Considerations in the Assessment of Clinical Benefit with a Focus on Pain: a Regulatory Perspective

Development of a core outcome set for recurrent acute and chronic pancreatitis: Results of a Delphi poll

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVE

Recurrent acute pancreatitis (RAP) and chronic pancreatitis (CP) lack effective therapies. There is no consensus or guidance on which endpoints or outcome measures should be used in clinical trials. This study aimed to develop a core outcome set aligned with both patient and provider priorities for RAP and CP. Utilizing the Outcomes Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) framework, a multi-stakeholder approach was adopted to identify and prioritize outcome domains.

METHODS

A two-round Delphi poll was conducted among four stakeholder groups: adult patients, parents and pediatric patients, adult health care providers and pediatric health care providers. Steering committee consensus further refined the core outcome domains, categorizing them as mandatory, important but optional, or research agenda domains, with full consensus achieved.

RESULTS

Pain severity, ability to participate in social roles and activities, pancreatitis related hospitalization/ER visits and acute pancreatitis flare-ups were recommended as mandatory outcome domains for future clinical trials in RAP/CP.

CONCLUSIONS

Using the OMERACT framework, we developed a core outcome set for RAP and CP. Future research will focus on identifying validated measures for each domain, facilitating standardized assessments across clinical trials.

A mixed-methods approach exploring acceptability and feasibility of trials designed to test drugs targeting prevention of post-traumatic osteoarthritis after knee injury

Aims

To explore key stakeholder views around feasibility and acceptability of trials seeking to prevent post-traumatic osteoarthritis (PTOA) following knee injury, and provide guidance for next steps in PTOA trial design.

Methods

Healthcare professionals, clinicians, and/or researchers (HCP/Rs) were surveyed, and the data were presented at a congress workshop. A second and related survey was then developed for people with joint damage caused by knee injury and/or osteoarthritis (PJDs), who were approached by a UK Charity newsletter or Oxford involvement registry. Anonymized data were collected and analyzed in Qualtrics.

Results

Survey responses (n = 19 HCP/Rs, 39 PJDs) supported studies testing pharmacological agents preventing PTOA. All HCP/Rs and 30/31 (97%) PJDs supported the development of new treatments that improved or delayed knee symptoms and damage to knee structure. PJDs thought that improving structural knee damage was more important than knee symptoms. Both groups found studies more acceptable as expected future benefit and risk of PTOA increased. All drug delivery routes were acceptable. Workshop participants (around n = 60) reflected survey views. Discussions suggested that stratifying using molecular testing for likely drug response appeared to be more acceptable than using characteristics such as sex, age, and BMI.

Conclusion

Our findings supported PTOA drug intervention studies, including situations where there is low risk of disease, no expected benefit of treatment, and frequent treatment administration. PJDs appeared less risk-averse than HCP/Rs. This work reinforces the benefits of consensus and involvement work in the co-creation of PTOA drug trial design. Involvement of key stakeholders, such as PJDs with different risks of OA and regulatory representatives, are critical for trial design success.

Measuring person-centred pain management: Development of a questionnaire using the fundamentals of care framework

AIM

To develop and test a questionnaire using the Fundamentals of Care framework to measure person-centred pain management.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional exploratory descriptive design.

METHODS

Development in three phases: (a) literature search for questionnaires measuring person-centred pain management, (b) seven-step process developing items using thematic analysis, (c) initial feasibility and validity testing. Theoretical and empirical evidence was used, including the 'Strategic and Clinical Quality Indicators in Postoperative Pain management' questionnaire, the Fundamentals of Care framework and person-centredness principles. Theoretical experts (n = 2) reviewed the questionnaire, further evaluated by providers (n = 5) and patients (n = 5) using a think-aloud process, and by additional questions in the questionnaire answered by n = 100 patients. The questionnaire was tested February to March 2021, at four surgical wards in a university hospital.

RESULTS

The evaluation showed initial support for feasibility and validity, and the questionnaire was found to represent and be sensitive to capture the patients' experiences of person-centred pain management and being easy to answer. The 100 patients with acute abdominal pain who answered the questionnaire (aged 18-89 years, 46 women and 54 men), identified missing elements of fundamental care in their pain management, indicating that the questionnaire is sensitive to capture specific areas for improvement.

CONCLUSION

This first attempt at transforming the essential components of person-centred pain management into measurable items in a questionnaire was found promising. The questionnaire is suggested to be further tested for psychometric properties and patient benefit to provide clinical guidance in acute surgical care to meet the patient care need of pain management.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE

The developed questionnaire addresses the need of nurses and nursing leaders to evaluate the delivery of person-centred pain management in acute surgical care, to relieve the patient from pain.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Patients and providers were involved in testing the questionnaire.