Dataset Information

A non-interventional observational study to identify and validate clinical outcome assessments for adults with phenylketonuria for use in clinical trials

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Current clinical outcome assessments (COAs) are not effectively capturing the complex array of symptoms of adults with phenylketonuria (PKU). This study aimed to identify concepts of interest relevant to adults with PKU. Based on these concepts, COAs for patient-reported outcomes (PROs), observer-reported outcomes (ObsROs), and clinician-reported outcomes (ClinROs) were selected or developed and content validity was assessed.

Materials and methods

Concept-elicitation interviews were conducted with an international cohort of adults with PKU (n = 30), family member observers (n = 14), and clinical experts (n = 8). Observers and clinical experts were included to overcome the risk of lack of self-awareness among adults with PKU. The concepts of interests endorsed by ≥30% of patients, observers, and/or clinical experts were selected, mapped to items in existing COAs, and used to develop global impression items for patients, observers, and clinicians. Next, the content validity of the COAs and global impression items was evaluated by cognitive interviews with patients (n = 22), observers (n = 11), and clinical experts (n = 8). All patients were categorized according to blood phenylalanine (Phe) levels (i.e., <600 μmol/L, 600–1200 μmol/L, and >1200 μmol/L).

Results

Concepts of interests were identified across four domains: emotional, cognitive, physical, and behavioral. After mapping, eight existing COAs were selected based on the concept coverage (six PROs, one ObsRO, and one ClinRO). The six PRO measures were considered as potentially fit-for-purpose. The ObsRO measure was not deemed relevant for use in observers of adults with PKU and only a subscale of the ClinRO measure was considered valid for assessing adults with PKU by clinicians. Due to the lack of existing COAs covering all concepts of interests, global impression items for symptom severity and change in symptoms were developed, which were limited to one question covering in total 14 concepts. Upon validation, some of the patient and observer global impression items were excluded as they were subject to lack of insight or could not be reported by observers. Due to the limited interaction time between clinician and patient, use of the clinician global impression items was not supported.

Conclusion

Existing COAs relevant to adults with PKU were selected and PKU-specific global impression items were developed by mapping the most frequently identified concepts of interests from internationally-conducted in-depth interviews. Future studies should address the appropriateness of the selected COAs and global impression items to assess if these can be used as efficacy endpoints in PKU clinical trials.

SUBMITTER: Burton B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8591457 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThis study aimed to identify fit-for-purpose clinical outcome assessments (COAs) to evaluate physical function, as well as social and emotional well-being in clinical trials enrolling a pediatric population with achondroplasia. Qualitative interviews lasting up to 90 min were conducted in the US with children/adolescents with achondroplasia and/or their caregivers. Interviews utilized concept elicitation methodology to explore experiences and priorities for treatment outcomes. Cognitive debriefing methodology explored relevance and understanding of selected COAs.ResultsInterviews (N = 36) were conducted with caregivers of children age 0-2 years (n = 8) and 3-7 years (n = 7) and child/caregiver dyads with children age 8-11 years (n = 15) and 12-17 years (n = 6). Children/caregivers identified pain, short stature, impacts on physical functioning, and impacts on well-being (e.g. negative attention/comments) as key bothersome aspects of achondroplasia. Caregivers considered an increase in height (n = 9/14, 64%) and an improvement in limb proportion (n = 11/14, 71%) as successful treatment outcomes. The Childhood Health Assessment Questionnaire (CHAQ) and Quality of Life in Short Stature Youth (QoLISSY-Brief) were cognitively debriefed. CHAQ items evaluating activities, reaching, and hygiene were most relevant. QoLISSY-Brief items evaluating reaching, height bother, being treated differently, and height preventing doing things others could were most relevant. The CHAQ and QoLISSY-Brief instructions, item wording, response scales/options and recall period were well understood by caregivers and adolescents age 12-17. Some children aged 8-11 had difficulty reading, understanding, or required caregiver input. Feedback informed minor amendments to the CHAQ and the addition of a 7-day recall period to the QoLISSY-Brief. These amendments were subsequently reviewed and confirmed in N = 12 interviews with caregivers of children age 0-11 (n = 9) and adolescents age 12-17 (n = 3).ConclusionsAchondroplasia impacts physical functioning and emotional/social well-being. An increase in height and improvement in limb proportion are considered to be important treatment outcomes, but children/adolescents and their caregivers expect that a successful treatment should also improve important functional outcomes such as reach. The CHAQ (adapted for achondroplasia) and QoLISSY-Brief are relevant and appropriate measures of physical function and emotional/social well-being for pediatric achondroplasia trials; patient-report is recommended for age 12-17 years and caregiver-report is recommended for age 0-11 years.

Project description:BackgroundAnkle fractures cause considerable pain, loss of function and healthcare resource use. High quality randomised controlled trials are required to evaluate the optimal management protocols for ankle fracture. However, there is debate regarding the most appropriate outcome measure to use when assessing patients with ankle fractures. The aim of this systematic review is to identify and summarise primary outcome measure use in clinical trials of non-pharmacological interventions for adults with an ankle fracture.MethodsWe performed comprehensive searches of the Medline, Embase, CINAHL, AMED and Cochrane CENTRAL databases, as well as ISRCTN and ClinicalTrials.gov online clinical trial registries on 19/06/2019 with no date limits applied. The titles and abstracts were initially screened to identify randomised or quasi-randomised clinical trials of non-pharmacological interventions for ankle fracture in adults. Two authors independently screened the full text of any articles which could potentially be eligible. Descriptive statistics we used to summarise the outcome measures collected in these articles including an assessment of trends over time. Secondary analysis included a descriptive summary of the multi-item patient reported outcome measures used in this study type.ResultsThe searches returned a total of 3380 records. Following application of the eligibility criteria, 121 records were eligible for inclusion in this review. The most frequently collected primary outcome measures in this type of publication was the Olerud Molander Ankle Score, followed by radiographic and range of movement assessments. There was a total of 28 different outcome measures collected and five different multi-item, patient reported outcome measures collected as the primary outcome measure. There was a sequential increase in the number of this type of study published per decade since the 1980's.ConclusionThis review demonstrates the wide range of measurement methods used to assess outcome in adults with an ankle fracture. Future research should focus on establishing the validity and reliability of the outcome measures used in this patient population. Formulation of a consensus based core outcome set for adults with an ankle fracture would be advantageous for ensuring homogeneity across studies in order to meta-analyse trial results.

Project description:There is no evidence-based guidance to facilitate design decisions for confirmatory trials or systematic reviews investigating treatment efficacy for adults with tinnitus. This systematic review therefore seeks to ascertain the current status of trial designs by identifying and evaluating the reporting of outcome domains and instruments in the treatment of adults with tinnitus.Records were identified by searching PubMed, EMBASE CINAHL, EBSCO, and CENTRAL clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov, ISRCTN, ICTRP) and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Eligible records were those published from 1 July 2006 to 12 March 2015. Included studies were those reporting adults aged 18 years or older who reported tinnitus as a primary complaint, and who were enrolled into a randomised controlled trial, a before and after study, a non-randomised controlled trial, a case-controlled study or a cohort study, and written in English. Studies with fewer than 20 participants were excluded.Two hundred and twenty-eight studies were included. Thirty-five different primary outcome domains were identified spanning seven categories (tinnitus percept, impact of tinnitus, co-occurring complaints, quality of life, body structures and function, treatment-related outcomes and unclear or not specified). Over half the studies (55 %) did not clearly define the complaint of interest. Tinnitus loudness was the domain most often reported (14 %), followed by tinnitus distress (7 %). Seventy-eight different primary outcome instruments were identified. Instruments assessing multiple attributes of the impact of tinnitus were most common (34 %). Overall, 24 different patient-reported tools were used, predominantly the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (15 %). Loudness was measured in diverse ways including a numerical rating scale (8 %), loudness matching (4 %), minimum masking level (1 %) and loudness discomfort level (1 %). Ten percent of studies did not clearly report the instrument used.Our findings indicate poor appreciation of the basic principles of good trial design, particularly the importance of specifying what aspect of therapeutic benefit is the main outcome. No single outcome was reported in all studies and there was a broad diversity of outcome instruments.The systematic review protocol is registered on PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews): CRD42015017525 . Registered on 12 March 2015 revised on 15 March 2016.