Use of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trials

Duke Clinical Research Institute, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.
Medical care (Impact Factor: 3.23). 03/2011; 49(4):415-9. DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3182064aa2
Source: PubMed


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.

4 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Increasingly, clinical trials are using patient-reported outcomes (PROs) as primary outcome measures, so as to improve the assessment of the overall effect of the intervention on the patient as a whole, rather than the more restricted assessment of the intervention on the condition itself. Consistent and reliable measurement of the effects of treatment for the patient is likewise becoming a larger part of clinical practice and reimbursement considerations. This is especially important for treatments that focus on reducing symptoms or improving function, rather than offering cure for a given condition. Measurement of the disease or treatment effect in a patient-centered way is especially critical in patients with neurologic conditions, since brain diseases, more so than other conditions, affect the entirety of who the patient is individually and in relationship to others.
    Neurology 05/2012; 78(23):1813-4. DOI:10.1212/WNL.0b013e318258f878 · 8.29 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Trabectedin in combination with PLD improves progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR) in comparison to PLD alone in patients with relapsed ovarian cancer (J Clin Oncol; 2010 28:3107-14). Here we report the impact of the treatment combination on patient-reported functional status and symptoms. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires, EORTC-QLQ C30, OV28, and EQ-5D were completed by patients at screening and on Day 1 of every other treatment cycle starting with Cycle 1, and at the end-of-treatment visit. Of the 672 patients randomized in this study, 663 treated patients completed at least one of the baseline questionnaires. Median cycles of treatment was 6 (131 days) for the combination arm and 5 (143 days) for the monotherapy arm. Longitudinal data analyses showed no significant differences between the treatment arms for any of the pre-specified scales. Similar analyses of other scales, including Health Index scores and Health State on the Visual Analog Scale, support these findings. Start of subsequent therapy was significantly delayed in the combination arm compared with the monotherapy arm (p=0.0032). The addition of trabectedin to PLD led to little or no decrement in patient-reported functional status and symptoms in patients with relapsed ovarian cancer, as compared to treatment with PLD alone. The combination led to manageable and non-cumulative overall toxicity with a fewer PLD-associated adverse events, and a significant improvement in PFS and ORR compared to single agent.
    Gynecologic Oncology 07/2012; 127(1):161-7. DOI:10.1016/j.ygyno.2012.06.034 · 3.77 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives: Test-retest reliability of an asthma paper diary versus an electronic diary (e-diary) with an integrated peak flow meter was investigated. The equivalence of the two modes was also evaluated. Methods: Prospective, randomized crossover study design in adolescents (12-17 years) and adults (≥18 years). Key inclusion criteria were persistent asthma, Asthma Control Test (ACT) scores ≥16, use of inhaled corticosteroid with or without long-acting beta-agonist for ≥12 weeks, nocturnal awakenings <2 times in the past week, and activity limitations <1 per week. Participants were randomized to either paper then e-diary or e-diary then paper, to be completed for 14 days each. Results: Forty-seven participants completed all study visits. Weekly percentage of symptom-free days (SFDs) and rescue-free days (RFDs) were calculated. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) of Week 1 mean SFD and RFD (test) and Week 2 mean SFD and RFD (retest), respectively, were estimated in three groups defined as stable: (i) minimal changes in asthma symptoms, as measured by the global patient reported symptom change question, (ii) less than 15% change (absolute value) in 1 second FEV(1) at adjacent study visits, and (iii) changes in ACT scores less than three points for each mode. SFD demonstrated acceptable ICC (≥0.70) using all three definitions of asthma stability for both modes. Conclusion: Acceptable reproducibility of the percentage of RFD (ICC = 0.78) was only observed for the e-diary using the FEV(1) stability criterion. The ICCs for SFD and RFD were acceptable, 0.84 and 0.70, respectively, suggesting better reliability for the e-diary.
    Journal of Asthma 10/2012; 49(9):952-60. DOI:10.3109/02770903.2012.724754 · 1.80 Impact Factor
Show more