Purpose
Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in clinical trials to provide patients’ perspectives regarding symptoms, health-related quality of life, and satisfaction with ...treatments. A range of guidance documents exist for the selection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical trials, and it is unclear to what extent these documents present consistent recommendations.
Methods
We conducted a targeted review of publications and regulatory guidance documents that advise on the selection of PROMs for use in clinical trials. A total of seven guidance documents from the US Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, and scientific consortia from professional societies were included in the final review. Guidance documents were analyzed using a content analysis approach comparing them with minimum standards recommended by the International Society for Quality of Life Research.
Results
Overall there was substantial agreement between guidance regarding the appropriate considerations for PROM selection within a clinical trial. Variations among the guidance primarily related to differences in their format and differences in the perspectives and mandates of their respective organizations. Whereas scientific consortia tended to produce checklist or rating-type guidance, regulatory groups tended to use more narrative-based approaches sometimes supplemented with lists of criteria.
Conclusion
The consistency in recommendations suggests an emerging consensus in the field and supports use of any of the major guidance documents available to guide PROM selection for clinical trials without concern of conflicting recommendations. This work represents an important first step in the international PROTEUS Consortium’s ongoing efforts to optimize the use of PROs in clinical trials.
Aims: To establish the extent and impact of symptoms in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF), the importance of different aspects of quality of life (QoL), and how we should assess wellbeing. ...Methods: Focus groups of patients with symptomatic permanent AF in a trial of heart rate control; the RATE-AF trial randomised 160 patients aged ≥60 years with permanent AF and at least NYHA class II dyspnoea to either digoxin or beta-blockers. Patient and public representatives led the focus groups and performed all data acquisition and analysis, using thematic approaches to interpret patient views about QoL and its measurement. Results: Substantial impairment of health-related QoL was noted in 160 trial patients, with impact on all domains apart from mental health. Eight women and 11 men aged 61–87 years participated in the focus groups. Common themes were a lack of information from healthcare professionals about AF, a lack of focus on QoL in consultations, and a sense of frustration, isolation, and reduced confidence. There was marked variability in symptoms in individual patients, with some describing severe impact on activities of daily living, and profound interaction with comorbidities such as arthritis. Day-to-day variation in QoL and difficulty in attributing symptom burden to AF or other comorbidities led to challenges in questionnaire completion. Consensus was reached that collecting both general and AF-specific QoL would be useful in routine practice, along with participation in peer support, which was empowering for the patients. Conclusions: The impact of comorbidities is poorly appreciated in the context of AF, with considerable variability in QoL that requires both generic and AF-specific assessment. Improvement in QoL should direct the appraisal, and reappraisal, of treatment decisions for patients with permanent AF.
Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) can provide valuable insights into the experiences of those living with and affected by a disease or health condition. Inclusive collaboration ...between patients, the public and researchers can lead to productive relationships, ensuring that health research addresses patient needs. Guidelines are available to support effective PPIE; however, evaluation of the impact of PPIE strategies in health research is limited. In this Review, we evaluate the impact of PPIE in the 'Therapies for Long COVID in non-hospitalised individuals' (TLC) Study, using a combination of group discussions and interviews with patient partners and researchers. We identify areas of good practice and reflect on areas for improvement. Using these insights and the results of a survey, we synthesize two checklists of considerations for PPIE, and we propose that research teams use these checklists to optimize the impact of PPIE for both patients and researchers in future studies.
Randomized clinical trials are critical for evaluating the safety and efficacy of interventions in oncology and informing regulatory decisions, practice guidelines, and health policy. ...Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in randomized trials to reflect the impact of receiving cancer therapies from the patient perspective and can inform evaluations of interventions by providing evidence that cannot be obtained or deduced from clinicians' reports or from other biomedical measures. This commentary focuses on how PROs add value to clinical trials by representing the patient voice. We employed 2 previously published descriptive frameworks (addressing how PROs are used in clinical trials and how PROs have an impact, respectively) and selected 9 clinical trial publications that illustrate the value of PROs according to the framework categories. These include 3 trials where PROs were a primary trial endpoint, 3 trials where PROs as secondary endpoints supported the primary endpoint, and 3 trials where PROs as secondary endpoints contrast the primary endpoint findings in clinically important ways. The 9 examples illustrate that PROs add valuable data to the care and treatment context by informing future patients about how they may feel and function on different treatments and by providing clinicians with evidence to support changes to clinical practice and shared decision making. Beyond the patient and clinician, PROs can enable administrators to consider the cost-effectiveness of implementing new interventions and contribute vital information to policy makers, health technology assessors, and regulators. These examples provide a strong case for the wider implementation of PROs in cancer trials.
Background Cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) improves quality of life (QoL) when measured 3 to 6 months after implantation, but whether these effects are sustained is unknown. The CArdiac ...Resynchronisation-Heart Failure study is the only long-term randomized trial of CRT with repeated measures of QoL. Methods Quality of life was measured at baseline and 3 months using generic European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions and disease-specific (Minnesota Living with Heart Failure) questionnaires and at 18 months and study-end using the latter instrument. Median follow-up was 29.6 (interquartile range 23.6-34.6) months. Results At baseline, patients had a substantially impaired QoL (mean European Quality of Life-5 Dimensions score 0.60, 95% confidence interval CI 0.58-0.62) compared to an age-matched general population (0.78, 95% CI 0.76-0.80). Quality of life improved to a greater extent in patients assigned to CRT at each time point ( P < .0001). By 18 months, the mean difference in disease-specific QoL score was 10.7 (95% CI 7.6-13.8) in favor of CRT, mostly due to improved physical functioning. Differences were sustained thereafter. Quality-adjusted life-years at 18 months increased by 0.13 (95% CI 0.07-0.182) and by 0.23 (95% CI 0.13-0.33) at study-end (both P < .0001). Little heterogeneity of effect across subgroups was observed. Conclusion Cardiac resynchronization therapy improves long-term QoL and survival in patients with moderate to severe heart failure. The effects appear sustained, and therefore, the gain in quality-adjusted life years with CRT should be even greater during longer term follow-up.
The global demand for hospital treatment exceeds capacity.The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated this issue, leading to increased backlogs and longer wait times for patients. The amount of outpatient ...attendances undertaken in many settings is still below pre-pandemic levels and this, combined with delayed referrals, means that patients are facing delays in treatment and poorer health outcomes. Use of digital health technologies, notably the use of remote symptom monitoring systems based on patient-reported outcomes (PROs), may offer a solution to reduce outpatient waiting lists and tailor care to those in greatest need. Drawing on international examples, the authors explore the use of electronic PRO systems to triage clinical care. We summarise the key benefits of the approach and also highlight the challenges for implementation, which need to be addressed to promote equitable healthcare delivery.
Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can inform health care decisions, regulatory decisions, and health care policy. They also can be used for audit/benchmarking and monitoring symptoms to provide timely ...care tailored to individual needs. However, several ethical issues have been raised in relation to PRO use.
To develop international, consensus-based, PRO-specific ethical guidelines for clinical research.
The PRO ethics guidelines were developed following the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network's guideline development framework. This included a systematic review of the ethical implications of PROs in clinical research. The databases MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, AMED, and CINAHL were searched from inception until March 2020. The keywords patient reported outcome* and ethic* were used to search the databases. Two reviewers independently conducted title and abstract screening before full-text screening to determine eligibility. The review was supplemented by the SPIRIT-PRO Extension recommendations for trial protocol. Subsequently, a 2-round international Delphi process (n = 96 participants; May and August 2021) and a consensus meeting (n = 25 international participants; October 2021) were held. Prior to voting, consensus meeting participants were provided with a summary of the Delphi process results and information on whether the items aligned with existing ethical guidance.
Twenty-three items were considered in the first round of the Delphi process: 6 relevant candidate items from the systematic review and 17 additional items drawn from the SPIRIT-PRO Extension. Ninety-six international participants voted on the relevant importance of each item for inclusion in ethical guidelines and 12 additional items were recommended for inclusion in round 2 of the Delphi (35 items in total). Fourteen items were recommended for inclusion at the consensus meeting (n = 25 participants). The final wording of the PRO ethical guidelines was agreed on by consensus meeting participants with input from 6 additional individuals. Included items focused on PRO-specific ethical issues relating to research rationale, objectives, eligibility requirements, PRO concepts and domains, PRO assessment schedules, sample size, PRO data monitoring, barriers to PRO completion, participant acceptability and burden, administration of PRO questionnaires for participants who are unable to self-report PRO data, input on PRO strategy by patient partners or members of the public, avoiding missing data, and dissemination plans.
The PRO ethics guidelines provide recommendations for ethical issues that should be addressed in PRO clinical research. Addressing ethical issues of PRO clinical research has the potential to ensure high-quality PRO data while minimizing participant risk, burden, and harm and protecting participant and researcher welfare.
PDF
