scholarly journals Investigating the impact of open label design on patient‐reported outcome results in prostate cancer randomized controlled trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 9 (20) ◽  
pp. 7363-7374
Author(s):  
Guillaume Mouillet ◽  
Fabio Efficace ◽  
Antoine Thiery‐Vuillemin ◽  
Emilie Charton ◽  
Mieke Van Hemelrijck ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Impact

Impact of Blinding on Patient-Reported Outcome Differences Between Treatment Arms in Cancer Randomized Controlled Trials

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fabio Efficace ◽  
David Cella ◽  
Neil K Aaronson ◽  
Melanie Calvert ◽  
Francesco Cottone ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Experimental Treatment ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Multivariable Logistic Regression Model ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Independent Variable ◽  
Outcome Differences

Abstract Some concerns have been raised about potential bias in patient-reported outcome (PRO) results from open-label cancer randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We investigated if open-label trials favor the experimental treatment over the standard treatment more frequently than blinded trials. We also examined if the effect of blinding differs for distal vs more proximal PROs. We assessed 538 RCTs with a PRO endpoint conducted in the most prevalent cancers, of which 366 (68.0%) were open-label, 148 (27.5%) were blinded, and 24 (4.5%) were categorized as unclear. In our multivariable logistic regression model, we did not observe a statistically significant association of the independent variable treatment concealment (blinded vs open-label) on the dependent variable measuring the proportion of trials favoring the experimental treatment (adjusted odds ratio = 1.19, 95% confidence interval = 0.79 to 1.79; 2-sided P = .40). This was also the case when comparing distal and proximal PROs. Our findings provide novel evidence-based data that support the validity of PRO results from open-label cancer RCTs.

scholarly journals Factors in Randomized Controlled Trials Reported to Impact the Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Into Routine Care: Protocol for a Systematic Review (Preprint)

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natasha Anne Roberts ◽  
Kimberly Alexander ◽  
David Wyld ◽  
Monika Janda
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Implementation Factors

BACKGROUND Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are tools that enable patients to directly report their own assessments of well-being, or symptoms, in a structured and consistent way. Despite the usefulness of PROMs in optimizing health outcomes, their use in clinical practice is not routine. PROMs are complex to integrate into the clinical setting, with many elements potentially impacting on the success of implementation. For this reason, a protocol has been developed to guide a systematic review to collate information on implementation as presented in the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to date. OBJECTIVE The primary objective of this systematic review is to identify and synthesize factors available from RCT data about the fidelity of PROM interventions in clinical practice. The secondary objective will be an assessment of how implementation factors impact fidelity outcomes. METHODS Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting standards will be followed. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature via OvidSP will be accessed using a defined search strategy. Grey literature and ClinicalTrials.gov will be reviewed for unpublished studies. Data extraction will be done to identify fidelity and factors impacting implementation, summarized using a narrative synthesis. An evidence-based implementation science framework will assist in identifying potential elements of importance and their effect on the process and outcomes of implementation. A meta-analysis to assess the impact of implementation factors will be attempted. A Cochrane risk of bias tool will be used. RESULTS This protocol has received funding, and searches of databases will commence at the end of May 2019. It is planned that this systematic review will be finalized for publication in (December) 2019. CONCLUSIONS Applying an implementation science evidence-based framework to the published literature may identify factors present in the data that impact on the implementation of PROMs into routine clinical care. This systematic review aims to improve understanding of how these factors impact the fidelity of this intervention, so that PROMs can be more effectively used in the care of patients. This systematic review can also offer more detailed information about the process and outcomes of successful implementation of PROMs.

scholarly journals Factors in Randomized Controlled Trials Reported to Impact the Implementation of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Into Routine Care: Protocol for a Systematic Review

10.2196/14579 ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (11) ◽  
pp. e14579
Author(s):  
Natasha Anne Roberts ◽  
Kimberly Alexander ◽  
David Wyld ◽  
Monika Janda
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome Measures ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Implementation Factors

Background Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are tools that enable patients to directly report their own assessments of well-being, or symptoms, in a structured and consistent way. Despite the usefulness of PROMs in optimizing health outcomes, their use in clinical practice is not routine. PROMs are complex to integrate into the clinical setting, with many elements potentially impacting on the success of implementation. For this reason, a protocol has been developed to guide a systematic review to collate information on implementation as presented in the randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to date. Objective The primary objective of this systematic review is to identify and synthesize factors available from RCT data about the fidelity of PROM interventions in clinical practice. The secondary objective will be an assessment of how implementation factors impact fidelity outcomes. Methods Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses reporting standards will be followed. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature via OvidSP will be accessed using a defined search strategy. Grey literature and ClinicalTrials.gov will be reviewed for unpublished studies. Data extraction will be done to identify fidelity and factors impacting implementation, summarized using a narrative synthesis. An evidence-based implementation science framework will assist in identifying potential elements of importance and their effect on the process and outcomes of implementation. A meta-analysis to assess the impact of implementation factors will be attempted. A Cochrane risk of bias tool will be used. Results This protocol has received funding, and searches of databases will commence at the end of May 2019. It is planned that this systematic review will be finalized for publication in (December) 2019. Conclusions Applying an implementation science evidence-based framework to the published literature may identify factors present in the data that impact on the implementation of PROMs into routine clinical care. This systematic review aims to improve understanding of how these factors impact the fidelity of this intervention, so that PROMs can be more effectively used in the care of patients. This systematic review can also offer more detailed information about the process and outcomes of successful implementation of PROMs. International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) PRR1-10.2196/14579

Patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials for multiple myeloma: Where we are.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18615-e18615
Author(s):  
Marike Andreas ◽  
Sam Salek ◽  
Nina Kreuzberger ◽  
Vanessa Piechotta ◽  
Esther Natalie Oliva ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Multiple Myeloma ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Study Protocol ◽  
Patient Reported Outcomes ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Trial Registry ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Pro Instruments

e18615 Background: It is recommended to include patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in cancer trials to ensure clinical benefit based on patients’ perceptions. For multiple myeloma patients, PRO measurement is essential to understand the impact of treatment on their physical and psychosocial functional behaviour. However, it is unclear which PRO instruments are utilized in multiple myeloma trials, how often they are used and whether results are consistently reported. The aim of this project was to explore the use and frequency of PRO instruments in randomized controlled trials for multiple myeloma and to assess the consistency of their reporting. Methods: Within the European Hematology Association (EHA) project to develop guidelines for the use of PROs in adult patients with hematological malignancies, MEDLINE and CENTRAL were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials investigating multiple myeloma between 2015 and 2020. Study design, disease and treatment characteristics, the primary outcome and used PRO instrument(s) were extracted using a pre-defined template. To assess the consistency of PRO reporting, study registries were compared with publications, study protocol and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) reports where available. Results: Overall, 10,707 records were found. Following screening for randomized-controlled trials, 283 ongoing, completed or published studies were included for review. 118 studies planned the use of PROs. The most frequently used PRO instrument (92 studies) was the EORTC QLQ-30, an instrument that measures health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) in cancer patients. The disease-specific questionnaire EORTC-MY20 was also frequently used (50 studies). Likewise, the HRQoL instrument EQ-5D was used in 50 studies. Overall, 38 different PRO instruments were reported. In 39 studies for which a study protocol was found, only 19 reported PRO instruments consistently with the trial registry for the study. In addition, in 30 studies, for which a publication reported PRO results (58 overall), the information on PRO instruments differed between publication and the trial registry. For example, PRO instruments mentioned in the registry were omitted in the respective publications. Additionally, information on PRO in HTA reports was available for 26 studies, of which 18 reports were consistent with the trial registries. Conclusions: The results show that measurement of PROs still remain under-utilized in multiple myeloma research. While most PRO instruments identified in this review comply with the recommendations for incorporating PROs into clinical research in adult oncology, they are often inconsistently reported. Thus, reporting standards for the use of PROs are needed to ensure consistency in the use and reporting of PROs.

Efficacy and Safety of Non-Steroidal Anti-Androgens in Patients with Metastatic Prostate Cancer: Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

2020 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 34-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muhammed Rashid ◽  
Madhan Ramesh ◽  
K. Shamshavali ◽  
Amit Dang ◽  
Himanshu Patel ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Prostate Cancer ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Randomized Controlled Trials ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Controlled Trials ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Significant Difference

Background: Prostate cancer (PCa) is the sixth primary cause of cancer death. However, conflicts are present about the efficacy and safety of Non-steroidal anti-androgens (NSAA) for its treatment. The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy and safety of NSAAs versus any comparator for the treatment of advanced or metastatic PCa (mPCa). Methodology: MEDLINE and the Cochrane Library were searched. References of included studies and clinicaltrials.gov were also searched for relevant studies. Only English language studies after 1990 were considered for review. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) examining the efficacy and safety of NSAAs as compared with any other comparator including surgery or chemotherapy in mPCa patients were included. The outcomes include efficacy, safety and the tolerability of the treatment. The Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment Tool was used for quality assessment. Two authors were independently involved in the selection, extraction and quality assessment of included studies and disagreements were resolved by discussion or by consulting a third reviewer. Results: Fifty-eight out of 1307 non-duplicate RCTs with 29154 patients were considered for the review. NSAA showed significantly better progression-free survival [PFS] (Hazard ratio [HR], 0.60; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.46-0.78; P=0.0001), time to distant metastasis or death [TTD] (HR, 0.80; 95% CI 0.73-0.91; p<0.0001), objective response (Odds ratio [OR], 1.64; 95% CI 1.06-2.54; P=0.03) and clinical benefits (OR, 1.33; 95% CI 1.08-1.63; P=0.006) as compared to the control group. There was no significant difference observed between the groups in terms of overall survival (HR, 0.95; 95%CI, 0.87-1.03; P=0.18) and time to progression (HR, 0.93; 95% CI 0.77-1.11; P=0.43). Treatment-related adverse events were more with the NSAA group, but the discontinuation due to lack of efficacy reason was 43% significantly lesser than the control group in patients with mPCa. Rest of the outcomes were appeared to be non-significant. Conclusion: Treatment with NSAA was appeared to be better efficacious with respect to PFS, TTD, and response rate with considerable adverse events when compared to the control group in patients with metastatic PCa.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document