Long-term progression of clinician-reported and gait performance outcomes in hereditary spastic paraplegias

Introduction

Hereditary spastic paraplegias (HSPs) are a heterogeneous group of neurodegenerative diseases in which little is known about the most appropriate clinical outcome assessments (COAs) to capture disease progression. The objective of this study was to prospectively determine disease progression after 4.5 years of follow-up with different clinician-reported (ClinRO) and gait performance outcomes (PerFOs).

Methods

Twenty-six HSP patients (15 SPG4, 5 SPG7, 4 SPG5, 2 SPG3A) participated in this single-center cohort study in which the ClinRO: Spastic Paraplegia Rating Scale; and the PerFOs: 10-meters walking test and timed-up and go (TUG), at self-selected and maximal walking speeds; Locomotor Rehabilitation Index; and 6-min walking test were performed at baseline and after 1.5 (18 patients) and 4.5 (13 patients) years.

Results

In the 3-year interval between the second and third assessments, significant progressions were only found in PerFOs, while in the overall 4.5 years of follow-up, both PerFOs and ClinROs presented significant progressions. The progression slopes of COAs modeled according to the disease duration allowed the estimation of the annual progression of the outcomes and sample size estimations for future clinical trials of interventions with different effect sizes. TUG at maximal walking speed was the only COA capable of differentiating subjects with a worse compared to a stable/better impression of change and would require the smallest sample size if chosen as the primary endpoint of a clinical trial.

Discussion

These findings indicate that both performance and clinician-reported outcomes can capture long-term progression of HSPs, with some PerFOs presenting greater sensitivity to change. The presented data are paramount for planning future disease-modifying and symptomatic therapy trials for this currently untreatable group of diseases.

Correlation of Clinician- and Patient-Reported Outcomes in the BC2001 Trial

AIMS

To evaluate whether there is sufficient correlation between patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and clinician-reported outcomes (CROs) in bladder cancer follow-up post-radiotherapy to streamline data collection and to reduce trial follow-up burden on patients, clinicians and trial programmes.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

PROs data were collected within the BC2001 trial using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy specific to bladder cancer (FACT-BL) questionnaire. CROs data were collected by clinicians using Late Effects in Normal Tissues Subjective, Objective and Management (LENT/SOM). Data were collected at baseline, post-treatment, at 6 and 12 months post-randomisation and then annually to 5 years. The percentage agreement between CROs and PROs measures was evaluated at 2 and 5 years post-randomisation. Concordance was tested using the weighted Kappa statistic with 95% confidence intervals.

RESULTS

Correlation was evaluated between six categories of the FACT-BL and LENT/SOM scores. At 2 years the percentage agreement across these domains ranged from 45 to 78%, with the weighted Kappa statistic between 0.07 and 0.35. Results were similar in year 5 with 48-83% agreement and kappa statistics between -0.02 and 0.21.

CONCLUSION

The correlation between CROs and PROs in patients treated with radiotherapy for bladder cancer were generally poor. PROs appear to be more sensitive, with higher grade events reported. Further work is needed to evaluate whether PROs alone can be used to evaluate toxicity-related outcomes in randomised controlled trials.

Clinical Outcome Assessment Instruments in Schizophrenia: A Scoping Literature Review with a Focus on the Potential of Patient-reported Outcomes

Objective

The complexity inherent in the treatment of schizophrenia results in a multitude of outcome assessments being employed when conducting clinical trials. Subjective outcome assessments and minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) to evaluate clinical meaningfulness have gained traction; however, the extent of application in evaluation of treatments for schizophrenia is unknown. A scoping review was conducted to assess the availability of published psychometric evaluations, including MCIDs, for clinical outcome assessments used to evaluate treatments for schizophrenia.

Method of Research

Key databases (PubMed®, Embase®, APA PsycINFO®, International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research) were searched for studies on schizophrenia published from 2010 to 2020. Secondary sources (ClinicalTrials.gov, PROLABELS™, FDA.gov) were also reviewed. Clinical outcome assessments were organized by type (patient-reported outcomes [PROs], clinician-reported outcomes [ClinROs], observer-reported outcomes [ObsROs]) and further classified by intended use (generic, mental health, schizophrenia). Reliability and internal consistency were evaluated using Cronbach's α. External validity was evaluated by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC).

Results

Across 140 studies, 66 clinical outcome assessments were identified. MCIDs were reported for eight of the 66 studies. Of these, two were PROs (generic) and six were ClinROs/ObsROs (three mental health-specific, three schizophrenia-specific). Reliability was good across generic, mental health-specific, and schizophrenia-specific categories, whereas external validity was strong mainly for schizophrenia-specific PROs. Overall, ClinROs/ObsROs that focused on mental health had good reliability and strong external validity.

Conclusion

This review provides a comprehensive overview of the clinical outcome assessments used in schizophrenia research during the past ten years. Results highlight the heterogeneity of existing outcomes and a growing interest in PROs for schizophrenia.

International Multicenter Validation Study of the SAGIT® Instrument in Acromegaly

CONTEXT

The SAGIT® instrument (SAGIT) has been developed to enable accurate characterization of acromegaly disease activity.

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the ability of SAGIT to discriminate acromegaly disease control status.

METHODS

This multicenter, noninterventional, prospective and retrospective, longitudinal study, conducted at academic and private clinical practice sites, included patients aged ≥ 18 years with a diagnosis of controlled (n = 109) or non-controlled (n = 105) acromegaly, assessed by clinical global evaluation of disease control (CGE-DC) questionnaire, investigator therapeutic decision, and international guidelines. Control status was not determined at baseline for 13 patients. Since 9 patients were enrolled retrospectively, all presented analyses are based on the prospective population (N = 227). Patients were assessed over a 2-year follow-up period. Classification and regression tree (CART) analyses were performed to investigate how SAGIT components at baseline (signs/symptoms [S], associated comorbidities [A], growth hormone levels [G], insulin-like growth factor 1 levels [I], tumor features [T]) discriminate between controlled and non-controlled acromegaly.

RESULTS

Baseline mean subscores S, G, I, and T were significantly lower in patients with CGE-DC controlled vs CGE-DC non-controlled acromegaly. SAGIT components I and G for CGE-DC and S, A, G, I, and T for the clinician's therapeutic decision were retained by CART analyses. For international guidelines, only SAGIT component I was retained. The risk for undergoing ≥ 1 treatment change during the study was 3.44 times greater for CGE-DC non-controlled acromegaly relative to CGE-DC controlled acromegaly.

CONCLUSION

The SAGIT instrument is a valid and sensitive tool to comprehensively and accurately assess acromegaly severity.

Outcome measures to assess the effectiveness of endodontic treatment for pulpitis and apical periodontitis for use in the development of European Society of Endodontology S3-level clinical practice guidelines: A consensus-based development

AIMS

The European Society of Endodontology (ESE) is in the process of developing S3-level clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of pulpal and apical disease. In order to support robust systematic literature reviews, appropriate outcome measures (OMs) with minimum follow-up times must first be identified. Hence, the current project aimed to identify the appropriate OMs with minimum/maximum follow-up time to assess the effectiveness of endodontic treatment for pulpitis and apical periodontitis for use in the development of ESE S3-level guidelines through a standard consensus-based methodology.

METHODOLOGY

After a literature search, lists of relevant OMs were identified by the guideline development group (GDG) for the treatment of pulpitis (working group [WG] 1), the non-surgical treatment of apical periodontitis (WG 2), the surgical treatment of apical periodontitis (WG 3) and the regenerative treatment of apical periodontitis (WG 4). OMs relevant to each WG were ranked by the 43 members of the GDG in their importance to the patient using a 9-point Likert scale. Items with a score of 7-9 (critical importance) by more than 70% and items with a score of 1-3 (limited importance) by less than 30% of members were included, whereas the items with a score of 1-3 by more than 70% and items with a score of 7-9 by less than 30% were excluded. Several online Delphi meetings established an edited list of only important OMs. The ranked OMs were discussed by the GDG and harmonized to produce 'most critical', 'critical' and 'important' measures. After establishing the final ranked measures, the minimum and maximum length of follow-up related to each OM was defined by the guideline steering group.

RESULTS

The Delphi survey took place over two rounds. The patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) 'tooth survival' was rated the 'most critical measure' in all four WGs, while other PROMs including 'pain' and 'need for medication' were considered 'critical', alongside the clinician-reported outcome measures (CROM), 'radiographic assessment'. The PROMs 'The need for further intervention' and 'oral-health-related-quality-of-life' (OHRQoL) were included, but as 'important' not 'critical' measures. Differences occurred between WGs with 'vitality testing' defined as critical in WG1 and 'increased length and width of the root' defined as 'critical' in WG4. A minimum of 1-year and maximum of 'as long as possible' for all OMs were deemed necessary, except 'pain', 'swelling', 'medication' and 'OHRQoL', where shorter follow-up was accepted.

CONCLUSIONS

The GDG consensus process established the PROM "tooth survival" as the "most-critical". The identified OMs and length of follow-up will be applied to all the commissioned systematic reviews that will inform the subsequent process when developing the ESE S3-level clinical practice guidelines.

Monitoring Severity of Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) in Infants and Young Children Using the Pediatric RSV Electronic Severity and Outcome Rating System (PRESORS): Results of Initial Quantitative Validation

Purpose

PRESORS ClinRO completed by clinicians and ObsRO completed by caregivers were developed to characterize the clinical course of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection. This study describes preliminary analysis of PRESORS’ measurement properties using clinical trial data.

Patients and Methods

PRESORS ClinRO and ObsRO data were collected in a 28-day randomized, double-blind, Phase 1b trial of JNJ-53718678 or placebo in infants and children ≤24 months of age treated for RSV infection in hospitals. PRESORS data were scored and key psychometric properties of scores were evaluated, including ability to discriminate between known groups and to detect change over time. Time to resolution of RSV signs was explored using two responder definitions.

Results

Daily completion rates for PRESORS ClinRO and ObsRO were high for the 44 children in the study (median: 100% and 93%, respectively). Large floor effects were observed at baseline for signs of severe RSV infection that were either absent (cyanosis, fever, apnea) or rarely reported (reduced urination/dehydration, vomiting). Implausible ObsRO ratings suggested some caregivers could not accurately measure heart rate. Known-group validity was confirmed: children in poor health based on baseline ClinRO had mean baseline composite scores that were significantly worse for both ObsRO (p=0.001) and ClinRO (p<0.001) compared to those with better overall health. ObsRO (p=0.009) and ClinRO (p<0.001) composite scores were responsive to change in overall health status from baseline to Day 3. Mean scores for RSV sign dimensions decreased rapidly from baseline to Day 7 except for coughing and sleep ratings by caregivers. Time to recovery varied greatly depending on definitions used.

Conclusion

PRESORS ClinRO and ObsRO can inform endpoints and enable monitoring the clinical course of RSV in pediatric trials. Improved alignment between ClinRO and ObsRO and revisions ensuring caregivers can assess all signs will be addressed in revised PRESORS.

Outcome measures to assess the effectiveness of endodontic treatment for pulpitis and apical periodontitis for use in the development of European Society of Endodontology (ESE) S3 level clinical practice guidelines: a protocol

The European Society of Endodontology (ESE) is in the process of developing S3Level Clinical Practice Guidelines for the treatment of pulpal and apical disease for the benefit of clinicians and patients. In order to ensure a homogenous review process in the development of the clinical practice guidelines, it is essential that the core outcomes for all endodontic treatments are standardized and recommendations are made regarding minimum follow-up time specific to each outcome measure. In the absence of a recognized core outcome set in Endodontics, the current project aimed to follow an established consensus process to define the most appropriate clinician and patient-reported outcomes. As part of the project, recommendations will also be agreed regarding an acceptable minimum follow-up period for studies by literature review and group discussion. The selected outcome measures and follow-up periods will be used in subsequent systematic analyses of the literature to investigate the effectiveness of endodontic treatment to alleviate pulpitis and apical periodontitis. In this paper, previous reviews, ESE Guidelines and Position Statements were searched in order to compile a list of potentially important outcome measures for the treatment of pulpitis (working group 1), the nonsurgical treatment of apical periodontitis (working group 2), the surgical treatment of apical periodontitis (working group 3) and the regenerative treatment of apical periodontitis (working group 4). Initially, the two S3 guideline leads selected two independent senior clinical academics with experience of evidence-based dentistry to lead each of the four working groups forming a 10-member steering group. The working group leads in turn selected 32 academics with experience of evidence-based dentistry to lead the individual systematic reviews contained within the respective working groups. These 42 individuals make up the Guideline Development Group (GDG). Prior to the selected systematic reviewers commencing writing and submitting the review protocol, the complete list of outcome variables identified in this document will be ranked by the 42 members of the GDG in their importance to the individual patient using a 9-point Likert scale. A summary of the survey scores will thereafter be shared with the members of the group and the final list of clinician and patient-reported outcome measures rated as critical for decision making (7-9 on Likert scale by majority of survey participants) to guide systematic reviews will be consented and confirmed during an online meeting of the steering group. In this online meeting, another aspect with regard to meaningfulness of clinical trial results to be addressed in systematic reviews will be consented: length of follow-up. In order to develop high quality guidelines, it is suggested that the follow-up period after treatment should be related to the specific outcome measure being addressed; however, a minimum of one year for assessing the effectiveness of treatments for pulpitis and apical periodontitis should be considered. It is accepted, that selected research questions that focus on pain, swelling, medication taken or investigating diagnostic accuracy are likely to have shorter follow-up periods. As a result of the GDG consensus process, the outcome measures and length of follow-up will, alongside the use of standard instruments to assess the methodological quality of clinical trials and other comparative studies, be applied to all the commissioned systematic reviews that will inform the subsequent process when developing the ESE S3 Level Clinical Practice Guidelines.

Facial Appearance and Psychosocial Features in Orthognathic Surgery: A FACE-Q- and 3D Facial Image-Based Comparative Study of Patient-, Clinician-, and Lay-Observer-Reported Outcomes

Outcome measures reported by patients, clinicians, and lay-observers can help to tailor treatment plans to meet patients' needs. This study evaluated orthognathic surgery (OGS) outcomes using pre- and post-OGS patients' (n = 84) FACE-Q reports, and a three-dimensional facial photograph-based panel assessment of facial appearance and psychosocial parameters, with 96 blinded layperson and orthodontic and surgical professional raters, and verified whether there were correlations between these outcome measurement tools. Post-OGS FACE-Q and panel assessment measurements showed significant (p < 0.001) differences from pre-OGS measurements. Pre-OGS patients' FACE-Q scores were significantly (p < 0.01) lower than normal, age-, gender-, and ethnicity-matched individuals' (n = 54) FACE-Q scores, with no differences in post-OGS comparisons. The FACE-Q overall facial appearance scale had a low, statistically significant (p < 0.001) correlation to the facial-aesthetic-based panel assessment, but no correlation to the FACE-Q lower face and lips scales. No significant correlation was observed between the FACE-Q and panel assessment psychosocial-related scales. This study demonstrates that OGS treatment positively influences the facial appearance and psychosocial-related perceptions of patients, clinicians and lay observers, but that there is only a low, or no, correlation between the FACE-Q and panel assessment tools. Future investigations may consider the inclusion of both tools as OGS treatment endpoints for the improvement of patient-centered care, and guiding the health-system-related decision-making processes of multidisciplinary teams, policymakers, and other stakeholders.

Clinician-Reported Outcome Assessments of Treatment Benefit: Report of the ISPOR Clinical Outcome Assessment Emerging Good Practices Task Force

A clinician-reported outcome (ClinRO) assessment is a type of clinical outcome assessment (COA). ClinRO assessments, like all COAs (patient-reported, observer-reported, or performance outcome assessments), are used to 1) measure patients' health status and 2) define end points that can be interpreted as treatment benefits of medical interventions on how patients feel, function, or survive in clinical trials. Like other COAs, ClinRO assessments can be influenced by human choices, judgment, or motivation. A ClinRO assessment is conducted and reported by a trained health care professional and requires specialized professional training to evaluate the patient's health status. This is the second of two reports by the ISPOR Clinical Outcomes Assessment-Emerging Good Practices for Outcomes Research Task Force. The first report provided an overview of COAs including definitions important for an understanding of COA measurement practices. This report focuses specifically on issues related to ClinRO assessments. In this report, we define three types of ClinRO assessments (readings, ratings, and clinician global assessments) and describe emerging good measurement practices in their development and evaluation. The good measurement practices include 1) defining the context of use; 2) identifying the concept of interest measured; 3) defining the intended treatment benefit on how patients feel, function, or survive reflected by the ClinRO assessment and evaluating the relationship between that intended treatment benefit and the concept of interest; 4) documenting content validity; 5) evaluating other measurement properties once content validity is established (including intra- and inter-rater reliability); 6) defining study objectives and end point(s) objectives, and defining study end points and placing study end points within the hierarchy of end points; 7) establishing interpretability in trial results; and 8) evaluating operational considerations for the implementation of ClinRO assessments used as end points in clinical trials. Applying good measurement practices to ClinRO assessment development and evaluation will lead to more efficient and accurate measurement of treatment effects. This is important beyond regulatory approval in that it provides evidence for the uptake of new interventions into clinical practice and provides justification to payers for reimbursement on the basis of the clearly demonstrated added value of the new intervention.

Assessment of breast cancer disability: agreement between expert assessment and patient reports

OBJECTIVE

To estimate the extent of agreement between health professionals' (ClinRO) and patients' (PRO) ratings on disabilities associated with breast cancer (impairments, activity limitations and participation restrictions).

DESIGN

Cross-sectional.

METHODS

Health care professionals measured arm impairments, activity limitations and participation restrictions with the international classification of functioning (ICF) breast cancer core set. Participants filled five outcomes measures targeting health aspects of QOL that were previously mapped to the ICF. Agreement between ClinRO and PRO was estimated with quadratic Kappa.

RESULTS

About 245 paired clinician and participant completed the outcomes measures. A total of 60 items mapped to 24 different ICF breast cancer core set codes, which provide 68 analyses for agreement. Impairment was better addressed with PROs (mostly poor and fair level of agreement); Activity limitations, both PROs and self-reported outcomes (SRO) (fair); participation restrictions, PROs (fair).

CONCLUSION

Clinicians usually underestimate the symptoms and impairments of the patients, leading to a greater proportion of poor agreement. PRO's provide valuable information on impairments at the mental function level and pain. ClinRO's provide more valuable information on physically assessed impairments (oedema). Activity limitations and participation restrictions, excluding reporting the difficulty aspect of various life situations, can be either SRO or ObsRO. Implications for rehabilitation Impairments, activity limitation and participation restrictions are common sequelae of breast cancer treatment, which ultimately may affect the person's quality of life and should be investigated early on in the continuum of care. Clinicians should rely on the symptoms' reported by the patient regarding lymphedema and should identify the presence and severity of it. Patients inform best on the severity of pain, fatigue and mental distress experienced during and post-breast cancer treatment as clinicians tend to underestimate them. Clinicians and patients concur on presence and severity of activity limitations but not on difficulty, which can only be assessed from the patient's perspective.

Improving the relevance and consistency of outcomes in comparative effectiveness research

Policy makers have clearly indicated--through heavy investment in the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute--that reporting outcomes that are meaningful to patients is crucial for improvement in healthcare delivery and cost reduction. Better interpretation and generalizability of clinical research results that incorporate patient-centered outcomes research can be achieved by accelerating the development and uptake of core outcome sets (COS). COS provide a standardized minimum set of the outcomes that should be measured and reported in all clinical trials of a specific condition. The level of activity around COS has increased significantly over the past decade, with substantial progress in several clinical domains. However, there are many important clinical conditions for which high-quality COS have not been developed and there are limited resources and capacity with which to develop them. We believe that meaningful progress toward the goals behind the significant investments in patient-centered outcomes research and comparative effectiveness research will depend on a serious effort to address these issues.