Patient-reported outcomes in randomized clinical trials: development of ISOQOL reporting standards

Abstract Background Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) promote patient centeredness in clinical trials; however, in the field of rapidly emerging and clinically impressive immunotherapy, data on PROs are limited. Methods We systematically identified all immunotherapy approvals from 2011 through 2018 and assessed the analytic tools and reporting quality of associated PRO reports. For randomized clinical trials (RCTs), we developed a novel 24-point scoring scale: the PRO Endpoints Analysis Score based on 24 criteria derived from the recommendations of the Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data Consortium. Results We assessed 44 trial publications supporting 42 immunotherapy approvals. PROs were published for 21 of the 44 (47.7%) trial publications. Twenty-three trials (52.3%) were RCTs and 21 (47.7%) pertained to single-arm trials. The median time between primary clinical outcomes publications and their corresponding secondary PRO publications was 19 months (interquartile range = 9-29 months). Of the 21 PRO reports, 4 (19.0%) reported a specific hypothesis, and most (85.7%) used descriptive statistics. Three (3 of 21 [14.3%]) studies performed a control for type I error. As for RCTs, 14 of 23 (60.9%) published PRO data, including 13 (56.5%) that published a secondary dedicated manuscript. One-half of these 14 trials scored less than 13 points on the 24-point PRO Endpoints Analysis Score. The mean score was 12.71 (range = 5-17, SD = 3.71), and none met all the recommendations of the Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints Data Consortium. Conclusions Suboptimal reporting of PROs occurs regularly in cancer immunotherapy trials. Increased efforts are needed to maximize the value of these data in cancer immunotherapy development and approval.

Download Full-text

Abstract TP292: Patient Reported Outcomes in Stroke Clinical Trials

Stroke ◽

10.1161/str.48.suppl_1.tp292 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 48 (suppl_1) ◽

Author(s):

Christopher Carr ◽

Laya Reddy ◽

Azad Hussain ◽

Sean Murray ◽

Neha Vazirani ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Clinical Trials ◽

Patient Reported Outcomes ◽

Randomized Clinical Trials ◽

Depression Scale ◽

Large Degree ◽

Cerebrovascular Diseases ◽

Neurological Deficits ◽

Health Profile ◽

Patient Reported ◽

The Us

Stroke is the 5 th -leading cause of death in the US and the major cause of disability. Many patients who have suffered from strokes are left with permanent neurological deficits, new occupational and social difficulties, and reductions in quality of life that may be idiosyncratic or vary considerably from patient to patient. Solicitation of patient reported outcomes (PROs) in the treatment and recovery from strokes is therefore imperative. We examined a list compiled in 2013 for Stroke by Magin et al. of representative stroke-related, randomized clinical trials published in 10 high-impact journals between 2002 and 2012 to assess whether PROs were collected and which constructs were reported. We categorized PRO measures as stroke-specific (e.g. Stroke Impact Scale), health profile and utility scales (e.g. Beck Depression Scale), or general (e.g. pain visual analog scale). Two reviewers independently abstracted PRO measures from each article and disagreements were resolved by consensus. Fisher’s exact test was used for statistical analyses. Of the 99 articles that met study inclusion criteria, 20% concerned prevention, 22% acute treatment, and 58% rehabilitation. A plurality of trials were European (43%) followed by studies based in the US (25%), Asian countries (10%), and Australia (10%). Altogether, 37% of studies used a PRO of any kind. Stroke-specific PROs were collected in 17% of studies, health profile and utility scales were used in 17%, and general PROs were used in 23%. There were no significant differences in PRO use with regards to year of publication or study location. Health profile and utility scales (p=0.01) and unclassified PROs (p<0.001) were most-commonly reported in rehabilitation trials. Stroke-specific PROs were most commonly published in the journals Brain and Journal of Stroke and Cerebrovascular Diseases (p=0.001). Overall, our review and analysis detected a low prevalence and a large degree of heterogeneity of PRO measures reported in stroke-related clinical trials. Future stroke research must routinely incorporate PROs into the study design to help patients, caregivers, and providers make informed decisions about stroke prevention, treatment, and rehabilitation options that yield outcomes of greatest importance to them.

Download Full-text