Dataset Information

Effects of pharmacologic and nonpharmacologic interventions on menopause-related quality of life: a pooled analysis of individual participant data from four MsFLASH trials.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

The Menopause Strategies: Finding Lasting Answers for Symptoms and Health network conducted three randomized clinical trials (RCTs) testing six interventions treating vasomotor symptoms (VMS), and also collected menopause-related quality of life (QOL) measures. A fourth RCT assessed an intervention for insomnia symptoms among women with VMS. We describe these seven interventions' effects on menopause-related QOL relative to control in women with VMS.

Methods

We pooled individual-level data from 1,005 peri- and postmenopausal women with 14 or more VMS/week across the four RCTs. Interventions included escitalopram 10 to 20 mg/d; yoga/aerobic exercise; 1.8 g/d omega-3-fatty acids; oral 17-beta-estradiol 0.5 mg/d; venlafaxine XR 75 mg/d; and cognitive behavioral therapy for insomnia (CBT-I). Outcomes measures were the Menopause-specific Quality of Life scale and its subscales.

Results

Significant improvements in total Menopause-specific Quality of Life from baseline were observed with estradiol, escitalopram, CBT-I, and yoga, with mean decreases of 0.3 to 0.5 points relative to control. The largest improvement in the vasomotor subscale was observed with estradiol (-1.2 points), with more modest but significant effects seen with escitalopram, yoga, and CBT-I. Significant improvements in the psychosocial subscale were observed for escitalopram, venlafaxine, and CBT-I. For the physical subscale, the greatest improvement was observed for CBT-I and exercise, whereas for the sexual subscale, the greatest improvement was observed for CBT-I, with yoga and estradiol demonstrating smaller effects.

Conclusions

These results suggest that for menopause-related QOL, women have a variety of treatment strategies to choose from and can select an approach based on most bothersome symptoms and individual preferences.

SUBMITTER: Diem SJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8034544 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo describe the effects of six interventions for menopausal vasomotor symptoms relative to control in a pooled analysis, facilitating translation of the results for clinicians and symptomatic women. The Menopause Strategies: Finding Lasting Answers for Symptoms and Health network tested these interventions in three randomized clinical trials.MethodsAn analysis of pooled individual-level data from three randomized clinical trials is presented. Participants were 899 perimenopausal and postmenopausal women with at least 14 bothersome vasomotor symptoms per week. Interventions included 10-20 mg escitalopram per day, nonaerobic yoga, aerobic exercise, 1.8 g per day omega-3 fatty acid supplementation, 0.5 mg low-dose oral 17-beta-estradiol (E2) per day, and 75 mg low-dose venlafaxine XR per day. The main outcome measures were changes from baseline in mean daily vasomotor symptom frequency and bother during 8-12 weeks of treatment. Linear regression models estimated differences in outcomes between each intervention and corresponding control group adjusted for baseline characteristics. Models included trial-specific intercepts, effects of the baseline outcome measure, and time.ResultsThe 8-week reduction in vasomotor symptom frequency from baseline relative to placebo was similar for escitalopram at -1.4 per day (95% confidence interval [CI] -2.7 to -0.2), low-dose E2 at -2.4 (95% CI -3.4 to -1.3), and venlafaxine at -1.8 (95% CI -2.8 to -0.8); vasomotor symptom bother reduction was minimal and did not vary across these three pharmacologic interventions (mean -0.2 to -0.3 relative to placebo). No effects on vasomotor symptom frequency or bother were seen with aerobic exercise, yoga, or omega-3 supplements.ConclusionThese analyses suggest that escitalopram, low-dose E2, and venlafaxine provide comparable, modest reductions in vasomotor symptom frequency and bother among women with moderate hot flushes.Clinical trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov, www.clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00894543 (MsFLASH 01), NCT01178892 (MsFLASH 02), and NCT01418209 (MsFLASH 03).

Project description:BACKGROUND:Frailty is common in clinical practice, but trials rarely report on participant frailty. Consequently, clinicians and guideline-developers assume frailty is largely absent from trials and have questioned the relevance of trial findings to frail people. Therefore, we examined frailty in phase 3/4 industry-sponsored clinical trials of pharmacological interventions for three exemplar conditions: type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). METHODS:We constructed a 40-item frailty index (FI) in 19 clinical trials (7 T2DM, 8 RA, 4 COPD, mean age 42-65?years) using individual-level participant data. Participants with a FI >?0.24 were considered 'frail'. Baseline disease severity was assessed using HbA1c for T2DM, Disease Activity Score-28 (DAS28) for RA, and % predicted FEV1 for COPD. Using generalised gamma regression, we modelled FI on age, sex, and disease severity. In negative binomial regression, we modelled serious adverse event rates on FI and combined results for each index condition in a random-effects meta-analysis. RESULTS:All trials included frail participants: prevalence 7-21% in T2DM trials, 33-73% in RA trials, and 15-22% in COPD trials. The 99th centile of the FI ranged between 0.35 and 0.45. Female sex was associated with higher FI in all trials. Increased disease severity was associated with higher FI in RA and COPD, but not T2DM. Frailty was associated with age in T2DM and RA trials, but not in COPD. Across all trials, and after adjusting for age, sex, and disease severity, higher FI predicted increased risk of serious adverse events; the pooled incidence rate ratios (per 0.1-point increase in FI scale) were 1.46 (95% CI 1.21-1.75), 1.45 (1.13-1.87), and 1.99 (1.43-2.76) for T2DM, RA, and COPD, respectively. CONCLUSION:The upper limit of frailty in trials is lower than has been described in the general population. However, mild to moderate frailty was common, suggesting trial data may be harnessed to inform disease management in people living with frailty. Participants with higher FI experienced more serious adverse events, suggesting screening for frailty in trial participants would enable identification of those that merit closer monitoring. Frailty is identifiable and prevalent among middle-aged and older participants in phase 3/4 drug trials and has clinically important safety implications.

Project description:BackgroundA failure of clinical trials to retain participants can influence the trial findings and significantly impact the potential of the trial to influence clinical practice. Retention of participants involves people, often the trial participants themselves, performing a behaviour (e.g. returning a questionnaire or attending a follow-up clinic as part of the research). Most existing interventions that aim to improve the retention of trial participants fail to describe any theoretical basis for the potential effect (on behaviour) and also whether there was any patient and/or participant input during development. The aim of this study was to address these two problems by developing theory- informed, participant-centred, interventions to improve trial retention.MethodsThis study was informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework and Behaviour Change Techniques Taxonomy to match participant reported determinants of trial retention to theoretically informed behaviour change strategies. The prototype interventions were described and developed in a co-design workshop with trial participants. Acceptability and feasibility (guided by (by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability) of two prioritised retention interventions was explored during a focus group involving a range of trial stakeholders (e.g. trial participants, trial managers, research nurses, trialists, research ethics committee members). Following focus group discussions stakeholders completed an intervention acceptability questionnaire.ResultsEight trial participants contributed to the co-design of the retention interventions. Four behaviour change interventions were designed: (1) incentives and rewards for follow-up clinic attendance, (2) goal setting for improving questionnaire return, (3) participant self-monitoring to improve questionnaire return and/or clinic attendance, and (4) motivational information to improve questionnaire return and clinic attendance. Eighteen trial stakeholders discussed the two prioritised interventions. The motivational information intervention was deemed acceptable and considered straightforward to implement whilst the goal setting intervention was viewed as less clear and less acceptable.ConclusionsThis is the first study to develop interventions to improve trial retention that are based on the accounts of trial participants and also conceptualised and developed as behaviour change interventions (to encourage attendance at trial research visit or return a trial questionnaire). Further testing of these interventions is required to assess effectiveness.

Project description:BackgroundSystemic corticosteroid administration for severe acute exacerbations of COPD (AECOPD) reduces the duration of hospital stays. Corticosteroid-sparing regimens have showed non-inferiority to higher accumulated dose regimens regarding re-exacerbation risk in patients with AECOPD. However, it remains unclear whether 14-day or 2-5-day regimens would result in shorter admission durations and changes in mortality risk. We explored this by analysing the number of days alive and out of hospital based on two randomised controlled trials with different corticosteroid regimens.MethodsWe pooled individual patient data from the two available multicentre randomised trials on corticosteroid-sparing regimens for AECOPD: the REDUCE (n = 314) and CORTICO-COP (n = 318) trials. In the 14-day regimen group, patients were older, fewer patients received pre-treatment with antibiotics and more patients received pre-treatment with systemic corticosteroids. Patients randomly allocated to the 14-day and 2-5-day regimens were compared, with adjustment for baseline differences.ResultsThe number of days alive and out of hospital within 14 days from recruitment was higher for the 2-5 day regimen group (mean 8.4 days; 95% confidence interval [CI] 8.0-8.8) than the 14-day regimen patient group (4.2 days; 95% CI3.4-4.9; p < 0.001). The 14-day AECOPD group had longer hospital stays (mean difference, 5.4 days [standard error ± 0.6]; p < 0.0001) and decreased likelihood of discharge within 30 days (hazard ratio [HR] 0.5; 95% CI 0.4-0.6; p < 0.0001). Comparing the 14-day regimen and the 2-5 day regimen group showed no differences in the composite endpoint 'death or ICU admission' (odds ratio [OR] 1.4; 95% CI 0.8-2.3; p = 0.15), new or aggravated hypertension (OR 1.5; 95% CI 0.9-2.7; p = 0.15), or mortality risk (HR 0.8; 95% CI 0.4-1.5; p = 0.45) during the 6-month follow-up period.Conclusion14-day corticosteroid regimens were associated with longer hospital stays and fewer days alive and out of hospital within 14 days, with no apparent 6-month benefit regarding death or admission to ICU in COPD patients. Our results favour 2-5 day regimens for treating COPD exacerbations. However, prospective studies are needed to validate these findings.