Management of Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Alerts in Clinical Trials: A Cross Sectional Survey

Patient-centric periodontal research: A pioneering application of patient-reported outcome measures

Conventional dentistry or periodontal research often ignores the human component in favor of clinical outcomes and biological causes. Clinical research is driven by the statistical significance of outcome parameters rather than the satisfaction level of the patient. In this context, patient-centric periodontal research (PCPR) is an approach that considers the patient´s feedback concerning their functional status, experience, clinical outcomes, and accessibility to their treatments. It is argued that data self-reported by the patient might have low reliability owing to the confounding effect of their personal belief, cultural background, and social and economic factors. However, literature has shown that the incorporation of "patient-centric outcome" components considerably enhances the validity and applicability of research findings. Variations in the results of different studies might be due to the use of different and non-standardized assessment tools. To overcome this problem, this editorial enlists various reliable tools available in the literature. In conclusion, we advocate that the focus of researchers should shift from mere periodontal research to PCPR so that the results can be effectively applied in clinical settings and the therapeutic strategy can also change from mere periodontal therapy to patient-centric periodontal therapy.

Development and usability testing of an electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) solution for patients with inflammatory diseases in an Advanced Therapy Medicinal Product (ATMP) basket trial

BACKGROUND

Electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) systems are increasingly used in clinical trials to provide evidence of efficacy and tolerability of treatment from the patient perspective. The aim of this study is twofold: (1) to describe how we developed an electronic platform for patients to report their symptoms, and (2) to develop and undertake usability testing of an ePRO solution for use in a study of cell therapy seeking to provide early evidence of efficacy and tolerability of treatment and test the feasibility of the system for use in later phase studies.

METHODS

An ePRO system was designed to be used in a single arm, multi-centre, phase II basket trial investigating the safety and activity of the use of ORBCEL-C™ in the treatment of patients with inflammatory conditions. ORBCEL-C™ is an enriched Mesenchymal Stromal Cells product isolated from human umbilical cord tissue using CD362+ cell selection. Usability testing sessions were conducted using cognitive interviews and the 'Think Aloud' method with patient advisory group members and Research Nurses to assess the usability of the system.

RESULTS

Nine patient partners and seven research nurses took part in one usability testing session. Measures of fatigue and health-related quality of life, the PRO-CTCAE™ and FACT-GP5 global tolerability question were included in the ePRO system. Alert notifications to the clinical team were triggered by PRO-CTCAE™ and FACT-GP5 scores. Patient participants liked the simplicity and responsiveness of the patient-facing app. Two patients were unable to complete the testing session, due to technical issues. Research Nurses suggested minor modifications to improve functionality and the layout of the clinician dashboard and the training materials.

CONCLUSION

By testing the effectiveness, efficiency, and satisfaction of our novel ePRO system (PROmicsR), we learnt that most people with an inflammatory condition found it easy to report their symptoms using an app on their own device. Their experiences using the PROmicsR ePRO system within a trial environment will be further explored in our upcoming feasibility testing. Research nurses were also positive and found the clinical dashboard easy-to-use. Using ePROs in early phase trials is important in order to provide evidence of therapeutic responses and tolerability, increase the evidence based, and inform methodology development.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN, ISRCTN80103507. Registered 01 April 2022, https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN80103507.

A cross-sectional study on the application of patient-reported outcome measurements in clinical trials of traditional Chinese medicine in mainland China

Objectives: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide a global perspective of patient health status which plays an enormous role in evaluating clinical efficacy. However, the application of PROs in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) was still insufficiently studied in mainland China. Methods: This cross-sectional study was performed based on interventional clinical trials of TCM that were conducted in mainland China from 1 January 2010, to 15 July 2022. Data was retrieved from the ClinicalTrials.gov and Chinese Clinical Trial Registry. We included interventional clinical trials of TCM for which the country of the primary sponsors or recruitment settings in mainland China. For each included trial, data including clinical trial phases, study settings, participant's age, sex, diseases, and the patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) were extracted. Trials were categorized into four categories according to 1) listed PROs as primary endpoints, 2) listed PROs as secondary endpoints, 3) listed PROs as coprimary outcomes (both primary and secondary endpoints), and 4) did not mention any PROMs. Results: Among a total of 3,797 trials, 680 (17.9%) trials listed PROs as primary endpoints, 692 (18.2%) trials listed PROs as secondary endpoints, and 760 (20.0%) trials listed PROs as coprimary endpoints. Among 675,787 participants included in the registered trials, 448,359 (66.3%) patients' data were scientifically collected by PRO instruments. Neurological diseases (11.8%), musculoskeletal symptoms (11.5%), mental health conditions (9.1%) were the most common conditions evaluated by PROMs. Disease-specific symptoms related concepts were used most frequently (51.3%), followed by health-related quality of life concepts. Visual analog scale, 36-item Short-Form Health Questionnaire, and TCM symptom score were the most common PROMs in these trials. Conclusion: In this cross-sectional study, the use of PROs increased in the past decades according to clinical trials of TCM conducted in mainland China. Considering that the application of PROs in clinical trials of TCM has some existing issues including uneven distribution and lack of normalized PROs of TCM, further study should be focused on the standardization and normalization of TCM-specific scales.

Feasibility of a new electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) system for an advanced therapy clinical trial in immune-mediated inflammatory disease (PROmics): protocol for a qualitative feasibility study

INTRODUCTION

The use of electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) systems to capture PRO data in clinical trials is increasing; however, their feasibility, acceptability and utility in clinical trials of advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) are not yet well understood. This protocol describes a qualitative study that aims to evaluate the feasibility and acceptability of ePRO data capture using a trial-specific ePRO system (the PROmics system) within an advanced therapy trial involving patients with immune-mediated inflammatory disease (rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) and Crohn's disease).

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This protocol for a remote, qualitative, interview-based feasibility study is embedded within the POLARISE trial, a single-arm, phase II, multisite ATMP basket trial in the UK. 10-15 patients enrolled in the POLARISE trial and 10-15 research team members at the trial sites will be recruited. Participants will take part in semistructured interviews which will be transcribed verbatim and analysed thematically according to the framework method. Data collection and analysis will occur concurrently and iteratively. Researcher triangulation will be used to achieve a consensus-based analysis, enhancing rigour and trustworthiness.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study was approved by the London-West London and GTAC Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 21/LO/0475). Informed consent will be obtained from all participants prior to data collection. The study findings will be published in peer-review journals and disseminated via conference presentations and other media. Our patient and public involvement and engagement group and ATMP stakeholder networks will be consulted to maximise dissemination and impact.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN80103507.

Ethical Considerations for the Inclusion of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Research: The PRO Ethics Guidelines

IMPORTANCE

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can inform health care decisions, regulatory decisions, and health care policy. They also can be used for audit/benchmarking and monitoring symptoms to provide timely care tailored to individual needs. However, several ethical issues have been raised in relation to PRO use.

OBJECTIVE

To develop international, consensus-based, PRO-specific ethical guidelines for clinical research.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

The PRO ethics guidelines were developed following the Enhancing the Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network's guideline development framework. This included a systematic review of the ethical implications of PROs in clinical research. The databases MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase, AMED, and CINAHL were searched from inception until March 2020. The keywords patient reported outcome* and ethic* were used to search the databases. Two reviewers independently conducted title and abstract screening before full-text screening to determine eligibility. The review was supplemented by the SPIRIT-PRO Extension recommendations for trial protocol. Subsequently, a 2-round international Delphi process (n = 96 participants; May and August 2021) and a consensus meeting (n = 25 international participants; October 2021) were held. Prior to voting, consensus meeting participants were provided with a summary of the Delphi process results and information on whether the items aligned with existing ethical guidance.

FINDINGS

Twenty-three items were considered in the first round of the Delphi process: 6 relevant candidate items from the systematic review and 17 additional items drawn from the SPIRIT-PRO Extension. Ninety-six international participants voted on the relevant importance of each item for inclusion in ethical guidelines and 12 additional items were recommended for inclusion in round 2 of the Delphi (35 items in total). Fourteen items were recommended for inclusion at the consensus meeting (n = 25 participants). The final wording of the PRO ethical guidelines was agreed on by consensus meeting participants with input from 6 additional individuals. Included items focused on PRO-specific ethical issues relating to research rationale, objectives, eligibility requirements, PRO concepts and domains, PRO assessment schedules, sample size, PRO data monitoring, barriers to PRO completion, participant acceptability and burden, administration of PRO questionnaires for participants who are unable to self-report PRO data, input on PRO strategy by patient partners or members of the public, avoiding missing data, and dissemination plans.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The PRO ethics guidelines provide recommendations for ethical issues that should be addressed in PRO clinical research. Addressing ethical issues of PRO clinical research has the potential to ensure high-quality PRO data while minimizing participant risk, burden, and harm and protecting participant and researcher welfare.

Implementing Symptom Management Follow-up Using an Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Platform in Outpatients With Advanced Cancer: Longitudinal Single-Center Prospective Study

BACKGROUND

Patients with cancer experience multiple symptoms related to cancer, cancer treatment, and the procedures involved in cancer care; however, many patients with pain, depression, and fatigue, especially those outside the hospital, receive inadequate treatment for their symptoms. Using an electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) platform to conduct symptom management follow-up in outpatients with advanced cancer could be a novel and potentially effective approach. However, empirical evidence describing in detail the preparation and implementation courses in a real setting is needed.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this paper was to describe the implementation process and evaluation of an ePRO platform that facilitates symptom management for patients with cancer, share our experiences and the problems we encountered during the process of implementation, and share the solutions we identified for those problems. Moreover, we tested the feasibility, safety, and efficacy of the ePRO platform.

METHODS

This was a real-world, ongoing, longitudinal, single-center, prospective study with a total of 7 follow-ups conducted within 4 weeks after the first visit to the symptom management clinic (on days 1, 3, 7, 10, 14, 21, and 28). Participants were encouraged to complete scales for physical symptoms (pain, fatigue, and shortness of breath), cognitive symptoms (memory problems and impaired concentration), and affective symptoms (especially depression and anxiety) during follow-up. The design and function of the ePRO-doctor client and ePRO-patient client, the patient-reported outcome (PRO) scales used in the study, and the strategies to promote symptom tracking have been described. Moreover, the training and evaluation for research assistants have been presented. The efficacy of the ePRO platform was assessed with a comparison of the baseline and 4-week outcomes on the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory.

RESULTS

Using the ePRO platform for symptom management follow-ups in advanced cancer patients was associated with a high completion rate (72.7%-86.4%) and a low drop-off rate (23.6%). The ePRO platform sent 293 alert notifications to both patients and doctors, which promoted patient security. The short and sharp PRO tool selection, user-friendly interface, automatic reminder notifications and alerts, and multiple dimensional training were essential components for the preparation and implementation of the ePRO system. The results showed significant improvements in the mean scores of pain, fatigue, and numbness from baseline to day 28 (P=.02, P=.02, and P<.001, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

The use of an ePRO platform for symptom management follow-ups in advanced cancer patients is time-saving, energy-saving, and effective. PRO tool selection, platform design, and training of research assistants are important aspects for implementation. Future research should validate the ePRO platform in a larger randomized controlled study.

Application of Patient-Reported Outcome Measurements in Clinical Trials in China

IMPORTANCE

Regulatory authorities, industry peers, and international health policies have emphasized the value of assessing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical studies. Despite the increase in the number of clinical studies in the last decade in China, little is known about the extent of the use of PROs.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the application and characteristics of PRO instruments as primary and secondary outcomes in randomized clinical trials in China.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A cross-sectional study of interventional clinical trials conducted in China from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2020, was performed. Data obtained from the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were evaluated.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Trials were categorized according to those that (1) precisely listed PRO tools as outcomes, (2) mentioned patient subjective feelings in outcomes but did not clarify which tools were used for assessment, and (3) did not mention any PRO measurements. Data on study phase, setting, participant age, and sex were extracted from trials that considered patient feelings, along with the target diseases and names of the PRO tools.

RESULTS

Among a total of 34 033 trials, 6915 (20.3%) listed the explicit PRO instruments used and 3178 (9.3%) included PRO in their outcomes but did not include the names of the assessment tools. From more than 32 million people included in the registered trials, data on 1.5 million (4.7%) patients were scientifically collected by PRO instruments, and subjective feelings were assessed for 693 867 (2.1%) participants. Pain (16.8%), cancer (15.6%), and musculoskeletal symptoms (13.3%) were the most common conditions for which PROs were precisely collected by tools. The most common tools for PRO measurements were the visual analog scale, Short-Form 36, and Hamilton Depression Scale.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cross-sectional study, the use of PROs increased during the study period in clinical trials conducted in China. However, patient opinion appears to still be rarely measured. The application of PRO is geographically unevenly distributed. Development of PRO instruments, especially those suitable for the Chinese population, may be useful. Further expansion of PROs with respect to the scope of diseases is needed to avoid missing important data.

SPIRIT-PRO Extension explanation and elaboration: guidelines for inclusion of patient-reported outcomes in protocols of clinical trials

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are used in clinical trials to provide valuable evidence on the impact of disease and treatment on patients' symptoms, function and quality of life. High-quality PRO data from trials can inform shared decision-making, regulatory and economic analyses and health policy. Recent evidence suggests the PRO content of past trial protocols was often incomplete or unclear, leading to research waste. To address this issue, international, consensus-based, PRO-specific guidelines were developed: the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT)-PRO Extension. The SPIRIT-PRO Extension is a 16-item checklist which aims to improve the content and quality of aspects of clinical trial protocols relating to PRO data collection to minimise research waste, and ultimately better inform patient-centred care. This SPIRIT-PRO explanation and elaboration (E&E) paper provides information to promote understanding and facilitate uptake of the recommended checklist items, including a comprehensive protocol template. For each SPIRIT-PRO item, we provide a detailed description, one or more examples from existing trial protocols and supporting empirical evidence of the item's importance. We recommend this paper and protocol template be used alongside the SPIRIT 2013 and SPIRIT-PRO Extension paper to optimise the transparent development and review of trial protocols with PROs.

Electronic Patient Reporting of Adverse Events and Quality of Life: A Prospective Feasibility Study in General Oncology

PURPOSE

Adverse event (AE) reporting is essential in clinical trials. Clinician interpretation can result in under-reporting; therefore, the value of patient self-reporting has been recognized. The National Cancer Institute has developed a Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) for direct patient AE reporting. A nonrandomized prospective cohort feasibility study aimed to explore the compliance and acceptability of an electronic (Internet or telephone) system for collecting patient self-reported AEs and quality of life (QOL).

METHODS

Oncology patients undergoing treatment (chemotherapy, targeted agents, hormone therapy, radiotherapy, and/or surgery) at 2 hospitals were sent automated weekly reminders to complete PRO-CTCAE once a week and QOL (for a maximum of 12 weeks). Patients had to speak/understand English and have access to the Internet or a touch-tone telephone. Primary outcome was compliance (proportion of expected questionnaires), and recruitment rate, attrition, and patient/staff feedback were also explored.

RESULTS

Of 520 patients, 249 consented (47.9%)-mean age was 62 years, 51% were male, and 70% were married-and 230 remained on the study at week 12. PRO-CTCAE was completed at 2,301 (74.9%) of 3,074 timepoints and QOL at 749 (79.1%) of 947 timepoints. Individual weekly/once every 4 weeks compliance reduced over time but was more than 60% throughout. Of 230 patients, 106 (46.1%) completed 13 or more PRO-CTCAE, and 136 (59.1%) of 230 patients completed 4 QOL questionnaires. Most were completed on the Internet (82.3%; mean age, 60.8 years), which was quicker, but older patients preferred the telephone option (mean age, 70.0 years). Positive feedback was received from patients and staff.

CONCLUSION

Self-reporting of AEs and QOL using an electronic home-based system is feasible and acceptable. Implementation of this approach in cancer clinical trials may improve the precision and accuracy of AE reporting.

Generating Relevant Information from Patients in the Technology-Enhanced Era of Patient-Focused Drug Development: Opportunities and Challenges

The era of patient-focused drug development (PFDD) brings with it a greater use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical trials. This is facilitated through electronic technology designed to capture PROM data. However, PFDD goes beyond just PROMs, and technology has a key role in capturing timely and patient-relevant information through active and passive means to inform study endpoints. This brief paper aims to highlight four trends the authors have observed across the pharmaceutical industry in using technology to enhance PFDD: (1) capturing qualitative data from patients; (2) using digital health technology tools (DHTTs); (3) employing reactive technology-enabled clinical outcome assessments TeCOA; and (4) generating passive patient experience data. Opportunities and challenges associated with these trends are discussed, and a 'call to action' is made to consolidate learning and understanding across science, medical and technology disciplines, and to conduct collaborative research to improve the opportunities and minimize the challenges.

Systematic Evaluation of Patient-Reported Outcome Protocol Content and Reporting in Cancer Trials

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are captured within cancer trials to help future patients and their clinicians make more informed treatment decisions. However, variability in standards of PRO trial design and reporting threaten the validity of these endpoints for application in clinical practice.

METHODS

We systematically investigated a cohort of randomized controlled cancer trials that included a primary or secondary PRO. For each trial, an evaluation of protocol and reporting quality was undertaken using standard checklists. General patterns of reporting where also explored.

RESULTS

Protocols (101 sourced, 44.3%) included a mean (SD) of 10 (4) of 33 (range = 2-19) PRO protocol checklist items. Recommended items frequently omitted included the rationale and objectives underpinning PRO collection and approaches to minimize/address missing PRO data. Of 160 trials with published results, 61 (38.1%, 95% confidence interval = 30.6% to 45.7%) failed to include their PRO findings in any publication (mean 6.43-year follow-up); these trials included 49 568 participants. Although two-thirds of included trials published PRO findings, reporting standards were often inadequate according to international guidelines (mean [SD] inclusion of 3 [3] of 14 [range = 0-11]) CONSORT PRO Extension checklist items). More than one-half of trials publishing PRO results in a secondary publication (12 of 22, 54.5%) took 4 or more years to do so following trial closure, with eight (36.4%) taking 5-8 years and one trial publishing after 14 years.

CONCLUSIONS

PRO protocol content is frequently inadequate, and nonreporting of PRO findings is widespread, meaning patient-important information may not be available to benefit patients, clinicians, and regulators. Even where PRO data are published, there is often considerable delay and reporting quality is suboptimal. This study presents key recommendations to enhance the likelihood of successful delivery of PROs in the future.

Patient-reported outcomes with golimumab in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ankylosing spondylitis: non-interventional study GO-NICE in Germany

The TNF inhibitor golimumab (GLM) is a treatment option in patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and ankylosing spondylitis (AS). The GO-NICE study assessed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in patients newly treated with monthly GLM 50 mg subcutaneously (SC) under real-life conditions in Germany. A prospective non-interventional study with 24-month observation per patient was conducted at 158 sites. Available for analysis were 1,458 patients, 474 with rheumatoid arthritis (RA: 54.9 ± 13.4 years, 72.8% females, 60.4% biologic-naïve), 501 with psoriatic arthritis (PsA: 50.5 ± 12.1 years, 54.1% females; 47.5% biologic-naïve), and 483 with ankylosing spondylitis (AS: 43.6 ± 12.3 years, 66.5% males; 58.4% biologic-naïve). A total of 664 patients completed follow-up to month 24. An improvement of QoL by EuroQoL EQ-5D-3L was seen after 6 months and was maintained over 24 months. The patients’ health state today (EQ visual analog scale) improved statistically significantly (p < 0.0001 vs. BL) from 51.0 at baseline (BL) to 63.4 (RA), from 48.4 to 64.3 (PsA) and from 46.8 to 66.5 (AS). Functional ability (FFbH) improved significantly (p < 0.003 vs. BL) from BL 68.2 to 76.1 points (RA), from 69.0 to 76.8 points (PsA), and from 69.0 to 78.5 points (AS). The mean FACIT-Fatigue score increased significantly (p < 0.0001 vs. BL) from BL 32.4 to 38.3 points (RA), from 30.0 to 35.9 points (PsA), and from 29.9 to 37.9 points after 24 months (AS); p < 0.0001 vs. BL each. On treatment with GLM SC once monthly, significant improvements in patient-reported QoL parameters were noted in a very similar manner in all three diseases.

Trial registration ClinTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01313858. Registered March 14, 2011; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/record/NCT01313858.

Developing a patient-reported outcome measure for HIV care on perceived barriers to antiretroviral adherence: assessing the needs of HIV clinicians through qualitative analysis

PURPOSE

To identify HIV clinicians' needs for the clinical use of a new patient-reported outcome measure (PRO) on barriers to antiretroviral therapy (ART) adherence.

METHODS

In 2015, five focus groups with 31 clinicians from France were transcribed, coded with Atlas.ti, and submitted to a typological analysis.

RESULTS

The analysis identified seven patient profiles, each tied to distinct barriers to adherence and to specific needs for the PRO's content, data collection and transmission. Clinicians preferred, for the patient who is: (1) 'passive,' that the PRO collect information on ART knowledge, to ensure that the prescription's instructions are being respected; (2) 'misleading,' that it be able to detect adherence to ART and socially desirable responses; (3) 'stoic,' that questions challenge the patient to recognize treatment-specific side effects; (4) 'hedonistic,' that the PRO contains content on lifestyle and risk-taking; (5) 'obsessive,' that the PRO captures quality of life and stressful life events; (6) 'overburdened,' that the PRO provides information on the person's home environment, socioeconomic status and cultural constraints. For all or most patient profiles, the clinicians wished that the PRO be completed, minimally, prior to the medical consultation and to receive alerts, under varying conditions, when problematic scores were detected. Depending on the profile, there was preference for the inclusion of open-ended questions and transmission of cross-sectional, periodic or longitudinal PRO data.

CONCLUSION

Overall, this study's findings suggest that to support the clinical management of ART adherence, our PRO must meet the needs of a wide variety of patients and must perform multiple functions.

Current practices in patient-reported outcome (PRO) data collection in clinical trials: a cross-sectional survey of UK trial staff and management

OBJECTIVES

Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) collected in clinical trials should be administered in a standardised way across sites and routinely screened for avoidable missing data in order to maximise data quality/minimise risk of bias. Recent qualitative findings, however, have raised concerns about the consistency of PROM administration in UK trials. The purpose of this study was to determine the generalisability of these findings across the wider community of trial personnel.

DESIGN

Online cross-sectional survey.

SETTING

Participants were recruited from 55 UK Clinical Research Collaboration Registered Clinical Trials Units and 19 Comprehensive Local Research Networks.

PARTICIPANTS

Research nurses, data managers/coordinators, trial managers and chief/principal investigators involved in clinical trials collecting PROMs.

ANALYSIS

We undertook descriptive analyses of the quantitative data and directed thematic analysis of free-text comments. Factors associated with the management of missing PRO data were explored using logistic regression.

RESULTS

Survey data from 767 respondents supported the generalisability of qualitative study findings, suggesting inconsistencies in PROM administration with regard to: the level of assistance given to trial participants; the timing of PROM completion in relation to the clinical consultation; and the management of missing data. Having ≥10 years experience in a research role was significantly associated with the appropriate management of missing PROM data (OR 2.26 (95% CI 1.06 to 4.82), p=0.035). There was a consensus that more PROM guidance was needed in future trials and agreement between professional groups about the necessary components.

CONCLUSIONS

There are inconsistencies in the way PROMs are administered by trial staff. Such inconsistencies may reduce the quality of data and have the potential to introduce bias. There is a need for improved guidance in future trials that support trial personnel in conducting optimal PROM data collection to inform patient care.

The patient-reported outcome content of international ovarian cancer randomised controlled trial protocols

PURPOSE

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide the patient's perspective of the impact of treatment. Evidence suggests that PRO content of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) protocols is generally sub-optimal. This study aimed to describe and evaluate the PRO-specific content of ovarian cancer RCT protocols.

METHODS

Published, phase III, ovarian cancer RCTs with PRO endpoints were identified following a systematic search of Medline and Cochrane databases (Jan 2000 to Feb 2016). Corresponding RCT protocols were downloaded (if published) or obtained by contacting authors. Two investigators independently assessed adherence of PRO-specific content of included protocols to a checklist of 58 recommended PRO protocol items currently being developed by the International Society for Quality of Life Research. Discrepancies were resolved with a third investigator.

RESULTS

Of 41 eligible trials identified, 26 protocols were assessed (developed 1995-2010). We were unable to obtain the remaining 15 protocols. Protocols addressed a mean of 28 % PRO checklist items (range 8-66 %). Fifteen (58 % of assessed protocols) provided a rationale for PRO assessment, 8 (31 %) described a PRO objective, 24 (92 %) included a PRO assessment schedule, but only 6 (23 %) justified timing of PRO assessments. Twelve protocols (46 %) provided staff data collection instructions, 4 (15 %) included plans for monitoring PRO compliance, and 16 (62 %) included a PRO analysis plan.

CONCLUSIONS

On average, protocols addressed less than one-third of PRO protocol checklist items. In some cases, key guidance regarding PRO administration was lacking, which may lead to inconsistent and sub-optimal PRO methodology. Efforts are needed to improve PRO protocol content in cancer trials.

Systematic collection of patient reported outcome research data: A checklist for clinical research professionals

Understanding the human experience is no longer an outcome explored strictly by social and behavioral researchers. Increasingly, biomedical researchers are also including patient reported outcomes (PROs) in their clinical research studies not only due to calls for increased patient engagement in research but also healthcare. Collecting PROs in clinical research studies offers a lens into the patient's unique perspective providing important information to industry sponsors and the FDA. Approximately 30% of trials include PROs as primary or secondary endpoints and a quarter of FDA new drug, device and biologic applications include PRO data to support labeling claims. In this paper PRO, represents any information obtained directly from the patient or their proxy, without interpretation by another individual to ascertain their health, evaluate symptoms or conditions and extends the reference of PRO, as defined by the FDA, to include other sources such as patient diaries. Consumers and clinicians consistently report that PRO data are valued, and can aide when deciding between treatment options; therefore an integral part of clinical research. However, little guidance exists for clinical research professionals (CRPs) responsible for collecting PRO data on the best practices to ensure quality data collection so that an accurate assessment of the patient's view is collected. Therefore the purpose of this work was to develop and validate a checklist to guide quality collection of PRO data. The checklist synthesizes best practices from published literature and expert opinions addressing practical and methodological challenges CRPs often encounter when collecting PRO data in research settings.