Dataset Information

Outcome selection and role of patient reported outcomes in contemporary cardiovascular trials: systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To systematically assess the type of outcomes selected and the prevalence of patient reported outcomes in contemporary cardiovascular trials and to quantify any misuse or underuse of patient reported outcomes using a specially developed tool that would allow estimation of the relevance of such outcomes to clinical decision making.

Design

Systematic review.

Data sources

Medline and Embase.

Study selection

Randomised controlled trials of the treatment for or prevention of cardiovascular disease published in 10 leading general medical and cardiology journals from January 2005 to December 2008.

Results

Primary outcomes were patient important (death, morbidity, or patient reported outcomes) in only 93 of 413 trials (23%, SE 2%), whereas another 92 (22%, SE 2%) combined these outcomes with other less important ones into a composite. Sixty five trials (16%; SE 2%) used at least one instrument to measure patient reported outcomes, mostly in trials where such information would have been important or crucial for clinical decision making (52 trials). Patient reported outcomes were judged to be of little incremental value to a large number of, mostly explanatory, cardiovascular trials (152 trials). However, many trials in which patient reported outcomes would have been important or crucial for clinical decision making did not report such outcomes (122 of 174 trials, 70%). These included several trials that primarily aimed to improve symptoms or functional status, trials that tested interventions with a considerable potential for causing harm (mainly bleeding) that were not meaningfully measured, and trials with composite outcomes that were dominated by outcomes of questionable importance to patients.

Conclusions

Despite a continued rise in the reporting of patient reported outcomes with no evidence for their misuse in more recent cardiovascular trials, they seem to be still underused once their relevance to clinical decision making has been taken into account. This was largely explained by inappropriate use of composite outcomes and inadequate measurement of harms.

SUBMITTER: Rahimi K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2967478 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundPatient-reported outcomes (PROs) are captured within cancer trials to help future patients and their clinicians make more informed treatment decisions. However, variability in standards of PRO trial design and reporting threaten the validity of these endpoints for application in clinical practice.MethodsWe systematically investigated a cohort of randomized controlled cancer trials that included a primary or secondary PRO. For each trial, an evaluation of protocol and reporting quality was undertaken using standard checklists. General patterns of reporting where also explored.ResultsProtocols (101 sourced, 44.3%) included a mean (SD) of 10 (4) of 33 (range = 2-19) PRO protocol checklist items. Recommended items frequently omitted included the rationale and objectives underpinning PRO collection and approaches to minimize/address missing PRO data. Of 160 trials with published results, 61 (38.1%, 95% confidence interval = 30.6% to 45.7%) failed to include their PRO findings in any publication (mean 6.43-year follow-up); these trials included 49 568 participants. Although two-thirds of included trials published PRO findings, reporting standards were often inadequate according to international guidelines (mean [SD] inclusion of 3 [3] of 14 [range = 0-11]) CONSORT PRO Extension checklist items). More than one-half of trials publishing PRO results in a secondary publication (12 of 22, 54.5%) took 4 or more years to do so following trial closure, with eight (36.4%) taking 5-8 years and one trial publishing after 14 years.ConclusionsPRO protocol content is frequently inadequate, and nonreporting of PRO findings is widespread, meaning patient-important information may not be available to benefit patients, clinicians, and regulators. Even where PRO data are published, there is often considerable delay and reporting quality is suboptimal. This study presents key recommendations to enhance the likelihood of successful delivery of PROs in the future.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Evidence suggests there are inconsistencies in patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessment and reporting in clinical trials, which may limit the use of these data to inform patient care. For trials with a PRO endpoint, routine inclusion of key PRO information in the protocol may help improve trial conduct and the reporting and appraisal of PRO results; however, it is currently unclear exactly what PRO-specific information should be included. The aim of this review was to summarize the current PRO-specific guidance for clinical trial protocol developers. METHODS AND FINDINGS:We searched the MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINHAL and Cochrane Library databases (inception to February 2013) for PRO-specific guidance regarding trial protocol development. Further guidance documents were identified via Google, Google scholar, requests to members of the UK Clinical Research Collaboration registered clinical trials units and international experts. Two independent investigators undertook title/abstract screening, full text review and data extraction, with a third involved in the event of disagreement. 21,175 citations were screened and 54 met the inclusion criteria. Guidance documents were difficult to access: electronic database searches identified just 8 documents, with the remaining 46 sourced elsewhere (5 from citation tracking, 27 from hand searching, 7 from the grey literature review and 7 from experts). 162 unique PRO-specific protocol recommendations were extracted from included documents. A further 10 PRO recommendations were identified relating to supporting trial documentation. Only 5/162 (3%) recommendations appeared in ?50% of guidance documents reviewed, indicating a lack of consistency. CONCLUSIONS:PRO-specific protocol guidelines were difficult to access, lacked consistency and may be challenging to implement in practice. There is a need to develop easily accessible consensus-driven PRO protocol guidance. Guidance should be aimed at ensuring key PRO information is routinely included in appropriate trial protocols, in order to facilitate rigorous collection/reporting of PRO data, to effectively inform patient care.

Project description:BackgroundPatient-reported outcomes (PROs) are commonly collected in clinical trials and should provide impactful evidence on the effect of interventions on patient symptoms and quality of life. However, it is unclear how PRO impact is currently realised in practice. In addition, the different types of impact associated with PRO trial results, their barriers and facilitators, and appropriate impact metrics are not well defined. Therefore, our objectives were: i) to determine the range of potential impacts from PRO clinical trial data, ii) identify potential PRO impact metrics and iii) identify barriers/facilitators to maximising PRO impact; and iv) to examine real-world evidence of PRO trial data impact based on Research Excellence Framework (REF) impact case studies.MethodsTwo independent investigators searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL+, HMIC databases from inception until December 2018. Articles were eligible if they discussed research impact in the context of PRO clinical trial data. In addition, the REF 2014 database was systematically searched. REF impact case studies were included if they incorporated PRO data in a clinical trial.ResultsThirty-nine publications of eleven thousand four hundred eighty screened met the inclusion criteria. Nine types of PRO trial impact were identified; the most frequent of which centred around PRO data informing clinical decision-making. The included publications identified several barriers and facilitators around PRO trial design, conduct, analysis and report that can hinder or promote the impact of PRO trial data. Sixty-nine out of two hundred nine screened REF 2014 case studies were included. 12 (17%) REF case studies led to demonstrable impact including changes to international guidelines; national guidelines; influencing cost-effectiveness analysis; and influencing drug approvals.ConclusionsPRO trial data may potentially lead to a range of benefits for patients and society, which can be measured through appropriate impact metrics. However, in practice there is relatively limited evidence demonstrating directly attributable and indirect real world PRO-related research impact. In part, this is due to the wider challenges of measuring the impact of research and PRO-specific issues around design, conduct, analysis and reporting. Adherence to guidelines and multi-stakeholder collaboration is essential to maximise the use of PRO trial data, facilitate impact and minimise research waste.Trial registrationSystematic Review registration PROSPERO CRD42017067799.

Project description:Background and objectiveSeveral medication adherence patient-reported outcome measures (MA-PROMs) are available for use in patients with cardiovascular disease (CVD); however, little evidence is available on the most suitable MA-PROM to measure medication adherence in patients with CVD. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesise the measurement properties of MA-PROMs for patients with CVD and identify the most suitable MA-PROM for use in clinical practice or future research in patients with CVD.MethodsAn electronic search of nine databases (PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, ProQuest Health and Medicine, Cochrane Library, PsychInfo, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science) was conducted to identify studies that have reported on at least one of the measurement properties of MA-PROMs in patients with CVD. The methodological quality of the studies included in the systematic review was evaluated using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist.ResultsA total of 40 MA-PROMs were identified in the 84 included studies. This review found there is a lack of moderate-to-high quality evidence of sufficient content validity for all MA-PROMs for patients with CVDs. Only eight MA-PROMs were classified in COSMIN recommendation category A. They exhibited sufficient content validity with very low-quality evidence, and moderate-to-high quality evidence for sufficient internal consistency. The 28 MA-PROMs that meet the requirements for COSMIN recommendation category 'B' require further validation studies. Four MA-PROMs including Hill-Bone Compliance Medication Scale (HBMS), the five-item Medication Adherence Report Scale (MARS-5), Maastricht Utrecht Adherence in Hypertension (MUAH), and MUAH-16 have insufficient results with high quality evidence for at least one measurement property and consequently are not recommended for use in patients with CVD. Two MA-PROMs (Adherence to Refills and Medications Scale [ARMS] and ARMS-7) are comprehensive and have moderate to high quality evidence for four sufficient measurement properties.ConclusionFrom the eight MA-PROMs in COSMIN recommendation category A, ARMS and ARMS-7 were selected as the most suitable MA-PROMs for use in patients with CVD. They are the most comprehensive with be best quality evidence to support their use in clinical practice and research.