[The decision process of the family physician in the choice of a drug].

P. Denig,F. Haaijer-Ruskamp

1989-03-25

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

[Special issue PRO] Considering endpoints for comparative tolerability of cancer treatments using patient report given the estimand framework

John Devin Peipert,Monique Breslin,Ethan Basch,Melanie Calvert,David Cella,Mary Lou Smith,Gita Thanarajasingam,Jessica Roydhouse

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10543406.2024.2313060

2024-02-17

Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics

Abstract:Regulatory agencies are advancing the use of systematic approaches to collect patient experience data, including patient-reported outcomes (PROs), in cancer clinical trials to inform regulatory decision-making. Due in part to clinician under-reporting of symptomatic adverse events, there is a growing recognition that evaluation of cancer treatment tolerability should include the patient experience, both in terms of the overall side effect impact and symptomatic adverse events. Methodologies around implementation, analysis, and interpretation of "patient" reported tolerability are under development, and current approaches are largely descriptive. There is robust guidance for use of PROs as efficacy endpoints to compare cancer treatments, but it is unclear to what extent this can be relied-upon to develop tolerability endpoints. An important consideration when developing endpoints to compare tolerability between treatments is the linkage of trial design, objectives, and statistical analysis. Despite interest in and frequent collection of PRO data in oncology trials, heterogeneity in analyses and unclear PRO objectives mean that design, objectives, and analysis may not be aligned, posing substantial challenges for the interpretation of results. The recent ICH E9 (R1) estimand framework represents an opportunity to help address these challenges. Efforts to apply the estimand framework in the context of PROs have primarily focused on efficacy outcomes. In this paper, we discuss considerations for comparing the patient-reported tolerability of different treatments in an oncology trial context.

pharmacology & pharmacy,statistics & probability
Abstract 1302: Development and implementation of a systematic approach to measure patient-reported outcomes in early-phase cancer trials

Amanda L. King,Jason E. Levine,Elizabeth Vera,Yuti Gandhi,Elaine Novakovich,Theresa Yu,Sefanit Berhanu,Ciara Locke,Kaelyn Julmeus,Tito Mendoza,Terri S. Armstrong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.am2024-1302

IF: 11.2

2024-03-22

Cancer Research

Abstract:Abstract Background: There has been a shift in the clinical trial landscape toward early-phase studies where data from well-designed and pivotal phase I/II trials is leading to accelerated drug approval. Our goal was to develop a standardized approach to the measurement and reporting of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in early-phase trials to improve assessment of tolerability, address noted barriers to inclusion, and enhance patient-provider communication to inform treatment decisions and ultimately improve outcomes. Methods: The Office of Patient Centered Outcomes Research (OPCORe) was established in 2022 within the Center for Cancer Research at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) with the mission to advance understanding of the clinical benefit and tolerability of cancer therapies by integrating patient-centered approaches into CCR clinical trials by fostering education and collaboration with stakeholders. Implementation of regulatory/consortia guidelines related to use of core constructs, assessment frequency, and hypothesis-driven objectives and analysis plans through protocol template, development of data capture, email-based alerts and data visualization for clinical providers was developed and standardized templates for protocol language, research staff education, tools for workflow, and tracking implemented. Results: The OPCORe protocol template includes measurement of 3 constructs, including tolerability, clinical benefit and disease-specific impact, as well as anchors of meaningful change. Core symptomatic toxicities are measured to inform understanding across trials with agent/class-specific symptomatic toxicities added to assure relevance. Baseline and standardized weekly electronic capture of tolerability during early cycles with alerts to clinical research staff if moderate-severe toxicities reported helps facilitate patient check-ins. Repeat PROs assessments in later cycles are expanded to include disease-specific assessments and align with disease evaluation to further inform clinical impact. To date, we have collaborated with 7 research groups and developed approaches for first-in-human, phase I, and phase II studies with trial start-up and data collection in process. Conclusion: The value of including PROs in cancer trials is increasingly recognized by regulators, clinicians, patients, and advocates to advance understanding of the clinical benefit & tolerability of emerging therapies. Standardization and incorporation of PROs in earlier phase trials may enable PROs to be optimized, improve later phase trial design, and help inform health policy, support drug approval, and promote shared decision making between providers and patients to inform treatment decisions. Citation Format: Amanda L. King, Jason E. Levine, Elizabeth Vera, Yuti Gandhi, Elaine Novakovich, Theresa Yu, Sefanit Berhanu, Ciara Locke, Kaelyn Julmeus, Tito Mendoza, Terri S. Armstrong. Development and implementation of a systematic approach to measure patient-reported outcomes in early-phase cancer trials [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2024; Part 1 (Regular Abstracts); 2024 Apr 5-10; San Diego, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(6_Suppl):Abstract nr 1302.

oncology
Building upon grassroots innovations: articulating social and ethical capital

Anil K. Gupta,R. Sinha,T. N. Prakash,D. Koradia,P. Vivekanandan

2001-02-06

Abstract:The healthy growth of democracy depends upon the emergence of decentralized, dispersed, polycentric spurs of social, ecological and economic entrepreneurship. Networking among these seemingly disparate cross currents some times gives enough momentum to the civil society initiatives to transform the social and cultural values of the society. There is always networking taking place among stronger economic and cultural forces, not withstanding the nature of state. But some times, this transformation also takes place through subtle networking among the grassroots deviants, innovators, and other marginal but creative forces in society. Gerlach and Palmer (1981) called these forces as SPIN (segmented, polycentric, integrated networks) while I tend to view these SPLICES that need attention today since these have the potential to take the society by surprise when their real power manifests, if it does. It is true that due to loose coordination, may times these forces remain on the margin and thus their potential does not get realized for a long time. I want to take the case of HoneyBee network that has helped provide a sort of loose platform to converge creative, but uncoordinated individuals across not only Indian states having varying cultural, language and social ethos but also in 75 other countries around the world. What it is trying to do in a rather quiet manner may transform the way the resources in which poor people are rich are used in future. These resources are their knowledge, innovations and sustainable practices. I first argue that classical concept of social capital does not distinguish between the trust in society created for social good versus social ‘bad’. For instance, the trust among members of mafia and other socially undesirable networks does not constitute social capital. I am also trying to distinguish that part of social trust which is guided by higher ethical values which may not have become social norms as yet. This is being distinguished as ethical capital. Finally, I conclude that Honey Bee Network has tried to articulate the social and ethical capital of the society at the grassroots.
Using Patient-Reported Outcomes in Dose-Finding Oncology Trials: Surveys of Key Stakeholders and the National Cancer Research Institute Consumer Forum

Julia Lai-Kwon,Alyssa M Vanderbeek,Anna Minchom,Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi,Della Ogunleye,Richard Stephens,Melanie Calvert,Christina Yap

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oncolo/oyac117

2022-06-28

The Oncologist

Abstract:Abstract Background Patient-reported adverse events may be a useful adjunct for assessing a drug’s tolerability in dose-finding oncology trials (DFOT). We conducted surveys of international stakeholders and the National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) Consumer Forum to understand attitudes about patient-reported outcome (PRO) use in DFOT. Methods A 35-question survey of clinicians, trial managers, statisticians, funders, and regulators of DFOT was distributed via professional bodies examining experience using PROs, benefits/barriers, and their potential role in defining tolerable doses. An 8-question survey of the NCRI Consumer Forum explored similar themes. Results International survey: 112 responses from 15 September–30 November 2020; 103 trialists [48 clinicians (42.9%), 38 statisticians (34.0%), 17 trial managers (15.2%)], 7 regulators (6.3%), 2 funders (1.8%)]. Most trialists had no experience designing (73, 70.9%), conducting (52, 50.5%), or reporting (88, 85.4%) PROs in DFOT. Most agreed that PROs could identify new toxicities (75, 67.0%) and provide data on the frequency (86, 76.8%) and duration (81, 72.3%) of toxicities. The top 3 barriers were lack of guidance regarding PRO selection (73/103, 70.9%), missing PRO data (71/103, 68.9%), and overburdening staff (68/103, 66.0%). NCRI survey: 57 responses on 21 March 2021. A total of 28 (49.1%) were willing to spend <15 min/day completing PROs. Most (55, 96.5%) preferred to complete PROs online. 61 (54.5%) trialists and 57 (100%) consumers agreed that patient-reported adverse events should be used to inform dose-escalation decisions. Conclusion Stakeholders reported minimal experience using PROs in DFOT but broadly supported their use. Guidelines are needed to standardize PRO selection, analysis, and reporting in DFOT.

oncology
AMCP Partnership Forum: Improving Quality, Value, and Outcomes with Patient-Reported Outcomes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18553/jmcp.2018.17491

Abstract:Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), which provide a direct measure of a patient's health status or treatment preferences, represent a key component of the shift toward patient-centered health care. PROs can measure the state of a patient's disease-specific and overall health throughout the care continuum, enabling them to have a variety of uses for key health care stakeholders. Currently, PROs are used in drug development, aligning patient and clinician goals in care, quality-of-care measures, and coverage and reimbursement decisions. While there have been significant strides by key health care stakeholders to further the development and use of PROs, there are a number of challenges limiting more widespread use. In light of these current challenges and the potential for PROs to improve health care quality and value, on October 19, 2017, the Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy convened a forum of key stakeholders representing patients, payers, providers, government, and pharmaceutical companies to discuss and identify solutions to the current challenges and barriers to further use of PROs. These discussions informed the development of participants' ideal future state in which PROs maximize the goals of all health care stakeholders and the actionable steps required to make the future state a reality. While stakeholders shared unique perspectives throughout the forum, they had consensus on 2 overarching issues: the importance of PROs in defining value, improving patient care, and implementing value-based payment models and the need for strong organizational and operational systems to achieve optimal adoption and use. Participants identified several key challenges in PRO use and adoption: achieving a representative patient population, inclusion of PRO data in medication labels, the necessity for both standardized and customizable PROs, and operational and organizational barriers to collecting and analyzing PROs. To overcome these challenges, participants recommended that manufacturers should engage key stakeholders early and throughout the drug development process to ensure the most valid and representative PROs and patient populations will be included. To streamline the PRO collection process, participants suggested engaging pharmacists and other providers who may have more frequent interaction with patients. Participants also recommended that PRO collection and analysis should use common technology platforms, streamline components of clinician care to reduce workflow, and be integrated with claims data to provider payers a better understanding of patient health in real time. Finally, additional work should be done to develop patient-reported outcome measures that contain relevant measures for all healthcare stakeholders. While significant challenges remain in PRO development and adoption, participants agreed that greater use can only be achieved through collaboration and patient-centered care. Disclosures: The AMCP Partnership Forum titled "Improving Quality, Value, and Outcomes with Patient-Reported Outcomes" and the development of this proceedings report were supported by Amgen, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Genentech, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, Novo Nordisk, Precision for Value, Premier, Sanofi, Takeda Pharmaceuticals USA, and Xcenda.
Comparison of chromosome analysis to DNA content by flow cytometry for pediatric tumors.

W. W. Sheng,D. Jacobs,S. Soukup,R. Gates

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3109/15513819009064703

Pediatric Pathology

Abstract:Chromosome analyses in a series of 50 pediatric tumor samples showed abnormal chromosome number, ranging from hypodiploid to tetraploid. Aliquots of the same solid tumor samples were analyzed by flow cytometry (FCM). Material from spontaneous abortions and 12 tumor samples with normal chromosomes were also compared in a control series of 83 samples. Tumors or abortuses with 44-48 chromosomes could not be differentiated from material with normal diploid complement by FCM. However, greater than or equal to 3-4 extra chromosomes produced detectable differences in mean DNA index. Triploidy and tetraploidy were readily identified by FCM. It is concluded that FCM could identify an important group of hyperdiploid pediatric tumors, as well as 3N and 4N tumor complements.
Development and usability testing of an electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) solution for patients with inflammatory diseases in an Advanced Therapy Medicinal Product (ATMP) basket trial

Christel McMullan,Ameeta Retzer,Sarah E. Hughes,Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi,Camilla Bathurst,Alan Boyd,Jamie Coleman,Elin Haf Davies,Alastair K. Denniston,Helen Dunster,Chris Frost,Rosie Harding,Amanda Hunn,Derek Kyte,Rebecca Malpass,Gary McNamara,Sandra Mitchell,Saloni Mittal,Philip N. Newsome,Gary Price,Anna Rowe,Wilma van Reil,Anita Walker,Roger Wilson,Melanie Calvert

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-023-00634-3

2023-10-11

Journal of Patient-Reported Outcomes

Abstract:Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) systems are increasingly used in clinical trials to provide evidence of efficacy and tolerability of treatment from the patient perspective. The aim of this study is twofold: (1) to describe how we developed an electronic platform for patients to report their symptoms, and (2) to develop and undertake usability testing of an ePRO solution for use in a study of cell therapy seeking to provide early evidence of efficacy and tolerability of treatment and test the feasibility of the system for use in later phase studies.
Ethical Considerations for the Inclusion of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Research: The PRO Ethics Guidelines

Samantha Cruz Rivera,Olalekan Lee Aiyegbusi,Jonathan Ives,Heather Draper,Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber,Carolyn Ells,Amanda Hunn,Jane A Scott,Conrad V Fernandez,Andrew P Dickens,Nicola Anderson,Vishal Bhatnagar,Andrew Bottomley,Lisa Campbell,Clive Collett,Philip Collis,Kathrine Craig,Hugh Davies,Robert Golub,Lesley Gosden,Ari Gnanasakthy,Elin Haf Davies,Maria von Hildebrand,Janet M Lord,Nirosha Mahendraratnam,Tempei Miyaji,Thomas Morel,Joao Monteiro,Ann-Dorthe Olsen Zwisler,John Devin Peipert,Jessica Roydhouse,Angela M Stover,Roger Wilson,Christina Yap,Melanie J Calvert

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2022.6421

IF: 11.816

2022-05-17

JAMA

Abstract:Importance: 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. Objective: To develop international, consensus-based, PRO-specific ethical guidelines for clinical research. Evidence review: 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. Findings: 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. Conclusions and relevance: 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.
Impact of Measuring Patient-Reported Outcomes in Dermatology Drug Development

Catherine Copley-Merriman,Susan Zelt,Marci Clark,Ari Gnanasakthy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-016-0196-6

2016-09-15

Abstract:Although some symptoms of dermatologic diseases, such as pruritus and pain, can be subjectively assessed only by patients, the most commonly used endpoints in dermatology drug research traditionally have been clinician-reported outcomes. Research has found that patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were included in only one-quarter of 125 trials conducted between 1994 and 2001. Our objective was to characterize the impact of PROs in dermatology drug development from the patient, prescriber, regulator, payer, and manufacturer perspectives using a case study approach. We conducted a structured literature review for pivotal clinical trials using PROs for six dermatologic products (MAS063DP, onabotulinumtoxinA, calcipotriene hydrate plus betamethasone dipropionate, pimecrolimus, tacrolimus, and ustekinumab). We also searched regulatory websites to identify product labeling and the UK National Institute for Health and Care Excellence website to identify submissions for the products of interest. A total of 32 articles illustrating the various perspectives were selected for inclusion. Clinical trials that include PROs allow patients to differentiate among treatments based on the experience of other patients participating in trials and enable prescribers to understand the benefit–risk profile of new treatments. The inclusion of PROs enables regulators to evaluate product benefits with a patient-centered perspective; five of the products of interest obtained eight total product labeling statements. PRO data supported manufacturers’ dissemination of product benefits in the form of publications and PRO labeling for the product. For payers, PRO data were used in an analysis of cost effectiveness of new treatments. Inclusion of PROs in dermatology drug development programs benefits patients, prescribers, regulators, manufacturers, and payers.
Reduction of doxorubicin toxicity by methylene blue in cultured rat myocardial cells.

R. J. Anderson,J. Babson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0006-2952(89)90104-4

IF: 6.1

1989-08-01

Biochemical Pharmacology

Abstract:
Abstract PO3-10-10: Are we adequately integrating patient reported outcomes in breast cancer clinical trials?

Yadav Rina,Zhengyan Huang,Jessica Moss,Garima Gupta

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.sabcs23-po3-10-10

IF: 11.2

2024-05-03

Cancer Research

Abstract:Background: Integrating patient reported outcomes (PROs) in cancer care enhances clinical outcomes and creates a paradigm shift in providing patient-centered care. Several studies performed in the past 15 years have demonstrated that systematic monitoring of patients using PROs through surveys improve patient-clinician communication, clinician awareness of symptoms, symptom management, patient satisfaction, quality of life, and overall survival. There has been uncertainty over the type of PRO system to implement in cancer care, how to evaluate PRO in clinical trials, and how to compare this to the clinician common terminology criteria for adverse events (CTCAE). The PRO concept was first introduced in 1975 with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life (QoL) survey. In May 2018, the National Cancer Institute established the PRO-CTCAE to be utilized for cancer patients to report and grade their treatment related adverse events, like that of clinician reported CTCAE. The goal of our study was to evaluate frequency of PRO incorporation in phase III breast cancer clinical trials. Methods: New England Journal of Medicine, Journal of Clinical Oncology, and Lancet were systematically searched to identify phase III breast cancer clinical trials published between January 2018 and June 2023. A total of 113 phase III studies were identified, 87 of which had reported protocols. Studies that did not demonstrate protocols on these search engines were not included in the review. Of these 87 clinical trials, 36 studies documented evaluation of PRO. These studies were segregated by year of publication. For each year, the number of total phase III breast cancer clinical trials that were published were compared to those that were published and evaluated PRO. A percentage was generated and allowed for a longitudinal trend to be analyzed over a 5-year period to assess if there was improved frequency of PRO integration into breast cancer clinical trials. Summary statistics were calculated using SAS 9.4. Results: 36 of 113 trials demonstrated PRO use and 26 utilized EORTC-QoL, 1 used PRO-CTCAE, and 9 used another measure of PRO assessment within their study protocol (such as FACT-B and PHQ-9. Additionally, in 2018, 33% of published breast cancer studies included PRO data. Since then, there have been fluctuations in breast cancer studies collecting PRO; 2019: 33%, 2020: 47%, 2021: 43%, 2022: 73%, and since the start of 2023: 9%. Conclusions: Our data suggests a trend towards improvement in frequency of PRO data collection in breast cancer clinical trials over the past 5 years, exemplified by the marked increase in 2022. There remains a need to incorporate PROs in clinical trials and routine care to improve patient experience and provide patient-centered care. Citation Format: Yadav Rina, Zhengyan Huang, Jessica Moss, Garima Gupta. Are we adequately integrating patient reported outcomes in breast cancer clinical trials? [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2023 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2023 Dec 5-9; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2024;84(9 Suppl) nr PO3-10-10.

oncology
Incorporating patient-reported outcomes in dose-finding clinical trials with continuous patient enrollment

Anaïs Andrillon,Lucie Biard,Shing M. Lee

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10543406.2023.2236216

2023-07-28

Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics

Abstract:Dose-finding clinical trials in oncology estimate the maximum tolerated dose (MTD), based on toxicity obtained from the clinician's perspective. While the collection of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) has been advocated to better inform treatment tolerability, there is a lack of guidance and methods on how to use PROs for dose assignments and recommendations. The PRO continual reassessment method (PRO-CRM) has been proposed to formally incorporate PROs into dose-finding trials. In this paper, we propose two extensions of the PRO-CRM, which allow continuous enrollment of patients and longer toxicity observation windows to capture late-onset or cumulative toxicities by using a weighted likelihood to include the partial toxicity follow-up information. The TITE-PRO-CRM uses both the PRO and the clinician's information during the trial for dose assignment decisions and at the end of the trial to estimate the MTD. The TITE-CRM + PRO uses clinician's information solely to inform dose assignments during the trial and incorporates PRO at the end of the trial for the estimation of the MTD. Simulation studies show that the TITE-PRO-CRM performs similarly to the PRO-CRM in terms of dose recommendation and assignments during the trial while almost halving trial duration in case of an accrual of two patients per observation window. The TITE-CRM + PRO slightly underperforms compared to the TITE-PRO-CRM, but similar performance can be attained by requiring larger sample sizes. We also show that the performance of the proposed methods is robust to higher accrual rates, different toxicity hazards, and correlated time-to-clinician toxicity and time-to-patient toxicity data.

pharmacology & pharmacy,statistics & probability
Improving completion rates of patient-reported outcome measures in cancer clinical trials: Scoping review investigating the implications for trial designs

Lotte van der Weijst,Abigirl Machingura,Ahu Alanya,Emma Lidington,Galina Velikova,Hans-Henning Flechtner,Heike Schmidt,Jens Lehmann,John K. Ramage,Jolie Ringash,Katarzyna Wac,Kathy Oliver,Katherine J. Taylor,Lisa Wintner,Lúcia P.C. Senna,Michael Koller,Olga Husson,Renée Bultijnck,Roger Wilson,Susanne Singer,Vesna Bjelic-Radisic,Winette T.A. van der Graaf,Madeline Pe

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2024.114313

IF: 10.002

2024-09-22

European Journal of Cancer

Abstract:Background Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) play a crucial role in cancer clinical trials. Despite the availability of validated PRO measures (PROMs), challenges related to low completion rates and missing data remain, potentially affecting the trial results' validity. This review explored strategies to improve and maintain high PROM completion rates in cancer clinical trials. Methodology A scoping review was performed across Medline, Embase and Scopus and regulatory guidelines. Key recommendations were synthesized into categories such as stakeholder involvement, study design, PRO assessment, mode of assessment, participant support, and monitoring. Results The review identified 114 recommendations from 18 papers (16 peer-reviewed articles and 2 policy documents). The recommendations included integrating comprehensive PRO information into the study protocol, enhancing patient involvement during the protocol development phase and in education, and collecting relevant PRO data at clinically meaningful time points. Electronic data collection, effective monitoring systems, and sufficient time, capacity, workforce and financial resources were highlighted. Discussion Further research needs to evaluate the effectiveness of these strategies in various context and to tailor these recommendations into practical and effective strategies. This will enhance PRO completion rates and patient-centred care. However, obstacles such as patient burden, low health literacy, and conflicting recommendations may present challenges in application.

oncology
The State of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Rheumatology

Kenrick Manswell,Victoria Le,Kathryn Henry,Maximilian Casey,Natalie Anumolu,Michael S. Putman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3899/jrheum.2023-1073

2024-09-03

The Journal of Rheumatology

Abstract:Objective We sought to evaluate the quality and timeliness of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure reporting, which have not been previously studied. Methods Clinical trials that informed new US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals for the first rheumatological indication between 1995 and 2021 were identified. Data were recorded to determine whether collected PROs were published, met minimum clinically important difference (MCID) or statistical significance ( P < 0.05) thresholds, and were consistent with Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)-PRO standards. Hazard ratios and Kaplan-Meier estimate were used to assess the time from FDA approval to PRO publication. Results Thirty-one FDA approvals corresponded with 110 pivotal trials and 262 reported PROs. Of the 90 included studies, 1 (1.1%) met all 5 recommended items, 10 (11.1%) met 4 items, 17 (18.9%) met 3 items, 21 (23.3%) met 2 items, 26 (28.9%) met 1 item, and 15 (16.7%) met none of the reporting standards. Most PROs met MCID thresholds (149/262; 56.9%) and were statistically significant (223/262; 85.1%). Of our subset analysis, one-third of PROs were not published upfront (70/212; 33%) and 1 of 9 (22/212; 10.4%) remained unpublished ≥ 4 years after initial trial reporting. Publication rates were highest for the Health Assessment Questionnaire–Disability Index (97.4%) and lowest for the 36-item Short Form Health Survey (81.8%). Less than half of these published PROs met MCID and statistical significance thresholds (94/212; 44.3%). Conclusion One in 9 PROs remained unpublished for ≥ 4 years after initial trial reporting, and compliance with CONSORT-PRO reporting guidelines was poor. Efforts should be made to ensure PROs are adequately reported and expeditiously published.

rheumatology
International Society for Quality of Life Research commentary on the US Food and Drug Administration draft guidance for industry on core patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials

Keri J. S. Brady,John Devin Peipert,Thomas M. Atkinson,Cecilia Pompili,Monica Pinto,James W. Shaw,Jessica Roydhouse,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-023-03396-z

2023-05-23

Quality of Life Research

Abstract:Abstract In June 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a draft guidance for industry on core patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and related considerations for instrument selection and trial design in registrational cancer clinical trials, building on prior communications about the use of PROs to assess efficacy and tolerability in oncology drug development. The International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) Standards and Best Practices Committee led an initiative to draft a commentary about the guidance, focusing on its positive aspects and areas that would benefit from additional clarification and consideration. For comprehensiveness, the authors reviewed existing public comments on the draft guidance, and the commentary underwent a thorough review process through three ISOQOL Special Interest Groups (Psychometrics, Clinical Practice, and Regulatory and Health Technology Assessment Engagement) followed by the ISOQOL Board. The goal of this commentary is to situate this new and relevant guidance document within the context of recent regulatory efforts on PROs and highlight areas in which further work may ultimately benefit the field.

public, environmental & occupational health,health care sciences & services,health policy & services
[The HLA system and changes in thyroid hormones in patients].

V. Felt,A. Májský,P. Herzog,V. Vavrejnová,J. Nedvídková

1985-08-01

Abstract:
Let's talk about it: an exploration of the comparative use of three different digital platforms to gather patient-reported outcome measures

Anna Hundt Golden,Meghan Hufstader Gabriel,Jon Russo,Mark Price,Stephen Ruhmel,Ami Nilsson,Patricia Shepherd Delong,Jennifer Jelsma,Michelle Carty

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s41687-023-00666-9

2023-12-12

Abstract:Background: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures provide valuable evidence in clinical trials; however, poor compliance with PRO measures is a notable and long-standing problem, resulting in missing data that potentially impact the interpretation of trial results. Interactive, patient-centric platforms may increase participants' motivation to complete PRO measures over the course of a clinical trial. Thus, the aim of this study was to evaluate and optimize the usability of 3 popular consumer technologies-a traditional app-based interface, a chatbot interface, and a speech-operated interface-that may be used to improve user engagement and compliance with PRO measures. Methods: Participants aged 18-75 years from the general United States population tested the usability of 3 ePRO platforms: a traditional app-based interface using Datacubed Health Platform (Datacubed), a web-based chatbot interface using the Orbita platform, and a speech-operated Alexa interface using an Alexa Skill called "My Daily Wellness." The usability of these platforms was tested with 2 PRO measures: the EQ-5D-5 L and the SF-12v2 Health Survey (SF-12v2), Daily recall. Using a crossover design, 3 cohorts of participants tested each ePRO platform daily for 1 week. After testing, interviews were conducted regarding the participants' experience with each platform. Results: A total of 24 adults participated in the study. The mean age of participants was 45 years (range, 21-71 years), and half were female (n = 12; 50%). Overall, participants prioritized speed, ease of use, and device portability in selecting their preferred platform. The Datacubed app met these criteria and was the preferred platform among most participants (n = 20; 83%). Participants also suggested various modifications to the platforms, such as programmable notifications, adjustable speed, and additional daily reminders. Conclusions: These data demonstrate the importance of speed, ease of use, and device portability, features that are currently incorporated in the Datacubed app, in ePRO platforms used in future clinical trials. Additionally, the usability of ePRO platforms may be optimized by adding programmable notifications, adjustable speed, and increased daily reminders. The results of this study may be used to enhance the usability and patient centricity of these platforms to improve user compliance and engagement during clinical trials.
Patient-reported outcomes in patients with gastrointestinal cancer on oral chemotherapy.

Kevin Juan Zhang,Kian Tehranchi,Emmeline C Academia,Melis Celmen,Jim W Doolin,Mohamad Hotait,Arielle Lasoff,Patricia Tong,Seth J Berkowitz,Andrea J. Bullock,Jessica Ann Zerillo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.2024.42.3_suppl.732

IF: 45.3

2024-01-23

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:732 Background: Over the last several years, patient reported outcomes (PROs) have been demonstrated to address patient symptoms, improve outcomes, and reduce health care utilization. We aim to provide an electronic PRO (ePRO) tool for gastrointestinal (GI) oncology patients with the goals of improving adherence, reducing toxicity, and enhancing patient access to the clinical team. Methods: Patients are provided an ePRO tool consisting of a cellphone app integrated into the electronic health record with questions on adherence and 10 questions on symptoms adapted from the NCI PRO-CTCAE for local use. Emails are sent to the clinical team for nonadherence, new or worsening symptoms, or patient requested callback. Outcomes including time to first symptom assessment, emergency department (ED) visit and/or hospitalization at 30 and 90 days from enrollment will be compared with historical controls. Other outcomes including adherence and patient-reported access to the clinic will be assessed. Results: Six patients have been enrolled between May 1, 2023 and September 4, 2023. Five patients were newly starting oral chemotherapy agents and one patient had already been on therapy. Types of cancers included colon cancers (2), rectal cancer (1), pancreatic cancer (1), GIST (1), and cholangiocarcinoma (1). Types of oral chemotherapy included capecitabine (4), olaparib (1), and imatinib (1). Five patients have submitted a total of ten responses. Of the five who completed the ePROs, patients responded a median of one time (range 1-5). Reported symptoms were fatigue (4), pain (2), nausea (1), diarrhea (1), other symptoms (2) and a request callback (1). Seven (70%) responses have prompted emails alerts for clinical symptoms and one (10%) for adherence concerns. All alerts were resolved; average time to alert response 1.6 calendar days (range 1-3). Among historical controls, time to first symptom assessment after a new oral chemotherapy prescription was seven days, 30-day rate for ED and/or hospitalizations was 12%, and 90-day rate of ED visits and/or hospitalizations was 28%. Conclusions: Early data suggests a new process to manage ePROs can provide timely responses to email alerts. Of the responses thus far, 70% prompted email alerts due to clinical symptoms and 10% reported nonadherence, suggesting a high need for ongoing ePRO tools. Results are forthcoming on outcomes including time to symptom assessment/clinical action, ED visit/hospitalization and access.

oncology
Plasminogen activators in oesophageal carcinoma

D. Hewin,P. Savage,D. Alderson,M. Vipond

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.1800830838

1996-08-01

Abstract:The expression of components of the plasminogen activator system was investigated in patients with oesophageal carcinoma. Tumour and normal mucosa were obtained from resected oesophageal carcinomas and antigens were measured by enzyme‐linked immunosorbent assay. Median levels of urokinase plasminogen activator (uPA) and the uPA receptor were higher in carcinoma than in matched normal mucosa (squamous cell carcinoma: uPA 4.05 versus 0.66 ng antigen per mg protein, uPA receptor 1.95 versus 0.50 ng/mg, n = 10, P < 0.05; adenocarcinoma: uPA 2.16 versus 0.61 ng/mg, uPA receptor 2.01 versus 0.49 ng/mg, n = 8, P < 0.05). Tissue plasminogen activator (tPA) level was lower than control values in squamous cell carcinoma but not in adenocarcinoma (1.97 versus 4.70 ng/mg, P < 0.05). There was no difference in plasminogen activator inhibitor (PAI) 1 level between carcinoma and normal mucosa. The PAI‐2 level was lower than that in normals in adenocarcinoma only (6.0 versus 64.77 ng/mg, P < 0.05). These data support the hypothesis that membrane‐bound uPA has a role in the breakdown of extracellular matrix in invasive oesophageal carcinoma.
Comparable Real-World Patient-Reported Outcomes Data Across Health Conditions, Settings, and Countries: the PROMIS International Collaboration

Caroline B. Terwee,Sara Ahmed,Rehab Alhasani,Jordi Alonso,Susan J. Bartlett,John Eric Chaplin,Juhee Cho,Heeseung Choi,Hildeberto Correia,Fabio Efficace,Felix Fischer,Wojciech Glinkowski,Danbee Kang,Rebecca Mercieca‐Bebber,István Mucsi,T. Oishi,Ay‐Woan Pan,Leo D. Roorda,Matthias Rose,Benjamin D. Schalet,Sein Schmidt,Melissa Tinsley,José M Valderas,Gemma Vilagut,Changrong Yuan,David Cella

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1056/cat.24.0045

2024-01-01

NEJM Catalyst

Abstract:The patient voice is critical to achieving value-based care, improving health outcomes, and advancing medical research. However, a key challenge is how to translate this "voice" into scientifically valid data that can inform evidence-based clinical decisions. One of the biggest barriers is the sheer variety of available patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and the associated challenges of translation, validation, implementation, and interpretation, making it difficult to obtain valid and comparable health outcomes. The authors present a harmonized global approach to international standardization of PROs and PROMs. This approach has the potential to accelerate patient-centered care by facilitating the collection of accurate and comparable real-world evidence on health outcomes that matter most to patients. This proposed approach consists of two elements: a data collection process based on a common set of PROs and a state-of-the-art measurement approach based on item response theory. First, there is growing evidence that outcomes such as pain, fatigue, anxiety, depression, sleep disturbance, physical function, and the ability to participate in social roles and activities are relevant for most people, irrespective of their health condition. Measuring these outcomes routinely in all patients could increase outcome comparability and utility for a range of stakeholders. Second, a measurement strategy based on a state-of-the-art psychometric approach — using item response theory (IRT)-based item banks — offers short, flexible, sustainable, and universally applicable PROMs with robust measurement properties and a common measurement scale. The unique integration of these two elements offers the potential to collect comparable PROM data across patients and providers to support shared decision-making, which may lead to better outcomes. The Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) is a globally used example of such an approach. The PROMIS Profile measures serve as a resource for measuring a harmonized core set of PROs across medical conditions, languages, and countries. To meet the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal of ensuring healthy lives and promoting well-being for all, at all ages, a collaborative effort is needed to achieve consensus on international standardization of PROs and PROMs to accelerate patient-centered care across health conditions, settings, and countries. The authors propose to routinely measure a core set of broadly relevant PROs in all patients, regardless of their health condition, with universally applicable IRT-based PROMs.

[The decision process of the family physician in the choice of a drug].

[Special issue PRO] Considering endpoints for comparative tolerability of cancer treatments using patient report given the estimand framework

Abstract 1302: Development and implementation of a systematic approach to measure patient-reported outcomes in early-phase cancer trials

Building upon grassroots innovations: articulating social and ethical capital

Using Patient-Reported Outcomes in Dose-Finding Oncology Trials: Surveys of Key Stakeholders and the National Cancer Research Institute Consumer Forum

AMCP Partnership Forum: Improving Quality, Value, and Outcomes with Patient-Reported Outcomes

Comparison of chromosome analysis to DNA content by flow cytometry for pediatric tumors.

Development and usability testing of an electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) solution for patients with inflammatory diseases in an Advanced Therapy Medicinal Product (ATMP) basket trial

Ethical Considerations for the Inclusion of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Research: The PRO Ethics Guidelines

Impact of Measuring Patient-Reported Outcomes in Dermatology Drug Development

Reduction of doxorubicin toxicity by methylene blue in cultured rat myocardial cells.

Abstract PO3-10-10: Are we adequately integrating patient reported outcomes in breast cancer clinical trials?

Incorporating patient-reported outcomes in dose-finding clinical trials with continuous patient enrollment

Improving completion rates of patient-reported outcome measures in cancer clinical trials: Scoping review investigating the implications for trial designs

The State of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Rheumatology

International Society for Quality of Life Research commentary on the US Food and Drug Administration draft guidance for industry on core patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials

[The HLA system and changes in thyroid hormones in patients].

Let's talk about it: an exploration of the comparative use of three different digital platforms to gather patient-reported outcome measures

Patient-reported outcomes in patients with gastrointestinal cancer on oral chemotherapy.

Plasminogen activators in oesophageal carcinoma

Comparable Real-World Patient-Reported Outcomes Data Across Health Conditions, Settings, and Countries: the PROMIS International Collaboration