1
|
Cazzola M, Rogliani P, Barnes PJ, Blasi F, Celli B, Hanania NA, Martinez FJ, Miller BE, Miravitlles M, Page CP, Tal-Singer R, Matera MG. An Update on Outcomes for COPD Pharmacological Trials: A COPD Investigators Report - Reassessment of the 2008 American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society Statement on Outcomes for COPD Pharmacological Trials. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2023; 208:374-394. [PMID: 37236628 DOI: 10.1164/rccm.202303-0400so] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/08/2023] [Accepted: 05/23/2023] [Indexed: 05/28/2023] Open
Abstract
Background: In 2008, a dedicated American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society task force published a paper on the possible use and limitations of clinical outcomes and biomarkers to evaluate the impact of pharmacological therapy in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Since then, our scientific understanding of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease has increased considerably; there has been a progressive shift from a one-size-fits-all diagnostic and therapeutic approach to a personalized approach; and many new treatments currently in development will require new endpoints to evaluate their efficacy adequately. Objectives: The emergence of several new relevant outcome measures motivated the authors to review advances in the field and highlight the need to update the content of the original report. Methods: The authors separately created search strategies for the literature, primarily based on their opinions and assessments supported by carefully chosen references. No centralized examination of the literature or uniform criteria for including or excluding evidence were used. Measurements and Main Results: Endpoints, outcomes, and biomarkers have been revisited. The limitations of some of those reported in the American Thoracic Society/European Respiratory Society task force document have been highlighted. In addition, new tools that may be useful, especially in evaluating personalized therapy, have been described. Conclusions: Because the "label-free" treatable traits approach is becoming an important step toward precision medicine, future clinical trials should focus on highly prevalent treatable traits, and this will influence the choice of outcomes and markers to be considered. The use of the new tools, particularly combination endpoints, could help better identify the right patients to be treated with the new drugs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mario Cazzola
- Unit of Respiratory Medicine, Department of Experimental Medicine, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy
| | - Paola Rogliani
- Unit of Respiratory Medicine, Department of Experimental Medicine, University of Rome Tor Vergata, Rome, Italy
| | - Peter J Barnes
- National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Francesco Blasi
- Pulmonology and Cystic Fibrosis Unit, Internal Medicine Department, Foundation Scientific Institute for Research, Hospitalization and Healthcare Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milan, Italy
- Department of Pathophysiology and Transplantation, University of Milan, Milan, Italy
| | - Bartolome Celli
- Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Nicola A Hanania
- Section of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas
| | - Fernando J Martinez
- Joan and Sanford I. Weill Department of Medicine, Weill Cornell Medicine, New York, New York
| | | | - Marc Miravitlles
- Pneumology Department, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron/Vall d'Hebron Institut de Recerca, Vall d'Hebron Barcelona Hospital Campus, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Clive P Page
- Sackler Institute of Pulmonary Pharmacology, King's College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Ruth Tal-Singer
- TalSi Translational Medicine Consulting, LLC, Media, Pennsylvania; and
| | - Maria Gabriella Matera
- Unit of Pharmacology, Department of Experimental Medicine, University of Campania Luigi Vanvitelli, Naples, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Dankers M, Nelissen-Vrancken MHJMG, Hart BH, Lambooij AC, van Dijk L, Mantel-Teeuwisse AK. Alignment between outcomes and minimal clinically important differences in the Dutch type 2 diabetes mellitus guideline and healthcare professionals' preferences. Pharmacol Res Perspect 2021; 9:e00750. [PMID: 33934550 PMCID: PMC8244004 DOI: 10.1002/prp2.750] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/29/2021] [Accepted: 02/04/2021] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
To evaluate the clinical benefit of new medicines for type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), the Dutch guideline committee T2DM in primary care established the importance of outcomes and minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs). The present study used an online questionnaire to investigate healthcare professionals' opinions about the importance of outcomes and preferences for MCIDs. A total of 211 physicians, pharmacists, practice nurses, diabetes nurses, nurse practitioners and physician assistants evaluated the importance of mortality, macro- and microvascular morbidity, HbA1c, body weight, quality of life, (overall) hospital admissions and severe and other hypoglycemia on a 9-point scale. All outcomes were considered critical (mean scores 7-9), except for body weight and other hypoglycemia (mean scores 4-6). Only HbA1c and hospital admissions were valued differently by the guideline committee (not critical). Other relevant outcomes according to the respondents were adverse events, ease of use and costs. Median MCIDs were 4 mmol/mol for HbA1c (guideline: 5 mmol/mol) and 3 kg for body weight (guideline: 5 kg weight gain and 2,5 kg weight loss). Healthcare professionals preferred relative risk reductions of 20% for mortality (guideline: 10%) and macrovascular morbidity (guideline: 25%) and 50% for other hypoglycaemia (guideline: 25%). The MCID of 25% for microvascular morbidity, hospital admissions and severe hypoglycaemia corresponded to the guideline-MCID. Healthcare professionals' preferences were thus comparable to the views of the guideline committee. However, healthcare professionals had a stricter view on the importance of HbA1c and hospital admissions and the MCIDs for mortality and other hypoglycemia.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marloes Dankers
- Dutch Institute for Rational Use of Medicine, Utrecht, the Netherlands.,Department of PharmacoTherapy, -Epidemiology and -Economics (PTEE, Groningen Research Institute of Pharmacy, Faculty of Science and Engineering, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands
| | | | - Bertien H Hart
- Department of General Practice, Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.,Leidsche Rijn Julius Healthcare Centers, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Anke C Lambooij
- Dutch Institute for Rational Use of Medicine, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Liset van Dijk
- Department of PharmacoTherapy, -Epidemiology and -Economics (PTEE, Groningen Research Institute of Pharmacy, Faculty of Science and Engineering, University of Groningen, Groningen, the Netherlands.,Nivel, Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| | - Aukje K Mantel-Teeuwisse
- Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences (UIPS, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|