based on the sensitivity and specificity of achieving satisfaction with surgery. A visual analog scale rating patient satisfaction 1 year after surgery was documented and compared between subjects who achieved the PASS score for the iHOT-12 and those who did not achieve it through an independent t test with an a priori α set at .05.

RESULTS

A total of 647 subjects (66% women) aged between 18 and 73 years (mean, 36.5 years; standard deviation [SD], 12.0 years) were included in the study. A cutoff score of 75.2 for the iHOT-12 yielded a sensitivity of 0.91 and specificity of 0.81. Satisfaction averaged 89.5% (SD, 18.0%) for the patients with iHOT-12 scores greater than the PASS cutoff score versus 60.9% (SD, 30.61%) for those who did not achieve the PASS iHOT-12 score.

CONCLUSIONS

The PASS cutoff score of 75.2 for the iHOT-12 establishes a "minimal" target score at which the patient is highly likely to be satisfied with the physical state of his or her hip joint at 1 year after hip arthroscopy.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, case-control study.

Are patient-reported outcomes useful in post-treatment follow-up care for women with early breast cancer? A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are frequently used to evaluate treatment effects and quality of life in clinical trials. The application of PROs in breast cancer clinics is evolving but their use to generate real-time information for use in follow-up care is uncommon. This proactive use might help to shift healthcare delivery toward a more patient-centered approach by acting as a screening tool for unmet needs or a dialogue tool to discuss issues proposed by the patient.

AIMS

This review aims to determine the effects and feasibility of using PROs proactively during follow-up care in early breast cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A systematic search was conducted in January 2019 in PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, and CINAHL. Studies that exclusively concerned women treated for early breast cancer where PROs were used as a proactive tool during follow-up were included.

RESULTS

The search revealed a total of 653 records and four eligible studies were identified; three of which concerned the use of PROs both as a screening tool and as a dialogue tool, and one study in which PROs were used solely as a screening tool. The studies explored the feasibility of collecting and integrating PROs in the clinic and their ability to detect otherwise unrecognized problems. All of the included studies were prone to bias, but they point to potential benefits in respect of better symptom management in follow-up care.

CONCLUSION

Our search identified a small number of low to moderate quality studies of the proactive use of PROs during follow-up after treatment for early stage breast cancer. The limited evidence available suggests that PROs may be useful for providing a more complete picture of the patient's symptoms and problems, possibly leading to improvements in symptom management.

Improving outcome reporting in clinical trial reports and protocols: study protocol for the Instrument for reporting Planned Endpoints in Clinical Trials (InsPECT)

Background

Inadequate and poor quality outcome reporting in clinical trials is a well-documented problem that impedes the ability of researchers to evaluate, replicate, synthesize, and build upon study findings and impacts evidence-based decision-making by patients, clinicians, and policy-makers. To facilitate harmonized and transparent reporting of outcomes in trial protocols and published reports, the Instrument for reporting Planned Endpoints in Clinical Trials (InsPECT) is being developed. The final product will provide unique InsPECT extensions to the SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) and CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) reporting guidelines.

Methods

The InsPECT SPIRIT and CONSORT extensions will be developed in accordance with the methodological framework created by the EQUATOR (Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research Quality) Network for reporting guideline development. Development will consist of (1) the creation of an initial list of candidate outcome reporting items synthesized from expert consultations and a scoping review of existing guidance for reporting outcomes in trial protocols and reports; (2) a three-round international Delphi study to identify additional candidate items and assess candidate item importance on a 9-point Likert scale, completed by stakeholders such as trial report and protocol authors, systematic review authors, biostatisticians and epidemiologists, reporting guideline developers, clinicians, journal editors, and research ethics board representatives; and (3) an in-person expert consensus meeting to finalize the set of essential outcome reporting items for trial protocols and reports, respectively. The consensus meeting discussions will be independently facilitated and informed by the empirical evidence identified in the primary literature and through the opinions (aggregate rankings and comments) collected via the Delphi study. An integrated knowledge translation approach will be used throughout InsPECT development to facilitate implementation and dissemination, in addition to standard post-development activities.

Discussion

InsPECT will provide evidence-informed and consensus-based standards focused on outcome reporting in clinical trials that can be applied across diverse disease areas, study populations, and outcomes. InsPECT will support the standardization of trial outcome reporting, which will maximize trial usability, reduce bias, foster trial replication, improve trial design and execution, and ultimately reduce research waste and help improve patient outcomes.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-019-3248-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Guidance for reporting outcomes in clinical trials: scoping review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Patients, families and clinicians rely on published research to help inform treatment decisions. Without complete reporting of the outcomes studied, evidence-based clinical and policy decisions are limited and researchers cannot synthesise, replicate or build on existing research findings. To facilitate harmonised reporting of outcomes in published trial protocols and reports, the Instrument for reporting Planned Endpoints in Clinical Trials (InsPECT) is under development. As one of the initial steps in the development of InsPECT, a scoping review will identify and synthesise existing guidance on the reporting of trial outcomes.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will apply methods based on the Joanna Briggs Institute scoping review methods manual. Documents that provide explicit guidance on trial outcome reporting will be searched for using: (1) an electronic bibliographic database search; (2) a grey literature search; and (3) solicitation of colleagues for guidance documents using a snowballing approach. Reference list screening will be performed for included documents. Search results will be divided between two trained reviewers who will complete title and abstract screening, full-text screening and data charting. Captured trial outcome reporting guidance will be compared with candidate InsPECT items to support, refute or refine InsPECT content and to assess the need for the development of additional items. Data analysis will explore common features of guidance and use quantitative measures (eg, frequencies) to characterise guidance and its sources.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

A paper describing the review findings will be published in a peer-reviewed journal. The results will be used to inform the InsPECT development process, helping to ensure that InsPECT provides an evidence-based tool for standardising trial outcome reporting.

Minimal Clinically Important Difference and Substantial Clinical Benefit Values for the 12-Item International Hip Outcome Tool

PURPOSE

To define minimal clinically important difference (MCID) and substantial clinical benefit (SCB) values for the 12-item International Hip Outcome Tool (iHOT-12) in patients undergoing hip arthroscopy for intra-articular pathology.

METHODS

This was a retrospective review of prospectively collected data on patients who underwent hip arthroscopy. On initial assessment and follow-up between 335 and 395 days after surgery, subjects completed the iHOT-12 and a categorical self-rating of function (severely abnormal, abnormal, nearly normal, or normal). One-half the standard deviation (SD) of the change in 1-year iHOT-12 scores was used to calculate the MCID. Receiver operator characteristic analysis was performed to determine SCB values. A change in SCB value was determined based on an improvement in the categorical rating of function. Absolute postoperative SCB scores were calculated to determine scores that would be associated with normal function ratings or with abnormal or severely abnormal function ratings.

RESULTS

Of 1,034 eligible patients, 733 (71%) met the inclusion criteria. The subjects consisted of 537 female patients (73%) and 196 male patients (27%), with a mean age of 35.3 years (SD, 13 years). At a mean of 352 days (SD, 21 days) after surgery, 536 patients (73%) were in the "improved" group and 197 (27%) were in the "not improved" group. The MCID was 13 points. An SCB change score of 28 points was able to identify patients who improved with high sensitivity (0.79) and specificity (0.72). Scores of 86 points or greater and 56 points or less were the cutoff values found to identify subjects who rated their function as normal and abnormal, respectively, with high sensitivity (0.74 and 0.90, respectively) and specificity (0.82 and 0.86, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides information to help interpret iHOT-12 scores for a follow-up period ranging between 335 and 395 days with MCID and SCB values of 13 and 28 points, respectively. In addition, a vpatient who scored 86 points or better was likely to have a normal rating of function, whereas a patient with a score of 56 points or less was likely to have an abnormal rating of function.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Level III, retrospective comparative study.

Digital Follow-Up and the Perspective of Patient-Centered Care in Oncology: What's the PROblem?

There is accumulating evidence from randomized trials suggesting that digital patient-centered care allows a more reliable detection of tumour-related symptoms and adverse events - with a direct impact on overall survival. Consequently, a variety of unsynchronized approaches were kicked off to (electronically) measure patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Despite increasing evidence that PRO data are highly relevant for patient care, the data generated in these initial projects lack standardized processing pathways in order to impact clinical routine; therefore, potential future routine PRO assessments require adequate analysis, storage and processing to allow a robust, reproducible and reliable incorporation into routine clinical decision-making. Here, we discuss relevant challenges of digital follow-up that need to be tackled to render PRO data as relevant to physicians as laboratory or biomarker data.

Moving forward toward standardizing analysis of quality of life data in randomized cancer clinical trials

Background

There is currently a lack of consensus on how health-related quality of life and other patient-reported outcome measures in cancer randomized clinical trials are analyzed and interpreted. This makes it difficult to compare results across randomized controlled trials (RCTs) synthesize scientific research, and use that evidence to inform product labeling, clinical guidelines, and health policy. The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data for Cancer Clinical Trials (SISAQOL) Consortium aims to develop guidelines and recommendations to standardize analyses of patient-reported outcome data in cancer RCTs.

Methods and Results

Members from the SISAQOL Consortium met in January 2017 to discuss relevant issues. Data from systematic reviews of the current state of published research in patient-reported outcomes in cancer RCTs indicated a lack of clear reporting of research hypothesis and analytic strategies, and inconsistency in definitions of terms, including “missing data,”“health-related quality of life,” and “patient-reported outcome.” Based on the meeting proceedings, the Consortium will focus on three key priorities in the coming year: developing a taxonomy of research objectives, identifying appropriate statistical methods to analyze patient-reported outcome data, and determining best practices to evaluate and deal with missing data.

Conclusion

The quality of the Consortium guidelines and recommendations are informed and enhanced by the broad Consortium membership which includes regulators, patients, clinicians, and academics.

Patient reported outcome measures in rare diseases: a narrative review

BACKGROUND

Rare diseases can lead to a significant reduction in quality of life for patients and their families. Ensuring the patients voice is central to clinical decision making is key to delivering, evaluating and understanding the efficacy of therapeutic interventions. Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) are used to capture the patient's views about their health status and facilitate our understanding of the impact of these diseases and their treatments on patient's quality of life and symptoms.

MAIN TEXT

This review explores some of the current issues around the utilisation of PROMs in rare diseases, including small patient populations and dearth of valid PROMs. Difficulties in validating new or current PROMs for use in clinical trials and research are discussed. The review highlights potential solutions for some of the issues outlined in the review and the implementation of PROMs in research and clinical practice are discussed.

CONCLUSION

Patient input throughout the development of PROMs including qualitative research is essential to ensure that outcomes that matter to people living with rare disease are appropriately captured. Given the large number of rare diseases, small numbers of patients living with each condition and the cost of instrument development, creative and pragmatic solutions to PROM development and use may be necessary. Solutions include qualitative interviews, modern psychometrics and resources such as item banking and computer adaptive testing. Use of PROMs in rare disease research and clinical practice offers the potential to improve patient care and clinical outcomes.

Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in ovarian cancer clinical trials-lost opportunities and lessons learned

Despite increased recognition of the value of including patient-reported outcomes (PROs) as important end points in phase III clinical trials, there has been a lack of pre-specified PRO hypotheses and shortcomings with the analyses and interpretation of PROs in many ovarian cancer trials. This paper discusses and provides examples of the so-called lost opportunities in ovarian cancer trials. These include: (i) no clear pre-specified PRO hypotheses; (ii) PRO end points not included; (iii) insensitive PRO end point selection; (iv) collection of poor-quality PRO data not suitable for analysis; (v) differences in PROs between treatment arms ignored; and (vi) poor reporting quality. We can learn from the past and with relatively little additional effort, improve the collection and interpretation of PRO data in future ovarian cancer trials. The importance of doing so is underpinned by recent initiatives to improve the standard and usefulness of PRO data in clinical trials. These include the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Guidance for PROs to support labelling claims, the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO MCBS), the International Society for Quality-of-Life Research PRO reporting guidance and the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Clinical Trials (CONSORT)-PRO-extension statement which includes a checklist of recommended items to include in PRO sections of trial protocols. Promoting the importance of hypothesis-driven PROs in ovarian cancer clinical trials will lead to improvements in the design of these trials and the interpretation of their results.

A systematic review and development of a classification framework for factors associated with missing patient-reported outcome data

BACKGROUND/AIMS

Missing patient-reported outcome data can lead to biased results, to loss of power to detect between-treatment differences, and to research waste. Awareness of factors may help researchers reduce missing patient-reported outcome data through study design and trial processes. The aim was to construct a Classification Framework of factors associated with missing patient-reported outcome data in the context of comparative studies. The first step in this process was informed by a systematic review.

METHODS

Two databases (MEDLINE and CINAHL) were searched from inception to March 2015 for English articles. Inclusion criteria were (a) relevant to patient-reported outcomes, (b) discussed missing data or compliance in prospective medical studies, and (c) examined predictors or causes of missing data, including reasons identified in actual trial datasets and reported on cover sheets. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts. Discrepancies were discussed with the research team prior to finalizing the list of eligible papers. In completing the systematic review, four particular challenges to synthesizing the extracted information were identified. To address these challenges, operational principles were established by consensus to guide the development of the Classification Framework.

RESULTS

A total of 6027 records were screened. In all, 100 papers were eligible and included in the review. Of these, 57% focused on cancer, 23% did not specify disease, and 20% reported for patients with a variety of non-cancer conditions. In total, 40% of the papers offered a descriptive analysis of possible factors associated with missing data, but some papers used other methods. In total, 663 excerpts of text (units), each describing a factor associated with missing patient-reported outcome data, were extracted verbatim. Redundant units were identified and sequestered. Similar units were grouped, and an iterative process of consensus among the investigators was used to reduce these units to a list of factors that met the guiding principles. The list was organized on a framework, using an iterative consensus-based process. The resultant Classification Framework is a summary of the factors associated with missing patient-reported outcome data described in the literature. It consists of 5 components (instrument, participant, centre, staff, and study) and 46 categories, each with one or more sub-categories or examples.

CONCLUSION

A systematic review of the literature revealed 46 unique categories of factors associated with missing patient-reported outcome data, organized into 5 main component groups. The Classification Framework may assist researchers to improve the design of new randomized clinical trials and to implement procedures to reduce missing patient-reported outcome data. Further research using the Classification Framework to inform quantitative analyses of missing patient-reported outcome data in existing clinical trials and to inform qualitative inquiry of research staff is planned.

A systematic evaluation of compliance and reporting of patient-reported outcome endpoints in ovarian cancer randomised controlled trials: implications for generalisability and clinical practice

Background

This study aimed to evaluate the patient-reported outcome (PRO) content of ovarian cancer randomised-controlled trial (RCT) publications, describe PRO compliance, and explore potential relationships among these and completeness of PRO protocol content.

Methods

Publications of Phase III ovarian cancer RCTs with PRO endpoints were identified by Medline and Cochrane systematic search: January 2000 to February 2016. Two reviewers determined the number of Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)-PRO Extension items addressed in publications. Compliance rates (defined as the proportion of participants included in the principal PRO analysis, of those from whom PRO assessments were expected) were extracted. The relationship between CONSORT-PRO score and compliance rates was explored using scatter plots. Additionally CONSORT-PRO score and PRO compliance rates respectively were compared with corresponding PRO protocol scores obtained from a previous study.

Results

Thirty-six eligible RCTs (n = 33 with secondary PRO endpoint) were identified and analysed. The average number of CONSORT-PRO items addressed in publications was 6.7 (48%; Range 0–13.5/14). Three RCTs did not report PRO results; in 1 case due to poor compliance. Some compliance information was reported in 26 RCTs, but was considered complete for only 10 (28%) RCTs. Compliance rates were poor overall, ranging from 59 to 83%; therefore missing PRO data from 17 to 41% of participants in these trials could have been avoided.

Of the 26 (73%) RCTs for which PRO protocol completeness scores were available, 6 RCTs reported complete compliance information and the 3 of these RCTs with highest PRO compliance had highest protocol checklist scores.

Conclusions

Few RCTs reported PRO compliance information in a manner enabling assessment of the generalisability of PRO results. This information is particularly important in RCTs of advanced ovarian cancer because it is important to be able to determine if missing data was due to worsening illness compared to methodological issues. Poor compliance appeared related to poor PRO protocol content, and in one case prevented PRO results from being reported, highlighting the need to address compliance strategies in the protocol. Adhering to protocol and CONSORT-PRO reporting guidance should improve PRO implementation and reporting respectively in ovarian cancer RCTs and allow results to meaningfully inform clinical practice.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s41687-017-0008-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

[Quality appraisal in systematic reviews of normative literature. A problem analysis]

Systematic reviews aim at searching, selecting, analyzing and synthesizing scientific literature in a transparent and systematic way in order to inform decision-making in the health care system on the basis of the best available evidence. In recent years, such reviews have also gained importance also in bio-, public health- and research ethics, as well as in health technology assessment. Such reviews do not only analyze ethically relevant empirical literature (e.g. on risk and benefit), but normative literature as well, i.e. literature consisting of ethical arguments. As the appraisal of the literature that should be included is paramount for a systematic review, the problem of how to appraise the quality of normative literature arises. This problem has not yet been solved satisfactorily. After developing a pragmatic definition for "normative literature", a typology of different types of systematic reviews of normative literature is presented. Based on existing approaches for quality appraisal, this paper identifies three possible strategies for solving the problem of quality appraisal of normative literature, and discusses their respective strength and weaknesses relative to the different types of systematic reviews. It becomes apparent that none of the existing approaches is able to solve the problem of quality appraisal in a general and convincing way. The paper concludes with stating minimal conditions regarding the elaboration of future strategies, and outlines a promising strategy that is theoretically acceptable and practically feasible.

Probing oral anticoagulation in patients with atrial high rate episodes: Rationale and design of the Non-vitamin K antagonist Oral anticoagulants in patients with Atrial High rate episodes (NOAH-AFNET 6) trial

Oral anticoagulation prevents ischemic strokes in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Early detection of AF and subsequent initiation of oral anticoagulation help to prevent strokes in AF patients. Implanted cardiac pacemakers and defibrillators allow seamless detection of atrial high rate episodes (AHRE), but the best antithrombotic therapy in patients with AHRE is not known.

Rationale

Stroke risk is higher in pacemaker patients with AHRE than in those without, but the available data also show that stroke risk in patients with AHRE is lower than in patients with AF. Furthermore, only a minority of patients with AHRE will develop AF, many strokes occur without a temporal relation to AHRE, and AHRE can reflect other arrhythmias than AF or artifacts. An adequately powered controlled trial of oral anticoagulation in patients with AHRE is needed.

Design

The Non–vitamin K antagonist Oral anticoagulants in patients with Atrial High rate episodes (NOAH–AFNET 6 ) trial tests whether oral anticoagulation with edoxaban is superior to prevent the primary efficacy outcome of stroke or cardiovascular death compared with aspirin or no antithrombotic therapy based on evidence-based indications. The primary safety outcome will be major bleeding. NOAH–AFNET 6 will randomize 3,400 patients with AHRE, but without documented AF, aged ≥65 years with at least 1 other stroke risk factor, to oral anticoagulation therapy (edoxaban) or no anticoagulation. All patients will be followed until the end of this investigator-driven, prospective, parallel-group, randomized, event-driven, double-blind, multicenter phase IIIb trial. Patients will be censored when they develop AF and offered open-label anticoagulation. The sponsor is the Atrial Fibrillation NETwork (AFNET). The trial is supported by the DZHK (German Centre for Cardiovascular Research), the BMBF (German Ministry of Education and Research), and Daiichi Sankyo Europe.

Conclusion

NOAH–AFNET 6 will provide robust information on the effect of oral anticoagulation in patients with atrial high rate episodes detected by implanted devices.

A review of rate control in atrial fibrillation, and the rationale and protocol for the RATE-AF trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Atrial fibrillation (AF) is common and causes impaired quality of life, an increased risk of stroke and death as well as frequent hospital admissions. The majority of patients with AF require control of heart rate. In this article , we summarise the limited evidence from clinical trials that guides prescription, and present the rationale and protocol for a new randomised trial. As rate control has not yet been shown to reduce mortality, there is a clear need to compare the impact of therapy on quality of life, cardiac function and exercise capacity. Such a trial should concentrate on the long-term effects of treatment in the largest proportion of patients with AF, those with symptomatic permanent AF, with the aim of improving patient well-being.

DESIGN AND INTERVENTION

The RAte control Therapy Evaluation in permanent Atrial Fibrillation (RATE-AF) trial will enrol 160 participants with a prospective, randomised, open-label, blinded end point design comparing initial rate control with digoxin or bisoprolol. This will be the first head-to-head randomised trial of digoxin and beta-blockers in AF.

PARTICIPANTS

Recruited patients will be aged ≥60 years with permanent AF and symptoms of breathlessness (equivalent to New York Heart Association class II or above), with few exclusion criteria to maximise generalisability to routine clinical practice.

OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome is patient-reported quality of life, with secondary outcomes including echocardiographic ventricular function, exercise capacity and biomarkers of cellular and clinical response. Follow-up will occur at 6 and 12 months, with feasibility components to inform the design of a future trial powered to detect a difference in hospital admission. The RATE-AF trial will underpin an integrated approach to management including biomarkers, functions and symptoms that will guide future research into optimal, personalised rate control in patients with AF.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

East Midlands-Derby Research Ethics Committee (16/EM/0178); peer-reviewed publications.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT02391337; ISRCTN: 95259705. Pre-results.

Use of a self-rating scale of the nature and severity of symptoms in Parkinson's Disease (PRO-PD): Correlation with quality of life and existing scales of disease severity

A self-rating scale was developed to permit patient-reported, remote assessment of Parkinson's disease symptom severity. The goal was to create a continuous outcome measure that does not require a clinical exam, does not fluctuate in response to dopaminergic medications, takes only a few minutes to complete, allows for stratification by symptom(s), and captures both motor and non-motor Parkinson's disease symptoms, major contributors to quality of life. The Patient Reported Outcomes in Parkinson's Disease (PRO-PD) is the cumulative score of 32 slider bars, each evaluating a common Parkinson's disease symptom. The PRO-PD has been used as an outcome measure in three studies. The baseline data from each of these studies were pooled for this analysis. Symptom frequency and severity are described, as well as correlation coefficients with existing measures of Parkinson's disease severity. Data on 1031 participants with Parkinson's disease were available for analysis. Fatigue, impaired handwriting, daytime sleepiness, slowness, tremor, muscle cramps, and forgetfulness were the most frequently reported symptoms. Persons with a relatively long duration of Parkinson's disease tended to report more, and more severe, symptoms. The PRO-PD was most highly correlated with the Parkinson's Disease Questionaire-39 (r  =  0.763, P  <  0.000) and Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System Global quality of life (r  =  -0.7293, P  <  0.000), other patient-reported quality of life measures. The PRO-PDnon-motor subset was highly correlated with the Non-Motor Symptom Score (r  =  0.7533, P  <  0.000). There was a moderate correlation seen with Hoehn & Yahr (r  =  0.5922, P  <  0.000), total Unified Parkinson's disease Rating Scale (r  =  0.4724, P  <  0.000), and the Timed-Up-&-Go (r  =  0.4709, P  <  0.000). The PRO-PD may have utility for patients, providers, and researchers as a patient-centered measure of Parkinson's disease symptom severity. Further PRO-PD validation efforts are warranted.

Human papillomavirus (HPV): systemic treatment with Gene-Eden-VIR/Novirin safely and effectively clears virus

PURPOSE

This paper reports the results of a clinical study that tested the effect of systemic treatment with the botanical product Gene-Eden-VIR/Novirin on the clearance rate (also called time to clearance) of the human papillomavirus (HPV). The study compared the clearance rate in treated and untreated individuals suffering from a symptomatic HPV infection. The data on the untreated individuals were obtained by reverse engineering of the Kaplan-Meier figures in five published papers.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The study included 59 treated participants. All participants were suffering from a symptomatic HPV infection prior to the commencement of treatment. The treatment was one to four capsules of Gene-Eden-VIR/Novirin per day. The duration of treatment was 2-12 months. The study included five groups of external controls with diverse characteristics.

RESULTS

The mean time to clearance in Gene-Eden-VIR/Novirin-treated individuals was 5.1 months or 151.5 days (95% CI: 4.2-5.9 months or 95% CI: 125.7-177.3 days, respectively). The median time to clearance was 3.5 months. The mean time to clearance in the five untreated groups ranged from 6.9 to 20.0 months (P<0.0001 for the difference between treatment group and each untreated group). Also, 100% of the participants in the treatment group were HPV free at the end of 12 months vs 53%, 52%, 65%, 20%, and 77% in the untreated control groups. The treated participants reported no adverse experiences.

CONCLUSION

This clinical study has two major contributions. First, it showed that systemic treatment with the natural Gene-Eden-VIR/Novirin decreased the time to HPV clearance, increased the percentage of HPV-free individuals, and caused no adverse experiences in individuals suffering from a symptomatic HPV infection. Since there are no other systemic treatments for symptomatic HPV infections, this study presents highly valuable information on the clinical effects of the first treatment in this category. Second, the study presents a new method for conducting clinical studies that addresses one of the major deficiencies associated with the practice of the randomized controlled trial method.

Completeness of Outcomes Description Reported in Low Back Pain Rehabilitation Interventions: A Survey of 185 Randomized Trials

Purpose: To assess reporting completeness of the most frequent outcome measures used in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of rehabilitation interventions for mechanical low back pain. Methods: We performed a cross-sectional study of RCTs included in all Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) published up to May 2013. Two authors independently evaluated the type and frequency of each outcome measure reported, the methods used to measure outcomes, the completeness of outcome reporting using a eight-item checklist, and the proportion of outcomes fully replicable by an independent assessor. Results: Our literature search identified 11 SRs, including 185 RCTs. Thirty-six different outcomes were investigated across all RCTs. The 2 most commonly reported outcomes were pain (n=165 RCTs; 89.2%) and disability (n=118 RCTs; 63.8%), which were assessed by 66 and 44 measurement tools, respectively. Pain and disability outcomes were found replicable in only 10.3% (n=17) and 10.2% (n=12) of the RCTs, respectively. Only 40 RCTs (21.6%) distinguished between primary and secondary outcomes. Conclusions: A large number of outcome measures and a myriad of measurement instruments were used across all RCTs. The reporting was largely incomplete, suggesting an opportunity for a standardized approach to reporting in rehabilitation science.

Core Outcomes in Aphasia Treatment Research: An e-Delphi Consensus Study of International Aphasia Researchers

PURPOSE

The purpose of this article is to identify outcome constructs that aphasia researchers consider essential to measure in all aphasia treatment research.

METHOD

Purposively sampled researchers were invited to participate in a 3-round e-Delphi exercise. In Round 1, an open-ended question was used to elicit important outcome constructs; responses were analyzed using inductive content analysis. In Rounds 2 and 3, participants rated the importance of each outcome using a 9-point rating scale. Outcomes reaching predefined consensus criteria were further analyzed using International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health coding.

RESULTS

Eighty researchers commenced Round 1, with 72 completing the entire survey. High response rates (≥ 85%) were achieved in subsequent rounds. Consensus was reached on 6 outcomes: (a) language functioning in modalities relevant to study aims, (b) impact of treatment from the perspective of the person with aphasia (PWA), (c) communication-related quality of life, (d) satisfaction with intervention from the perspective of the PWA, (e) satisfaction with ability to communicate from the perspective of the PWA, and (f) satisfaction with participation in activities from the perspective of the PWA.

CONCLUSIONS

Consensus was reached that it is essential to measure language function and specific patient-reported outcomes in all aphasia treatment research. These results will contribute to the development of a core outcome set.

Clinical study of Gene-Eden-VIR/Novirin in genital herpes: suppressive treatment safely decreases the duration of outbreaks in both severe and mild cases

Background

We conducted a clinical study that tested the effect of suppressive treatment with the botanical product Gene-Eden-VIR/Novirin on genital herpes. Our previous paper showed that the treatment decreased the number of genital herpes outbreaks without any side effects. It also showed that the clinical effects of Gene-Eden-VIR/Novirin are mostly better than those reported in the studies that tested acyclovir, valacyclovir, and famciclovir. The current paper reports the effect of suppressive treatment with Gene-Eden-VIR/Novirin on the duration of outbreaks, in severe and mild genital herpes cases.

Methods

The framework was a retrospective chart review. The population included 137 participants. The treatment was 1–4 capsules per day. The duration of treatment was 2–48 months. The study included three controls: baseline, no-treatment, and dose–response.

Results

The treatment decreased the duration of outbreaks in 87 % of participants and decreased the mean duration of outbreaks from 8.77 days and 6.7 days in the control groups to 2.87 days in the treatment group (P < 0.001, both groups). All participants reported no adverse experiences.

Conclusions

This paper shows that suppressive treatment with Gene-Eden-VIR/Novirin decreased the duration of genital herpes outbreaks, in both severe and mild cases, without any side effects. Based on the results reported in this and our previous paper, we recommend suppressive treatment with Gene-Eden-VIR/Novirin as a natural alternative to both suppressive and episodic treatments with current drugs, in both severe and mild genital herpes cases.

Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02715752 Registered 17 March 2016 Retrospectively Registered

Measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in adult patients with chronic kidney disease: a systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Chronic kidney disease (CKD) is associated with symptoms that can significantly reduce the quality of life (QoL) of patients. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) may facilitate the assessment of the impact of disease and treatment on the QoL, from a patient perspective. PROMs can be used in research and routine clinical practice.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A systematic review of studies evaluating the measurement properties of PROMs in adults with CKD will be conducted. MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO and CINAHL Plus will be systematically searched from inception. Hand searching of reference lists and citations of included studies will be carried out. 2 reviewers will independently screen the titles and abstracts of all the studies retrieved during the systematic search to determine their eligibility. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) checklist will be used to appraise the methodological quality of the selected studies following the full-text review. Data on the study population, questionnaire characteristics and measurement properties will be extracted from the selected papers. Finally, a narrative synthesis of extracted data will be undertaken.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical permissions are not required for this study as data from published research articles will be used. Findings will be disseminated through publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences. This systematic review will provide a comprehensive assessment of the measurement properties of PROMs currently available for use in adult patients with CKD and present evidence which may inform the selection of measures for use in research and clinical practice.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42016035554.

IMproved exercise tolerance in patients with PReserved Ejection fraction by Spironolactone on myocardial fibrosiS in Atrial Fibrillation rationale and design of the IMPRESS-AF randomised controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Patients with atrial fibrillation frequently suffer from heart failure with preserved ejection fraction. At present there is no proven therapy to improve physical capacity and quality of life in participants with permanent atrial fibrillation with preserved left ventricular contractility.

OBJECTIVE

The single-centre IMproved exercise tolerance In heart failure With PReserved Ejection fraction by Spironolactone On myocardial fibrosiS In Atrial Fibrillation (IMPRESS-AF) trial aims to establish whether treatment with spironolactone as compared with placebo improves exercise tolerance (cardiopulmonary exercise testing), quality of life and diastolic function in patients with permanent atrial fibrillation.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A total of 250 patients have been randomised in this double-blinded trial for 2-year treatment with 25 mg daily dose of spironolactone or matched placebo. Included participants are 50 years old or older, have permanent atrial fibrillation and ejection fraction >55%. Exclusion criteria include contraindications to spironolactone, poorly controlled hypertension and presence of severe comorbidities with life expectancy <2 years. The primary outcome is improvement in exercise tolerance at 2 years and key secondary outcomes include quality of life (assessed using the EuroQol EQ-5D-5L (EQ-5D) and Minnesota Living with Heart Failure (MLWHF) questionnaires), diastolic function and all-cause hospitalisation.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study has been approved by the National Research and Ethics Committee West Midlands-Coventry and Warwickshire (REC reference number 14/WM/1211). The results of the trial will be published in an international peer-reviewed journal.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS

EudraCT2014-003702-33; NCT02673463; Pre-results.

Systematic review reveals lack of quality in reporting health-related quality of life in patients with gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours

BACKGROUND

Gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumours (GEP-NET) are often slow-growing and patients may live for years with metastasised disease. Hence, along with increasing overall and progression-free survival, treatments aim at preserving patients' well-being and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). However, studies on systematic HRQoL assessment in patients with GEP-NET are scarce. Therefore, the purpose of the current review is to systematically evaluate the methodological quality of the identified studies.

METHODS

A targeted database search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, and CENTRAL. Data extraction was conducted by two independent researchers according to predefined criteria. For study evaluation, the Minimum Standard Checklist for Evaluating HRQoL Outcomes in Cancer Clinical Trials and the CONSORT Patient-Reported Outcome extension were adapted.

RESULTS

The database search yielded 48 eligible studies. We found the awareness for the need of HRQoL measurement to be growing and application of cancer-specific instruments gaining acceptance. Overall, studies were too heterogeneous in terms of patient characteristics and treatment interventions to draw clear conclusions for clinical practice. More importantly, a range of methodological shortcomings has been identified which were mainly related to the assessment and statistical analysis, as well as the reporting and interpretation of HRQoL data.

CONCLUSION

Despite an increasing interest in HRQoL in GEP-NET patients, there is still a lack of knowledge on this issue. A transfer of HRQoL results into clinical practice is hindered not only by the scarceness of studies, but also by the often limited quality of HRQoL processing and reporting.

Clinical study in genital herpes: natural Gene-Eden-VIR/Novirin versus acyclovir, valacyclovir, and famciclovir

BACKGROUND

This paper reports the results of a clinical study that tested the effect of suppressive treatment with the botanical product Gene-Eden-VIR/Novirin on the number of genital herpes outbreaks. The results in this study were compared to those published in clinical studies of acyclovir, valacyclovir, and famciclovir.

METHODS

The framework was a retrospective chart review. The population included 139 participants. The treatment was one to four capsules of Gene-Eden-VIR/Novirin per day. The duration of treatment was 2-48 months. The study included three controls recommended by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA): baseline, no treatment, and dose response.

RESULTS

The treatment decreased the number of outbreaks per year in 90.8% of the participants. The treatment also decreased the mean number of outbreaks per year from 7.27 and 5.5 in the control groups to 2.39 (P<0.0001 and P<0.001, respectively). The treated participants reported no adverse experiences. Out of the 15 tests that compared Gene-Eden-VIR/Novirin to the three drugs, Gene-Eden-VIR/Novirin had superior efficacy in eight tests, inferior efficacy in three tests, and comparable efficacy in four tests. Gene-Eden-VIR/Novirin also had superior safety.

CONCLUSION

The clinical study showed that the natural Gene-Eden-VIR/Novirin decreases the number of genital herpes outbreaks without any side effects. The study also showed that the clinical effects reported in this study are mostly better than those reported in the reviewed studies of acyclovir, valacyclovir, and famciclovir.

Design, implementation and reporting strategies to reduce the instance and impact of missing patient-reported outcome (PRO) data: a systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide important information about the impact of treatment from the patients' perspective. However, missing PRO data may compromise the interpretability and value of the findings. We aimed to report: (1) a non-technical summary of problems caused by missing PRO data; and (2) a systematic review by collating strategies to: (A) minimise rates of missing PRO data, and (B) facilitate transparent interpretation and reporting of missing PRO data in clinical research. Our systematic review does not address statistical handling of missing PRO data.

DATA SOURCES

MEDLINE and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) databases (inception to 31 March 2015), and citing articles and reference lists from relevant sources.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

English articles providing recommendations for reducing missing PRO data rates, or strategies to facilitate transparent interpretation and reporting of missing PRO data were included.

METHODS

2 reviewers independently screened articles against eligibility criteria. Discrepancies were resolved with the research team. Recommendations were extracted and coded according to framework synthesis.

RESULTS

117 sources (55% discussion papers, 26% original research) met the eligibility criteria. Design and methodological strategies for reducing rates of missing PRO data included: incorporating PRO-specific information into the protocol; carefully designing PRO assessment schedules and defining termination rules; minimising patient burden; appointing a PRO coordinator; PRO-specific training for staff; ensuring PRO studies are adequately resourced; and continuous quality assurance. Strategies for transparent interpretation and reporting of missing PRO data include utilising auxiliary data to inform analysis; transparently reporting baseline PRO scores, rates and reasons for missing data; and methods for handling missing PRO data.

CONCLUSIONS

The instance of missing PRO data and its potential to bias clinical research can be minimised by implementing thoughtful design, rigorous methodology and transparent reporting strategies. All members of the research team have a responsibility in implementing such strategies.

The patient-reported outcome content of international ovarian cancer randomised controlled trial protocols

PURPOSE

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide the patient's perspective of the impact of treatment. Evidence suggests that PRO content of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) protocols is generally sub-optimal. This study aimed to describe and evaluate the PRO-specific content of ovarian cancer RCT protocols.

METHODS

Published, phase III, ovarian cancer RCTs with PRO endpoints were identified following a systematic search of Medline and Cochrane databases (Jan 2000 to Feb 2016). Corresponding RCT protocols were downloaded (if published) or obtained by contacting authors. Two investigators independently assessed adherence of PRO-specific content of included protocols to a checklist of 58 recommended PRO protocol items currently being developed by the International Society for Quality of Life Research. Discrepancies were resolved with a third investigator.

RESULTS

Of 41 eligible trials identified, 26 protocols were assessed (developed 1995-2010). We were unable to obtain the remaining 15 protocols. Protocols addressed a mean of 28 % PRO checklist items (range 8-66 %). Fifteen (58 % of assessed protocols) provided a rationale for PRO assessment, 8 (31 %) described a PRO objective, 24 (92 %) included a PRO assessment schedule, but only 6 (23 %) justified timing of PRO assessments. Twelve protocols (46 %) provided staff data collection instructions, 4 (15 %) included plans for monitoring PRO compliance, and 16 (62 %) included a PRO analysis plan.

CONCLUSIONS

On average, protocols addressed less than one-third of PRO protocol checklist items. In some cases, key guidance regarding PRO administration was lacking, which may lead to inconsistent and sub-optimal PRO methodology. Efforts are needed to improve PRO protocol content in cancer trials.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Oncology Drug Labeling in the United States: A Framework for Navigating Early Challenges

BACKGROUND

Despite an increased use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in oncology clinical trials, integrating the patient perspective into drug approval decisions and documentation has been challenging.

OBJECTIVES

To review important regulatory and measurement terminology, and to provide oncology outcomes researchers and those involved with building oncology programs with tools to plan PRO data collection, particularly in relation to drug efficacy claims for drug labeling in the United States.

DISCUSSION

When contemplating a PRO measurement strategy for oncology clinical trials, outcomes researchers are challenged in several ways. First, given multiple stakeholders, researchers must communicate with their scientific, commercial, and regulatory colleagues using often misunderstood terms, such as "label," "claim," "end point," "outcome," and "concept." Second, because stakeholders do not always have access to data from early-stage clinical trials and do not contribute to the target drug's profile in early development, researchers are often unable to address the most important question in building a measurement strategy: What do we want to say about our drug? To overcome these challenges, researchers can systematically develop an end point model to facilitate communication among drug development stakeholders using a common language and to link the building blocks of a PRO measurement strategy, including claims, concepts, questionnaires, and end points. We developed a model that characterizes a disease by its proximal signs and/or symptoms and increasingly distal health outcomes to provide researchers potential measurement concepts that can be instrumental in selecting PRO questionnaires for use in studies.

CONCLUSION

PRO data collected in clinical trials should be used in drug development to evaluate the drug's efficacy; it is encouraging that US regulators are willing to work with drug sponsors to overcome the challenges associated with the development, implementation, and interpretation of PROs. The tools discussed in this article can facilitate the planning process for oncology researchers, as well as assist in communicating with US regulators.

How to Evaluate Health-Related Quality of Life and Its Association with Medication Adherence in Pulmonary Tuberculosis - Designing a Prospective Observational Study in South Africa

Introduction: Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) has become an important measure to identify and shape effective and patient-relevant healthcare interventions innovations through outcomes. Adherence to tuberculosis (TB) treatment is a public health concern. The main objective of this research is to develop a study design for evaluation of HRQOL and its association with medication adherence in TB in South Africa.

Methodology: A conceptual framework for HRQOL in TB has been developed to identify Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Database (PROQOLID), (n.d.) measures for HRQOL and adherence and to generate an endpoint model. Two generic (SF-12 and EQ-5D-5L), one disease-specific (St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire) and one condition-specific (Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) measure for HRQOL and Morisky Medication Adherence Scale for adherence assessment were identified. All measures are applied in a longitudinal multi-center study at five data collection time points during standard TB treatment. Statistical analysis includes multivariable analysis. Change over time in the physical component score of SF-12 is defined as primary endpoint. Sample size estimation based thereupon has led to a recruitment target of 96 patients. This study is on-going.

Discussion: This is the first longitudinal study in South Africa which evaluates HRQOL and its association with medication adherence in TB in a comprehensive manner. Results will help to improve current treatment programs and medication adherence and will support the identification of sustainable health innovations in TB, determining the value of new products, and supporting decision making with regard to health policy and pricing.

Correlation of the patient's reported outcome Inflammatory-RODS with an objective metric in immune-mediated neuropathies

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE

There is increasing interest in using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical studies to capture individual changes over time. However, PROMs have also been criticized because they are entirely subjective. Our objective was to examine the relationship between a subjective PROM and an objective outcome tool in patients with Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS), chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP) and gammopathy-related polyneuropathy (MGUSP).

METHODS

The Inflammatory Rasch-built Overall Disability Scale (I-RODS©, a multi-item scale that examines functionality) was completed by 137 patients with newly diagnosed (or relapsing) GBS (55), CIDP (59) and MGUSP (23) who were serially examined (GBS/CIDP, T0/T1/T3/T6/T12 months; MGUSP, T0/T3/T12). Possible association between the I-RODS findings and the vigorimeter scores, an objective linear instrument to assess grip strength, was examined.

RESULTS

A significant correlating trend was found between the I-RODS and grip strength scores for the overall group and in each illness, independently.

CONCLUSION

The objectivity of patients' subjective report on their functional state based on a strong correlation between the I-RODS and grip strength in patients with GBS, CIDP and MGUSP has been demonstrated. These findings provide further support to use the I-RODS and grip strength in future clinical studies in these conditions.