Dataset Information

Use of patient-reported outcomes in randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials.

ABSTRACT: To optimize the use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical research, it is first necessary to review the current use of these outcomes in clinical trials to determine under what circumstances they are most useful, and to reveal current limitations.To investigate current patterns of use of PROs in clinical trials.We conducted a systematic literature review of all double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials using one or more PROs as a study outcome from 2004 to 2006. Data were abstracted and analyzed with descriptive statistics and logistic regression to characterize the use of PROs in clinical trials.The 180 clinical trials that met the study inclusion criteria used 173 unique instruments to measure a total of 466 PROs. Most PRO measurements were obtained using relatively few PRO instruments, with one-third of PRO instruments applied in more than 1 trial. In multivariable analysis, tests of statistical significance were more often reported for PROs used as primary trial outcomes. Statistically significant PRO outcomes (P<0.05) were more likely among disease-specific PROs compared with general PROs, PROs with a discussion of minimally important difference, and larger trials.PRO instruments may be improved through efforts to provide centralized electronic administration, cross-validation, and standardized interpretation of clinically relevant outcomes. The majority of PROs used in current clinical trials come from relatively few, commonly used disease-specific PRO instruments within major therapeutic areas.

SUBMITTER: Dinan MA

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3682647 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Use of patient-reported outcomes in randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials.

Dinan Michaela A MA Compton Kate L KL Dhillon Jatinder K JK Hammill Bradley G BG Dewitt Esi Morgan EM Weinfurt Kevin P KP Schulman Kevin A KA

Medical care 20110401 4

<h4>Background</h4>To optimize the use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical research, it is first necessary to review the current use of these outcomes in clinical trials to determine under what circumstances they are most useful, and to reveal current limitations.<h4>Purpose</h4>To investigate current patterns of use of PROs in clinical trials.<h4>Research design</h4>We conducted a systematic literature review of all double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trials using ...[more]

PMID: 21368680

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeTo assess the effects of ruxolitinib on symptom burden and quality of life (QoL) and to evaluate the ability of the modified Myelofibrosis Symptom Assessment Form (MFSAF) v2.0 to measure meaningful changes in myelofibrosis-related symptoms in patients with myelofibrosis.Patients and methodsCOMFORT-I (Controlled Myelofibrosis Study With Oral JAK Inhibitor Treatment-I) is a double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study evaluating ruxolitinib in patients with intermediate-2 or high-risk myelofibrosis. Exploratory analyses were conducted on the following patient-reported outcomes (PROs) assessments: modified MFSAF v2.0 (individual symptoms and Total Symptom Score [TSS]), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30), Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) Fatigue Scale, and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC).ResultsPatients receiving ruxolitinib experienced improvements in individual myelofibrosis-related symptoms, although patients receiving placebo experienced worsening (P < .001). The majority (91%) of ruxolitinib-treated patients designated as ≥ 50% TSS responders (≥ 50% TSS improvement) self-reported their condition as either "Much improved" or "Very much improved" on the PGIC. These patients achieved significant improvements in the EORTC QLQ-C30 functional domains and Global Health Status/QoL versus patients receiving placebo, who experienced worsening on these measures (P ≤ .0135). Ruxolitinib-treated patients with a lesser degree of symptom improvement (< 50% TSS responders) also achieved improvements over placebo on these measures. The degree of spleen volume reduction with ruxolitinib correlated with improvements in TSS, PGIC, PROMIS Fatigue Scale, and EORTC Global Health Status/QoL. Ruxolitinib-treated patients who achieved a ≥ 35% reduction in spleen volume experienced the greatest improvements in these PROs.ConclusionRuxolitinib-treated patients achieved clinically meaningful improvements in myelofibrosis-related symptoms and QoL, but patients receiving placebo reported worsening of symptoms and other PROs.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the effect of erenumab, a human monoclonal antibody targeting the calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor, on health-related quality of life (HRQoL), headache impact, and disability in patients with chronic migraine (CM).MethodsIn this double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 667 adults with CM were randomized (3:2:2) to placebo or erenumab (70 or 140 mg monthly). Exploratory endpoints included migraine-specific HRQoL (Migraine-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire [MSQ]), headache impact (Headache Impact Test-6 [HIT-6]), migraine-related disability (Migraine Disability Assessment [MIDAS] test), and pain interference (Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System [PROMIS] Pain Interference Scale short form 6b).ResultsImprovements were observed for all endpoints in both erenumab groups at month 3, with greater changes relative to placebo observed at month 1 for many outcomes. All 3 MSQ domains were improved from baseline with treatment differences for both doses exceeding minimally important differences established for MSQ-role function-restrictive (≥3.2) and MSQ-emotional functioning (≥7.5) and for MSQ-role function-preventive (≥4.5) for erenumab 140 mg. Changes from baseline in HIT-6 scores at month 3 were -5.6 for both doses vs -3.1 for placebo. MIDAS scores at month 3 improved by -19.4 days for 70 mg and -19.8 days for 140 mg vs -7.5 days for placebo. Individual-level minimally important difference was achieved by larger proportions of erenumab-treated participants than placebo for all MSQ domains and HIT-6. Lower proportions of erenumab-treated participants had MIDAS scores of severe (≥21) or very severe (≥41) or PROMIS scores ≥60 at month 3.ConclusionsErenumab-treated patients with CM experienced clinically relevant improvements across a broad range of patient-reported outcomes.Clinicaltrialsgov identifierNCT02066415.Classification of evidenceThis study provides Class II evidence that for patients with CM, erenumab treatment improves HRQoL, headache impact, and disability.

Project description:Background: Parkinson's disease (PD) is a debitlitating, chronic, progressive neurodegenerative disorder without modifying therapy. Here, we aimed to evaluate the available evidence of herbal medicine (HM) formulas for patients with PD according to randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials. Methods: HM formulas for PD were searched in eight main databases from their inception to February 2018. The methodological quality was assessed using Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.3 software. Results: Fourteen trials with Seventeen comparisons comprising 1,311 patients were identified. Compared with placebo groups, HM paratherapy (n = 16 comparisons) showed significant better effects in the assessments of total Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) (WMD: -5.43, 95% CI:-8.01 to -2.86; P < 0.0001), UPDRS I (WMD: -0.30, 95% CI: -0.54 to -0.06; P = 0.02), UPDRS II (WMD: -2.21, 95% CI: -3.19 to -1.22; P < 0.0001), UPDRS III (WMD: -3.26, 95% CI:-4.36 to -2.16; P < 0.00001), Parkinson's Disease Quality of Life Questionnaire (p < 0.01) and Parkinson's Disease Questionnaire-39 (WMD: -7.65, 95% CI: -11.46 to -3.83; p < 0.0001), Non-motor Symptoms Questionnaire (p < 0.01) and Non-Motor Symptoms Scale (WMD: -9.19, 95% CI: -13.11 to -5.28; P < 0.00001), Parkinson's Disease Sleep Scale (WMD: 10.69, 95% CI: 8.86 to 12.53; P < 0.00001), and Hamilton depression rating scale (WMD: -5.87, 95% CI: -7.06 to -4.68; P < 0.00001). The efficiency of HM monotherapy (n = 1 comparison) was not superior to the placebo according to UPDRS II, UPDRS III and total UPDRS score in PD patients who never received levodopa treatment, all P > 0.05. HM formulas paratherapy were generally safe and well tolerated for PD patients (RR: 0.41, 95% CI: 0.21 to 0.80; P = 0.009). Conclusion: The findings of present study supported the complementary use of HM paratherapy for PD patients, whereas the question on the efficacy of HM monotherapy in alleviating PD symptoms is still open.

Dataset Information

Use of patient-reported outcomes in randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials.

Publications

Use of patient-reported outcomes in randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets