Protocol for a mixed-methods study to develop and feasibility test a digital system for the capture of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in patients receiving chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies (the PRO-CAR-T study)

INTRODUCTION

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies are novel, potentially curative therapies for haematological malignancies. CAR T-cell therapies are associated with severe toxicities, meaning patients require monitoring during acute and postacute treatment phases. Electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs), self-reports of health status provided via online questionnaires, can complement clinician observation with potential to improve patient outcomes. This study will develop and evaluate feasibility of a new ePRO system for CAR-T patients in routine care.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Multiphase, mixed-methods study involving multiple stakeholder groups (patients, family members, carers, clinicians, academics/researchers and policy-makers). The intervention development phase comprises a Delphi study to select PRO measures for the digital system, a codesign workshop and consensus meetings to establish thresholds for notifications to the clinical team if a patient reports severe symptoms or side effects. Usability testing will evaluate how users interact with the digital system and, lastly, we will evaluate ePRO system feasibility with 30 CAR-T patients (adults aged 18+ years) when used in addition to usual care. Feasibility study participants will use the ePRO system to submit self-reports of symptoms, treatment tolerability and quality of life at specific time points. The CAR-T clinical team will respond to system notifications triggered by patients' submitted responses with actions in line with standard clinical practice. Feasibility measures will be collected at prespecified time points following CAR T-cell infusion. A qualitative substudy involving patients and clinical team members will explore acceptability of the ePRO system.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Favourable ethical opinion was granted by the Health and Social Care Research Ethics Committee B(HSC REC B) (ref: 23/NI/0104) on 28 September 2023. Findings will be submitted for publication in high-quality, peer-reviewed journals. Summaries of results, codeveloped with the Blood and Transplant Research Unit Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement group, will be disseminated to all interested groups.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISCTRN11232653.

Recommendations to address respondent burden associated with patient-reported outcome assessment

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in healthcare research to provide evidence of the benefits and risks of interventions from the patient perspective and to inform regulatory decisions and health policy. The use of PROs in clinical practice can facilitate symptom monitoring, tailor care to individual needs, aid clinical decision-making and inform value-based healthcare initiatives. Despite their benefits, there are concerns that the potential burden on respondents may reduce their willingness to complete PROs, with potential impact on the completeness and quality of the data for decision-making. We therefore conducted an initial literature review to generate a list of candidate recommendations aimed at reducing respondent burden. This was followed by a two-stage Delphi survey by an international multi-stakeholder group. A consensus meeting was held to finalize the recommendations. The final consensus statement includes 19 recommendations to address PRO respondent burden in healthcare research and clinical practice. If implemented, these recommendations may reduce PRO respondent burden.

Core outcome measurement set for research and clinical practice in post-COVID-19 condition (long COVID) in children and young people: an international Delphi consensus study "PC-COS Children"

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic substantially impacted different age groups, with children and young people not exempted. Many have experienced enduring health consequences. Presently, there is no consensus on the health outcomes to assess in children and young people with post-COVID-19 condition. Furthermore, it is unclear which measurement instruments are appropriate for use in research and clinical management of children and young people with post-COVID-19. To address these unmet needs, we conducted a consensus study, aiming to develop a core outcome set (COS) and an associated core outcome measurement set (COMS) for evaluating post-COVID-19 condition in children and young people. Our methodology comprised of two phases. In phase 1 (to create a COS), we performed an extensive literature review and categorisation of outcomes, and prioritised those outcomes in a two-round online modified Delphi process followed by a consensus meeting. In phase 2 (to create the COMS), we performed another modified Delphi consensus process to evaluate measurement instruments for previously defined core outcomes from phase 1, followed by an online consensus workshop to finalise recommendations regarding the most appropriate instruments for each core outcome. In phase 1, 214 participants from 37 countries participated, with 154 (72%) contributing to both Delphi rounds. The subsequent online consensus meeting resulted in a final COS which encompassed seven critical outcomes: fatigue; post-exertion symptoms; work/occupational and study changes; as well as functional changes, symptoms, and conditions relating to cardiovascular, neuro-cognitive, gastrointestinal and physical outcomes. In phase 2, 11 international experts were involved in a modified Delphi process, selecting measurement instruments for a subsequent online consensus workshop where 30 voting participants discussed and independently scored the selected instruments. As a result of this consensus process, four instruments met a priori consensus criteria for inclusion: PedsQL multidimensional fatigue scale for "fatigue"; PedsQL gastrointestinal symptom scales for "gastrointestinal"; PedsQL cognitive functioning scale for "neurocognitive" and EQ-5D for "physical functioning". Despite proposing outcome measurement instruments for the remaining three core outcomes ("cardiovascular", "post-exertional malaise", "work/occupational and study changes"), a consensus was not achieved. Our international, consensus-based initiative presents a robust framework for evaluating post-COVID-19 condition in children and young people in research and clinical practice via a rigorously defined COS and associated COMS. It will aid in the uniform measurement and reporting of relevant health outcomes worldwide.

Potentially modifiable factors associated with health-related quality of life among people with chronic kidney disease: baseline findings from the National Unified Renal Translational Research Enterprise CKD (NURTuRE-CKD) cohort

Background

Many non-modifiable factors are associated with poorer health-related quality of life (HRQoL) experienced by people with chronic kidney disease (CKD). We hypothesize that potentially modifiable factors for poor HRQoL can be identified among CKD patients, providing potential targets for intervention.

Method

The National Unified Renal Translational Research Enterprise Chronic Kidney Disease (NURTuRE-CKD) cohort study recruited 2996 participants from nephrology centres with all stages of non-dialysis-dependent CKD. Baseline data collection for sociodemographic, anthropometric, biochemical and clinical information, including Integrated Palliative care Outcome Scale renal, Hospital Anxiety and Depression score (HADS) and the 5-level EuroQol-5D (EQ-5D-5L) as HRQoL measure, took place between 2017 and 2019. EQ-5D-5L dimensions (mobility, self-care, usual activities, pain/discomfort, anxiety/depression) were mapped to an EQ-5D-3L value set to derive index value. Multivariable mixed effects regression models, adjusted for known factors affecting HRQoL with recruitment region as a random effect, were fit to assess potentially modifiable factors associated with index value (linear) and within each dimension (logistic).

Results

Among the 2958/2996 (98.7%) participants with complete EQ-5D data, 2201 (74.4%) reported problems in at least one EQ-5D-5L dimension. Multivariable linear regression identified independent associations between poorer HRQoL (EQ-5D-3L index value) and obesity (body mass index ≥30.0 kg/m2, β -0.037, 95% CI -0.058 to -0.016, P = .001), HADS depression score ≥8 (β -0.159, -0.182 to -0.137, P < .001), anxiety score ≥8 (β -0.090, -0.110 to -0.069, P < .001), taking ≥10 medications (β -0.065, -0.085 to -0.046, P < .001), sarcopenia (β -0.062, -0.080 to -0.043, P < .001) haemoglobin <100 g/L (β -0.047, -0.085 to -0.010, P = .012) and pain (β -0.134, -0.152 to -0.117, P < .001). Smoking and prescription of prednisolone independently associated with problems in self-care and usual activities respectively. Renin-angiotensin system inhibitor (RASi) prescription associated with fewer problems with mobility and usual activities.

Conclusion

Potentially modifiable factors including obesity, pain, depression, anxiety, anaemia, polypharmacy, smoking, steroid use and sarcopenia associated with poorer HRQoL in this cohort, whilst RASi use was associated with better HRQoL in two dimensions.

Factors that influence the selection of conservative management for end-stage renal disease - a systematic review

Background

Most patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) are managed with dialysis and less commonly kidney transplantation. However, not all are suitable for or desire either of these renal replacement therapies. Conservative management (CM) is an option. However, the selection of CM is often not easy for patients and clinicians. The aim of this systematic review is to identify the key factors that influence the selection of CM for ESRD.

Methods

Medline, Embase, PsychINFO, and CINAHL Plus were systematically searched from inception to 10 September 2021. Titles/abstracts and full texts were independently screened by two reviewers. Reference lists of included articles were searched. An update search via PubMed was conducted on 10 August 2023. A narrative synthesis of review findings was conducted.

Results

At the end of the screening process, 15 qualitative and 8 survey articles were selected. Reference checking yielded no additional relevant studies. Main themes were: (i) Patient-specific factors; (ii) Clinician-specific factors; (iii) Organisational factors; and (iv) National and international factors. Patient-specific factors were awareness and perceptions of CM and dialysis, beliefs about survival, preferred treatment outcomes and influence of family/caregivers and clinicians. Clinician-specific factors included perceptions of CM as 'non-intervention', perceptions of clinician role in the decision-making process, and confidence and ability to initiate sensitive treatment discussions. Relationships with and involvement of other healthcare professionals, time constraints, and limited clinical guidance were also important factors.

Conclusions

An improvement in the provision of education regarding CM for patients, caregivers, and clinicians is essential. Robust studies are required to generate crucial evidence for the development of stronger recommendations and guidance for clinicians.

COVID-19 related headaches: epidemiology, pathophysiology, impacts, and management

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This is an expert overview of the recent literature on the nature, epidemiology, pathophysiology, impact, and management of COVID-19 related headache, in the acute phase of infection and in post-COVID-19 syndrome.

RECENT FINDINGS

Headache is one of the commonest symptoms of COVID-19 during acute infection and it is often experienced by individuals who go on to develop long COVID. There is a higher prevalence of headache in individuals with long COVID who contracted the Delta variant than in those who were infected with the Wuhan or Alpha variants. Headaches related to COVID-19 infection are commoner and may be more intense in women.There are indications that presence of headache might indicate a more benign COVID-19 infection and a better chance of survival. However, the impact of COVID-19 related headache could be substantial leading to poor quality of life in individuals affected. Headache that changes in its nature in terms of frequency and severity should be investigated to exclude cerebrovascular complications. There are promising new therapies for its treatment, but further research is needed.

SUMMARY

The findings of this review can promote a better understanding of COVID-19 related headache and guide clinicians in the management of patients.

The effect of disease modifying therapies on fatigue in multiple sclerosis

INTRODUCTION

Fatigue is one of the most common and debilitating symptoms in people with multiple sclerosis (PwMS). Disease-modifying therapies (DMTs) are currently the gold standard in the treatment of MS and their effectiveness has been assessed through randomized clinical trials (RCTs). However, there is limited evidence on the impact of DMTs on fatigue in (PwMS). We conducted a systematic review to 1) understand whether fatigue is included as an outcome in MS trials of DMTs; 2) determine the effects on fatigue of treating MS with DMTs and 3) assess the quality of MS trials including fatigue as an outcome.

METHODS

Two independent researchers systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE and ClinicalTrials.gov from 1993 to January 2023 for RCTs that measured fatigue as an outcome. Adherence to reporting standards was assessed with the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)-Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO), while the risk of bias (RoB) was assessed with the RoB 2 tool by the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. The systematic review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42022383321).

RESULTS

The search strategy identified 130 RCTs of DMTs of which 7 (5%) assessed fatigue as an outcome. Of the 7 trials, only two presented statistically significant results. In addition, the reporting of fatigue among RCTs was suboptimal with a mean adherence to the CONSORT-PRO Statement of 36% across all trials. Of the 7 trials included, four were assessed as 'high' RoB..

CONCLUSIONS

Fatigue has a major impact on PwMS yet there is limited trial-based evidence on the impact of DMTs on fatigue. Assessment of fatigue as an outcome is underrepresented in trials of DMTs and the reporting of PRO trial data is suboptimal. Thus, it is imperative that MS researchers conduct RCTs that include fatigue as an outcome, to support clinicians and people with MS (PwMS) to consider the impact of the different DMTs on fatigue.

Clinician survey of current global practice for sarcoma surveillance following resection of primary retroperitoneal, abdominal, and pelvic sarcoma

INTRODUCTION

- Postoperative surveillance following resection of primary retroperitoneal, abdominal, and pelvic sarcoma (RPS) is standard of care in international sarcoma centres and has rapidly evolved without an evidence base to become highly intensive and prolonged. This clinician survey aims to capture a global, contemporary snapshot of international guidelines used to inform sarcoma surveillance following resection of primary RPS.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

- Between July 2022 and March 2023, an online, anonymous, clinician survey to assess the current duration, imaging intervals and imaging modalities used for postoperative surveillance following resection of primary RPS was distributed among clinicians working at centres which are members of the TransAtlantic Australasian Retroperitoneal Working Group (TARPSWG).

RESULTS

- Responses were received from 58 different TARPSWG centres. The majority of centres use institutional guidelines to guide surveillance intensity (n = 43, 74%) and the surveillance imaging modality (n = 39, 67%) used. For surveillance intensity and imaging modality, institutional guidelines are partially or entirely based on international guidelines in 81% (n = 47) and 78% (n = 45) of centres, respectively. Commonly used imaging modalities are contrast-enhanced CT abdomen-pelvis (n = 51, 88%) for abdominal surveillance and non-contrast enhanced CT (n = 25, 43%) for chest surveillance. Imaging intervals, timing of de-escalation of imaging frequency and total duration of surveillance for low-grade and high-grade RPS are reported.

CONCLUSION

- This global survey among TARPSWG members demonstrates the heterogeneity in sarcoma surveillance strategies worldwide and emphasises the need for a randomised controlled trial to provide an evidence base for the optimal surveillance schedule following primary resection of RPS.

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.

Evaluating patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for future clinical trials in adult patients with optic neuritis

OBJECTIVE

To search for and critically appraise the psychometric quality of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) developed or validated in optic neuritis, in order to support high-quality research and care.

METHODS

We systematically searched MEDLINE(Ovid), Embase(Ovid), PsycINFO(Ovid) and CINAHLPlus(EBSCO), and additional grey literature to November 2021, to identify PROM development or validation studies applicable to optic neuritis associated with any systemic or neurologic disease in adults. We included instruments developed using classic test theory or Rasch analysis approaches. We used established quality criteria to assess content development, validity, reliability, and responsiveness, grading multiple domains from A (high quality) to C (low quality).

RESULTS

From 3142 screened abstracts we identified five PROM instruments potentially applicable to optic neuritis: three differing versions of the National Eye Institute (NEI)-Visual Function Questionnaire (VFQ): the 51-item VFQ; the 25-item VFQ and a 10-item neuro-ophthalmology supplement; and the Impact of Visual Impairment Scale (IVIS), a constituent of the Multiple Sclerosis Quality of Life Inventory (MSQLI) handbook, derived from the Functional Assessment of Multiple Sclerosis (FAMS). Psychometric appraisal revealed the NEI-VFQ-51 and 10-item neuro module had some relevant content development but weak psychometric development, and the FAMS had stronger psychometric development using Rasch Analysis, but was only somewhat relevant to optic neuritis. We identified no content or psychometric development for IVIS.

CONCLUSION

There is unmet need for a PROM with strong content and psychometric development applicable to optic neuritis for use in virtual care pathways and clinical trials to support drug marketing authorisation.

Statistical methods and data visualisation of patient-reported outcomes in early phase dose-finding oncology trials: a methodological review

Background

Traditionally, within dose-finding clinical trials, treatment toxicity and tolerability are assessed by clinicians. Research has shown that clinician reporting may have inadequate inter-rater reliability, poor correlation with patient reported outcomes, and under capture the true toxicity burden. The introduction of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), where the patient can assess their own symptomatic adverse events or quality of life, has potential to complement current practice to aid dose optimisation. There are no international recommendations offering guidance for the inclusion of PROs in dose-finding trial design and analysis. Our review aimed to identify and describe current statistical methods and data visualisation techniques employed to analyse and visualise PRO data in published early phase dose-finding oncology trials (DFOTs).

Methods

DFOTs published from June 2016-December 2022, which presented PRO analysis methods, were included in this methodological review. We extracted 35 eligible papers indexed in PubMed. Study characteristics extracted included: PRO objectives, PRO measures, statistical analysis and visualisation techniques, and whether the PRO was involved in interim and final dose selection decisions.

Findings

Most papers (30, 85.7%) did not include clear PRO objectives. 20 (57.1%) papers used inferential statistical techniques to analyse PROs, including survival analysis and mixed-effect models. One trial used PROs to classify a clinicians' assessed dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs). Three (8.6%) trials used PROs to confirm the tolerability of the recommended dose. 25 trial reports visually presented PRO data within a figure or table within their publication, of which 12 papers presented PRO score longitudinally.

Interpretation

This review highlighted that the statistical methods and reporting of PRO analysis in DFOTs are often poorly described and inconsistent. Many trials had PRO objectives which were not clearly described, making it challenging to evaluate the appropriateness of the statistical techniques used. Drawing conclusions based on DFOTs which are not powered for PROs may be misleading. With no guidance and standardisation of analysis methods for PROs in early phase DFOTs, it is challenging to compare study findings across trials. Therefore, there is a crucial need to establish international guidance to enhance statistical methods and graphical presentation for PRO analysis in the dose-finding setting.

Funding

EA has been supported to undertake this work as part of a PhD studentship from the Institute of Cancer Research within the MRC/NIHR Trials Methodology Research Partnership. AM is supported by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre at the Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, the Institute of Cancer Research and Imperial College.

Paving the way for patient centricity in real-world evidence (RWE): Qualitative interviews to identify considerations for wider implementation of patient-reported outcomes in RWE generation

Objectives

Real-world evidence (RWE) generation can be enhanced by including patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Methods for collecting and using PRO data in the real-world setting are currently underdeveloped and there is no international guidance specific to its use in this context. This study explored stakeholders' perspectives and needs for using PROs in RWE generation. Barriers, facilitators, and opportunities for wider use of PROs in real-world studies were also investigated.

Methods

Online semi-structured interviews were conducted with international stakeholders: patients, patient advocates, regulators, payers, clinicians, academic researchers, and industry experts. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using NVivo 20. Thematic analysis was conducted based on the updated Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

Results

Twenty-three interviews were conducted. Participants confirmed that the use of PROs in RWE generation is not yet well established. Participants expressed a mixed level of confidence in the value of PROs collected in a real-world setting. Operational challenges associated with collecting routine PRO data to inform care delivery at the individual level (e.g., setting up infrastructure) need to be addressed. Methodological and other challenges (e.g., financing research) associated with collecting prospective de novo data in a real-world setting should be considered to facilitate PRO utilisation in real-world studies.

Conclusions

Several opportunities and challenges were identified regarding the broader use of PROs in RWE research. Joint efforts from different stakeholders are needed to maximise PRO implementation, with consideration given to each stakeholders' specific needs (e.g., by developing good practices).

Considerations for patient and public involvement and engagement in health research

Patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) can provide valuable insights into the experiences of those living with and affected by a disease or health condition. Inclusive collaboration between patients, the public and researchers can lead to productive relationships, ensuring that health research addresses patient needs. Guidelines are available to support effective PPIE; however, evaluation of the impact of PPIE strategies in health research is limited. In this Review, we evaluate the impact of PPIE in the 'Therapies for Long COVID in non-hospitalised individuals' (TLC) Study, using a combination of group discussions and interviews with patient partners and researchers. We identify areas of good practice and reflect on areas for improvement. Using these insights and the results of a survey, we synthesize two checklists of considerations for PPIE, and we propose that research teams use these checklists to optimize the impact of PPIE for both patients and researchers in future studies.

Global use of electronic patient-reported outcome systems in nephrology: a mixed methods study

OBJECTIVES

The use of electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) systems to support the management of patients with chronic kidney disease is increasing. This mixed-methods study aimed to comprehensively identify existing and developing ePRO systems, used in nephrology settings globally, ascertaining key characteristics and factors for successful implementation.

STUDY DESIGN

ePRO systems and developers were identified through a scoping review of the literature and contact with field experts. Developers were invited to participate in a structured survey, to summarise key system characteristics including: (1) system objectives, (2) population, (3) PRO measures used, (4) level of automation, (5) reporting, (6) integration into workflow and (7) links to electronic health records/national registries. Subsequent semistructured interviews were conducted to explore responses.

SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS

Eligible systems included those being developed or used in nephrology settings to assess ePROs and summarise results to care providers. System developers included those with a key responsibility for aspects of the design, development or implementation of an eligible system.

ANALYTICAL APPROACH

Structured survey data were summarised using descriptive statistics. Interview transcripts were analysed using Codebook Thematic Analysis using domains from the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

RESULTS

Fifteen unique ePRO systems were identified across seven countries; 10 system developers completed the structured survey and 7 participated in semistructured interviews. Despite system heterogeneity, reported features required for effective implementation included early and sustained patient involvement, clinician champions and expanding existing electronic platforms to integrate ePROs. Systems demonstrated several common features, with the majority being implemented within research settings, thereby affecting system implementation readiness for real-world application.

CONCLUSIONS

There has been considerable research investment in ePRO systems. The findings of this study outline key system features and factors to support the successful implementation of ePROs in routine kidney care.Cite Now.

Usability testing of an electronic patient-reported outcome system linked to an electronic chemotherapy prescribing and patient management system for patients with cancer

Background

People affected by cancer experience a wide range of symptoms which have a major impact on their functioning and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). One way to measure the impact of cancer symptoms is through the use of patient-reported outcomes.

Methods

An electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) application (ChemoPRO®) was designed to be used by cancer patients to report their symptoms and communicate with their clinical team. Usability testing sessions were conducted with people with lived experience of cancer to understand how real users interact with the ChemoPRO® system. One-to-one testing sessions were conducted to assess use of the system and identify areas for further refinement. User satisfaction was assessed using a brief satisfaction questionnaire previously used by Aiyegbusi et al. (date).

Results

Ten people with lived experience of cancer took part in the usability study. Symptoms and HRQoL measures, including the Euroqol EQ5D5L and the PRO-CTCAE™ were included in the ePRO system.

Participants

had a mean age of 62.3 years. Three critical errors and 21 non-critical errors were reported. All participants were enthusiastic about the app. Participants liked the simplicity and responsiveness of the patient-facing app and highlighted the potential for communicating with their clinical team. The overall usability and satisfaction score was 4.5 (sd = 0.09).

Conclusion

This usability study suggests that people with lived experience of cancer found the ChemoPRO® app acceptable and easy to use. One of the key features of this particular ePRO system that should be developed further is system functionality to facilitate communication between patients and clinicians. Future testing should include testing in a clinical setting and testing with people from ethnic minorities.

Experiences of patients and their relatives of postoperative radiological surveillance and surveillance intensity following primary resection of a soft tissue sarcoma and its impact on their quality of life: a systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Postoperative radiological surveillance following primary resection of a soft tissue sarcoma (sarcoma of the retroperitoneum, abdomen, pelvis, trunk or extremities) is standard of care in all international high-volume sarcoma centres in the world. The intensity of postoperative surveillance imaging is highly varied and knowledge of the impact of surveillance and surveillance intensity on patients' quality of life is limited. The aim of this systematic review is to summarise the experiences of patients and their relatives/caregivers of postoperative radiological surveillance following resection of a primary soft tissue sarcoma and its impact on their quality of life.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will systematically search MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus and Epistemonikos. Hand searching of reference lists of included studies will be conducted. Further searches will be performed via Google Scholar, to reveal further studies within unpublished 'grey' literature. Two reviewers will independently screen the titles and abstracts following the eligibility criteria. After retrieval of the full text of the selected studies, the methodological quality will be appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklist for Qualitative Research and the Center for Evidence-Based Management checklist for Critical Appraisal of a Cross-Sectional Study. Data on the study population, relevant themes and conclusions will be extracted from the selected papers, and a narrative synthesis will be conducted.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The systematic review does not require ethics approval. The findings of the proposed work will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and disseminated widely to patients, clinicians and allied health professionals through the Sarcoma UK website, the Sarcoma Patient Advocacy Global Network and the Trans-Atlantic Australasian Retroperitoneal Sarcoma Working Group. In addition, the outcomes of this research will be presented at national and international conferences.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022375118.

Co-production of a feasibility trial of pacing interventions for Long COVID

BACKGROUND

The high incidence of COVID-19 globally has led to a large prevalence of Long COVID but there is a lack of evidence-based treatments. There is a need to evaluate existing treatments for symptoms associated with Long COVID. However, there is first a need to evaluate the feasibility of undertaking randomised controlled trials of interventions for the condition. We aimed to co-produce a feasibility study of non-pharmacological interventions to support people with Long COVID.

METHODS

A consensus workshop on research prioritisation was conducted with patients and other stakeholders. This was followed by the co-production of the feasibility trial with a group of patient partners, which included the design of the study, the selection of interventions, and the production of dissemination strategies.

RESULTS

The consensus workshop was attended by 23 stakeholders, including six patients. The consensus from the workshop was to develop a clinical trial platform that focused on testing different pacing interventions and resources. For the co-production of the feasibility trial, patient partners selected three pacing resources to evaluate (video, mobile application, and book) and co-designed feasibility study processes, study materials and undertook usability testing of the digital trial platform.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, this paper reports the principles and process used to co-produce a feasibility study of pacing interventions for Long COVID. Co-production was effective and influenced important aspects of the study.

Non-Pharmacological Therapies for Post-Viral Syndromes, Including Long COVID: A Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

Post-viral syndromes (PVS), including Long COVID, are symptoms sustained from weeks to years following an acute viral infection. Non-pharmacological treatments for these symptoms are poorly understood. This review summarises the evidence for the effectiveness of non-pharmacological treatments for PVS.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review to evaluate the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions for PVS, as compared to either standard care, alternative non-pharmacological therapy, or placebo. The outcomes of interest were changes in symptoms, exercise capacity, quality of life (including mental health and wellbeing), and work capability. We searched five databases (Embase, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, MedRxiv) for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published between 1 January 2001 to 29 October 2021. The relevant outcome data were extracted, the study quality was appraised using the Cochrane risk-of-bias tool, and the findings were synthesised narratively.

FINDINGS

Overall, five studies of five different interventions (Pilates, music therapy, telerehabilitation, resistance exercise, neuromodulation) met the inclusion criteria. Aside from music-based intervention, all other selected interventions demonstrated some support in the management of PVS in some patients.

INTERPRETATION

In this study, we observed a lack of robust evidence evaluating the non-pharmacological treatments for PVS, including Long COVID. Considering the prevalence of prolonged symptoms following acute viral infections, there is an urgent need for clinical trials evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of non-pharmacological treatments for patients with PVS.

REGISTRATION

The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO [CRD42021282074] in October 2021 and published in BMJ Open in 2022.

Reducing the pressures of outpatient care: the potential role of patient-reported outcomes

The global demand for hospital treatment exceeds capacity.The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated this issue, leading to increased backlogs and longer wait times for patients. The amount of outpatient attendances undertaken in many settings is still below pre-pandemic levels and this, combined with delayed referrals, means that patients are facing delays in treatment and poorer health outcomes. Use of digital health technologies, notably the use of remote symptom monitoring systems based on patient-reported outcomes (PROs), may offer a solution to reduce outpatient waiting lists and tailor care to those in greatest need. Drawing on international examples, the authors explore the use of electronic PRO systems to triage clinical care. We summarise the key benefits of the approach and also highlight the challenges for implementation, which need to be addressed to promote equitable healthcare delivery.

Development of a core outcome set for use in adult primary glioma phase III interventional trials: A mixed methods study

Background

Glioma interventional studies should collect data aligned with patient priorities, enabling treatment benefit assessment and informed decision-making. This requires effective data synthesis and meta-analyses, underpinned by consistent trial outcome measurement, analysis, and reporting. Development of a core outcome set (COS) may contribute to a solution.

Methods

A 5-stage process was used to develop a COS for glioma trials from the UK perspective. Outcome lists were generated in stages 1: a trial registry review and systematic review of qualitative studies and 2: interviews with glioma patients and caregivers. In stage 3, the outcome lists were de-duplicated with accessible terminology, in stage 4 outcomes were rated via a 2-round Delphi process, and stage 5 comprised a consensus meeting to finalize the COS. Patient-reportable COS outcomes were identified.

Results

In Delphi round 1, 96 participants rated 35 outcomes identified in stages 1 and 2, to which a further 10 were added. Participants (77/96) rated the resulting 45 outcomes in round 2. Of these, 22 outcomes met a priori threshold for inclusion in the COS. After further review, a COS consisting of 19 outcomes grouped into 7 outcome domains (survival, adverse events, activities of daily living, health-related quality of life, seizure activity, cognitive function, and physical function) was finalized by 13 participants at the consensus meeting.

Conclusions

A COS for glioma trials was developed, comprising 7 outcome domains. Additional research will identify appropriate measurement tools and further validate this COS.

Optimising the selection of outcomes for healthy ageing trials: a mixed methods study

Advancing age is associated with chronic diseases which are the largest cause of death and disability in developed countries. With increasing life expectancy and an ageing population, there is a need to conduct trials to extend healthy ageing, including targeting biological ageing processes, and prevent ageing-related diseases. The main objectives of the study are as follows: (i) to review outcome measures utilised in healthy ageing trials focusing on pharmacological therapies, nutritional supplements and medical devices; (ii) to summarise the views of key stakeholders on outcome selection for healthy ageing trials. An analysis of records from the Clinicaltrials.gov database pertaining to healthy ageing trials from inception to May 2022 was conducted. In addition, the findings of a workshop attended by key stakeholders at the 2022 annual UKSPINE conference were qualitatively analysed. Substantial heterogeneity was found in the interventions evaluated and the outcomes utilised by the included studies. Recruitment of participants with diverse backgrounds and the confounding effects of multi-morbidity in older adults were identified as the main challenges of measuring outcomes in healthy ageing trials by the workshop participants. The development of a core outcome set for healthy ageing trials can aid comparability across interventions and within different settings. The workshop provided an important platform to garner a range of perspectives on the challenges with measuring outcomes in this setting. It is critical to initiate such discussions to progress this field and provide practical answers to how healthy ageing trials are designed and structured in the future.

A Systematic Review to Evaluate Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) for Metastatic Prostate Cancer According to the COnsensus-Based Standard for the Selection of Health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) Methodology

Simple Summary

Metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa) is one of the most common solid tumors in men and both the disease and the treatments affect patients’ quality of life (QoL). Patient-reported Outcome Measurements (PROMs) are important to assess the patient’s subjective experience with disease and treatment. Our aim is to appraise, compare, and summarize the psychometric properties of Patient-reported Outcome Measures (PROMs). Our findings can improve patients’ care and their quality of life during treatment and the disease path.

Abstract

Introduction: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) represent important endpoints in metastatic prostate cancer (mPCa). However, the clinically valid and accurate measurement of health-related quality of life depends on the psychometric properties of the PROMs considered. Objective: To appraise, compare, and summarize the properties of PROMs in mPCa. Evidence acquisition: We performed a review of PROMs used in RCTs, including patients with mPCa, using Medline in September 2021, according to the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) criteria. This systematic review is part of PIONEER (an IMI2 European network of excellence for big data in PCa). Results: The most frequently used PROMs in RCTs of patients with mPCa were the Functional Assessment for Cancer Therapy—Prostate (FACT-P) (n = 18), the Brief Pain Inventory—Short Form (BPI-SF) (n = 8), and the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer quality of life core 30 (EORTC QLQ-C30) (n = 6). A total of 283 abstracts were screened and 12 full-text studies were evaluated. A total of two, one, and two studies reported the psychometric proprieties of FACT-P, Brief Pain Inventory (BPI), and BPI-SF, respectively. FACT-P and BPI showed a high content validity, while BPI-SF showed a moderate content validity. FACT-P and BPI showed a high internal consistency (summarized by Cronbach’s α 0.70–0.95). Conclusions: The use of BPI and FACT-P in mPCa patients is supported by their high content validity and internal consistency. Since BPI is focused on pain assessment, we recommend FACT-P, which provides a broader assessment of QoL and wellbeing, for the clinical evaluation of mPCa patients. However, these considerations have been elaborated on in a very limited number of studies. Patient summary: In this paper, we review the psychometric properties of PROMs used with patients with mPCa to find the questionnaires that best assess patients’ QoL, in order to help professionals in their intervention and improve patients’ QoL. We recommend the use of BPI and FACT-P for their high content validity and internal consistency despite the limited number of studies considered.

Development of a core outcome set and identification of patient-reportable outcomes for primary brain tumour trials: protocol for the COBra study

INTRODUCTION

Primary brain tumours, specifically gliomas, are a rare disease group. The disease and treatment negatively impacts on patients and those close to them. The high rates of physical and cognitive morbidity differ from other cancers causing reduced health-related quality of life. Glioma trials using outcomes that allow holistic analysis of treatment benefits and risks enable informed care decisions. Currently, outcome assessment in glioma trials is inconsistent, hindering evidence synthesis. A core outcome set (COS) - an agreed minimum set of outcomes to be measured and reported - may address this. International initiatives focus on defining core outcomes assessments across brain tumour types. This protocol describes the development of a COS involving UK stakeholders for use in glioma trials, applicable across glioma types, with provision to identify subsets as required. Due to stakeholder interest in data reported from the patient perspective, outcomes from the COS that can be patient-reported will be identified.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Stage I: (1) trial registry review to identify outcomes collected in glioma trials and (2) systematic review of qualitative literature exploring glioma patient and key stakeholder research priorities. Stage II: semi-structured interviews with glioma patients and caregivers. Outcome lists will be generated from stages I and II. Stage III: study team will remove duplicate items from the outcome lists and ensure accessible terminology for inclusion in the Delphi survey. Stage IV: a two-round Delphi process whereby the outcomes will be rated by key stakeholders. Stage V: a consensus meeting where participants will finalise the COS. The study team will identify the COS outcomes that can be patient-reported. Further research is needed to match patient-reported outcomes to available measures.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval was obtained (REF SMREC 21/59, Cardiff University School of Medicine Research Ethics Committee). Study findings will be disseminated widely through conferences and journal publication. The final COS will be adopted and promoted by patient and carer groups and its use by funders encouraged.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42021236979.

Evaluating patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for clinical trials and clinical practice in adult patients with uveitis or scleritis: a systematic review

Patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) capture impact of disease and treatment on quality of life, and have an emerging role in clinical trial outcome measurement. This study included a systematic review and quality appraisal of PROMs developed or validated for use in adults with uveitis or scleritis. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and grey literature sources, to 5 November 2021. We used established quality criteria to grade each PROM instrument in multiple domains from A (high quality) to C (low quality), and assessed content development, validity, reliability and responsiveness. For instruments developed using classic test theory-based psychometric approaches, we assessed acceptability, item targeting and internal consistency. For instruments developed using Item Response Theory (IRT) (e.g. Rasch analysis), we assessed response categories, dimensionality, measurement precision, item fit statistics, differential item functioning and targeting. We identified and appraised four instruments applicable to certain uveitis types, but none for scleritis. Specifically, the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire-25 (NEI-VFQ), a 3-part PROM for Birdshot retinochoroiditis (Birdshot Disease & Medication Symptoms Questionnaire [BD&MSQ], the quality of life (QoL) impact of Birdshot Chorioretinopathy [QoL BCR], and the QoL impact of BCR medication [QoL Meds], the Kings Sarcoidosis Questionnaire (KSQ), and a PROM for cytomegalovirus retinitis. These instruments had limited coverage for these heterogeneous conditions, with a focus on very rare subtypes. Psychometric appraisal revealed considerable variability between instruments, limited content development, and only one developed using Item Response Theory. In conclusion, there are few validated PROMs for patients with uveitis and none for scleritis, and existing instruments have suboptimal psychometric performance. We articulate why we do not recommend their inclusion as clinical trial outcome measures for drug licensing purposes, and highlight an unmet need for PROMs applicable to uveitis and scleritis.

Implementation of patient-reported outcome measures in real-world evidence studies: Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov records (1999-2021)

BACKGROUND

Real-world evidence (RWE) plays an increasingly important role within global regulatory and reimbursement processes. RWE generation can be enhanced by collecting and using patient-reported outcomes (PROs), which can provide valuable information on the effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of health interventions from the patient perspective. This analysis aims to examine and summarise the utilisation of patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs) in real-world studies.

METHODS

Descriptions of phase IV trials were downloaded on July 22, 2021 from the Clinicaltrials.gov database since its inception. An automated algorithm was built to detect trials utilising PROMs and composite measures including patient-reported components. Search terms were developed based on the PROQOLID database.

RESULTS

Of 27,976 phase IV clinical trials posted on Clinicaltrials.gov between 1999 and July 2021, 21% and 4% used PROMs and composite measures, respectively. Recent years demonstrated a steady increase in the utilisation of PROMs in phase IV trials.

CONCLUSIONS

The use of PROMs in phase IV trials seems to be lower than its use in earlier phases of clinical research. Increased uptake of PROMs in RWE studies can be facilitated in a number of ways including the development of standards for their collection, analysis and use.

Symptoms and risk factors for long COVID in non-hospitalized adults

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is associated with a range of persistent symptoms impacting everyday functioning, known as post-COVID-19 condition or long COVID. We undertook a retrospective matched cohort study using a UK-based primary care database, Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum, to determine symptoms that are associated with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection beyond 12 weeks in non-hospitalized adults and the risk factors associated with developing persistent symptoms. We selected 486,149 adults with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and 1,944,580 propensity score-matched adults with no recorded evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Outcomes included 115 individual symptoms, as well as long COVID, defined as a composite outcome of 33 symptoms by the World Health Organization clinical case definition. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) for the outcomes. A total of 62 symptoms were significantly associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection after 12 weeks. The largest aHRs were for anosmia (aHR 6.49, 95% CI 5.02-8.39), hair loss (3.99, 3.63-4.39), sneezing (2.77, 1.40-5.50), ejaculation difficulty (2.63, 1.61-4.28) and reduced libido (2.36, 1.61-3.47). Among the cohort of patients infected with SARS-CoV-2, risk factors for long COVID included female sex, belonging to an ethnic minority, socioeconomic deprivation, smoking, obesity and a wide range of comorbidities. The risk of developing long COVID was also found to be increased along a gradient of decreasing age. SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with a plethora of symptoms that are associated with a range of sociodemographic and clinical risk factors.

Opportunities and Risks of UK Medical Device Reform

OBJECTIVES

To identify the potential opportunities and risks around future UK regulatory reform of medical devices.

DESIGN

A mixed methods approach, comprising a rapid literature review, one-to-one, semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders, a multidisciplinary stakeholder workshop, and a post-workshop survey.

SETTING

United Kingdom.

PARTICIPANTS

32 key stakeholders across the medical device sector were identified both from the public and private sectors.

RESULTS

Opportunities relating to regulatory independence were identified, including the potential to create and implement a regulatory framework that ensures availability of medical devices; innovation and investment potential; and safety to the citizens of the UK. The most significant risks identified included threats to the safety of individual patients and the wider health system arising from the delay in awaiting regulatory approval due to the shortage of approved bodies; and reduced competitiveness of UK market and device manufacturers. Recommendations were identified to mitigate risks, centred on harnessing broader cross-sector collaborations, promoting patient and public partnership, and maximizing international engagement.

CONCLUSIONS

The UK's medical device sector is at a time-critical juncture to construct a regulatory framework to navigate its exit of Europe and respond to Europe's transition to new medical device regulations whilst also addressing the ongoing demand for rapid approval for new devices in response to the global pandemic. Investment, capacity-building, and international engagement will play a central role in mitigating risks and maximizing opportunities for medical device regulation.

Using Patient-Reported Outcomes in Dose-Finding Oncology Trials: Surveys of Key Stakeholders and the National Cancer Research Institute Consumer Forum

Background

Patient-reported adverse events may be a useful adjunct for assessing a drug’s tolerability in dose-finding oncology trials (DFOT). We conducted surveys of international stakeholders and the National Cancer Research Institute (NCRI) Consumer Forum to understand attitudes about patient-reported outcome (PRO) use in DFOT.

Methods

A 35-question survey of clinicians, trial managers, statisticians, funders, and regulators of DFOT was distributed via professional bodies examining experience using PROs, benefits/barriers, and their potential role in defining tolerable doses. An 8-question survey of the NCRI Consumer Forum explored similar themes.

Results

International survey: 112 responses from 15 September–30 November 2020; 103 trialists [48 clinicians (42.9%), 38 statisticians (34.0%), 17 trial managers (15.2%)], 7 regulators (6.3%), 2 funders (1.8%)]. Most trialists had no experience designing (73, 70.9%), conducting (52, 50.5%), or reporting (88, 85.4%) PROs in DFOT. Most agreed that PROs could identify new toxicities (75, 67.0%) and provide data on the frequency (86, 76.8%) and duration (81, 72.3%) of toxicities. The top 3 barriers were lack of guidance regarding PRO selection (73/103, 70.9%), missing PRO data (71/103, 68.9%), and overburdening staff (68/103, 66.0%). NCRI survey: 57 responses on 21 March 2021. A total of 28 (49.1%) were willing to spend <15 min/day completing PROs. Most (55, 96.5%) preferred to complete PROs online. 61 (54.5%) trialists and 57 (100%) consumers agreed that patient-reported adverse events should be used to inform dose-escalation decisions.

Conclusion

Stakeholders reported minimal experience using PROs in DFOT but broadly supported their use. Guidelines are needed to standardize PRO selection, analysis, and reporting in DFOT.

Study protocol for developing, piloting and disseminating the PRISMA-COSMIN guideline: a new reporting guideline for systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments are important tools in the evidence-based selection of these instruments. COSMIN (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments) has developed a comprehensive and widespread guideline to conduct systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments, but key information is often missing in published reviews. This hinders the appraisal of the quality of outcome measurement instruments, impacts the decisions of knowledge users regarding their appropriateness, and compromises reproducibility and interpretability of the reviews' findings. To facilitate sufficient, transparent, and consistent reporting of systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments, an extension of the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting of Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) 2020 guideline will be developed: the PRISMA-COSMIN guideline.

METHODS

The PRISMA-COSMIN guideline will be developed in accordance with recommendations for reporting guideline development from the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network. First, a candidate reporting item list will be created through an environmental literature scan and expert consultations. Second, an international Delphi study will be conducted with systematic review authors, biostatisticians, epidemiologists, psychometricians/clinimetricians, reporting guideline developers, journal editors as well as patients, caregivers, and members of the public. Delphi panelists will rate candidate items for inclusion on a 5-point scale, suggest additional candidate items, and give feedback on item wording and comprehensibility. Third, the draft PRISMA-COSMIN guideline and user manual will be iteratively piloted by applying it to systematic reviews in several disease areas to assess its relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility, along with usability and user satisfaction. Fourth, a consensus meeting will be held to finalize the PRISMA-COSMIN guideline through roundtable discussions and voting. Last, a user manual will be developed and the final PRISMA-COSMIN guideline will be disseminated through publications, conferences, newsletters, and relevant websites. Additionally, relevant journals and organizations will be invited to endorse and implement PRISMA-COSMIN. Throughout the project, evaluations will take place to identify barriers and facilitators of involving patient/public partners and employing a virtual process.

DISCUSSION

The PRISMA-COSMIN guideline will ensure that the reports of systematic reviews of outcome measurement instruments are complete and informative, enhancing their reproducibility, ease of use, and uptake.

Systematic review of guidance for the collection and use of patient-reported outcomes in real-world evidence generation to support regulation, reimbursement and health policy

Background

Real-world evidence (RWE) plays an increasingly important role within global regulatory and reimbursement processes. RWE generation can be enhanced by the collection and use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs), which can provide valuable information on the effectiveness, safety, and tolerability of health interventions from the patient perspective. This systematic review aims to examine and summarise the available PRO-specific recommendations and guidance for RWE generation.

Methods and findings

Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online, Excerpta Medica Database, and websites of selected organisations were systematically searched to identify relevant publications. 1,249 articles were screened of which 7 papers met the eligibility criteria and were included in the review. The included publications provided PRO-specific recommendations to facilitate the use of PROs for RWE generation and these were extracted and grouped into eight major categories. These included: (1) instrument selection, (2) participation and engagement, (3) burden to health care professionals and patients, (4) stakeholder collaboration, (5) education and training, (6) PRO implementation process, (7) data collection and management, and (8) data analysis and presentation of results. The main limitation of the study was the potential exclusion of relevant publications, due to poor indexing of the databases and websites searched.

Conclusions

PROs may provide valuable and crucial patient input in RWE generation. Whilst valuable insights can be gained from guidance for use of PROs in clinical care, there is a lack of international guidance specific to RWE generation in the context of use for regulatory decision-making, reimbursement, and health policy. Clear and appropriate evidence-based guidance is required to maximise the potential benefits of implementing PROs for RWE generation. Unique aspects between PRO guidance for clinical care and other purposes should be differentiated. The needs of various stakeholder groups (including patients, health care professionals, regulators, payers, and industry) should be considered when developing future guidelines.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s41687-022-00466-7.

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.

Therapies for Long COVID in non-hospitalised individuals: from symptoms, patient-reported outcomes and immunology to targeted therapies (The TLC Study)

INTRODUCTION

Individuals with COVID-19 frequently experience symptoms and impaired quality of life beyond 4-12 weeks, commonly referred to as Long COVID. Whether Long COVID is one or several distinct syndromes is unknown. Establishing the evidence base for appropriate therapies is needed. We aim to evaluate the symptom burden and underlying pathophysiology of Long COVID syndromes in non-hospitalised individuals and evaluate potential therapies.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A cohort of 4000 non-hospitalised individuals with a past COVID-19 diagnosis and 1000 matched controls will be selected from anonymised primary care records from the Clinical Practice Research Datalink, and invited by their general practitioners to participate on a digital platform (Atom5). Individuals will report symptoms, quality of life, work capability and patient-reported outcome measures. Data will be collected monthly for 1 year.Statistical clustering methods will be used to identify distinct Long COVID-19 symptom clusters. Individuals from the four most prevalent clusters and two control groups will be invited to participate in the BioWear substudy which will further phenotype Long COVID symptom clusters by measurement of immunological parameters and actigraphy.We will review existing evidence on interventions for postviral syndromes and Long COVID to map and prioritise interventions for each newly characterised Long COVID syndrome. Recommendations will be made using the cumulative evidence in an expert consensus workshop. A virtual supportive intervention will be coproduced with patients and health service providers for future evaluation.Individuals with lived experience of Long COVID will be involved throughout this programme through a patient and public involvement group.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval was obtained from the Solihull Research Ethics Committee, West Midlands (21/WM/0203). Research findings will be presented at international conferences, in peer-reviewed journals, to Long COVID patient support groups and to policymakers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

1567490.

P089 Patient-reported outcome measures for rheumatoid arthritis disease activity: a systematic review following COSMIN guidelines

Background/Aims

The standard measurement instruments for assessing Rheumatoid Arthritis (RA) disease activity (DA) are the Disease Activity Score with 28-Joint Count, Simple Disease Activity Index and Clinical Disease Activity Index, which all require a laboratory test and a joint count undertaken by a health care professional. The current standard of care in RA is “Treat-to-Target”, in which regular assessment of RA DA is an integral part. Few healthcare providers have the capacity to assess patients as frequently as stipulated by NICE or EULAR guidelines and thus treatment is not adjusted sufficiently. The SARS-COV-2 pandemic has made the problem more conspicuous with remote rather than face-to-face consultations. Previous research has suggested that Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) are the most informative way to assess RA DA, and that they allow for a more efficient use of NHS resource. We therefore aimed to assess all PROMs for RA DA against the internationally recognised COSMIN guidelines for rating PROMs.

Methods

PROSPERO registered as CRD42020176176. This review built on a previous systematic review in the same area, with the PubMed and EMBASE searches expanded to include all articles up to January 2019 (rather than the previous June 2014 date) and those before January 1994. Some articles from the previous review were excluded as they involved biomarker and/or healthcare professional assessments. All identified articles were rated by two independent researchers, where identified PROMs were assessed for Content validity, Quality of Measurement property and related Risk of bias following the COSMIN guidelines, leading to recommendations for use.

Results

702 abstracts were retrieved: 310 from both PubMed and EMBASE, 230 from PubMed alone and 162 from EMBASE alone. 34 from the previous review were given full article review, of which 21 were included in the final selection. Of the remaining 668, 128 were selected for abstract review; 58 for full article review; and 10 for the final selection, giving 31 articles in total. 10 PROMs were identified: RADAI, RADAI-SF, RADAI5, PDAS2, PAS, PAS-II, RAPID3, RAPID4, PRO-CLARA and GAS. Following the application of COSMIN guidelines to these 31 articles, none of the identified PROMs could be recommended for use, as none had sufficient evidence for content validity. 5 PROMs had the potential to be recommended but the other five could not be recommended.

Conclusion

The lack of content validity is a major drawback for these PROMs, but it is worth noting that all of these were developed before the COSMIN guidelines were created, and COSMIN have only recently updated their guidelines to increase the relevance of content validity. A 2019 American College of Rheumatology review recommended two of the identified PROMs based on different criteria. Future research on PROMs for RA DA must look to evidence content validity.

Disclosure

T. Pickles: None. M. Horton: None. K. Christensen: None. R. Phillips: None. D. Gillespie: None. R. Macefield: None. O. Aiyegbusi: None. C. Beecher: None. E. Choy: None.

Non-pharmacological therapies for postviral syndromes, including Long COVID: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol

INTRODUCTION

Postviral syndromes (PVS) describe the sustained presence of symptoms following an acute viral infection, for months or even years. Exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus and subsequent development of COVID-19 has shown to have similar effects with individuals continuing to exhibit symptoms for greater than 12 weeks. The sustained presence of symptoms is variably referred to as 'post COVID-19 syndrome', 'post-COVID condition' or more commonly 'Long COVID'. Knowledge of the long-term health impacts and treatments for Long COVID are evolving. To minimise overlap with existing work in the field exploring treatments of Long COVID, we have only chosen to focus on non-pharmacological treatments.

AIMS

This review aims to summarise the effectiveness of non-pharmacological treatments for PVS, including Long COVID. A secondary aim is to summarise the symptoms and health impacts associated with PVS in individuals recruited to treatment studies.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Primary electronic searches will be performed in bibliographic databases including: Embase, MEDLINE, PyscINFO, CINAHL and MedRxiv from 1 January 2001 to 29 October 2021. At least two independent reviewers will screen each study for inclusion and data will be extracted from all eligible studies onto a data extraction form. The quality of all included studies will be assessed using Cochrane risk of bias tools and the Newcastle-Ottawa grading system. Non-pharmacological treatments for PVS and Long COVID will be narratively summarised and effect estimates will be pooled using random effects meta-analysis where there is sufficient methodological homogeneity. The symptoms and health impacts reported in the included studies on non-pharmacological interventions will be extracted and narratively reported.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This systematic review does not require ethical approval. The findings from this study will be submitted for peer-reviewed publication, shared at conference presentations and disseminated to both clinical and patient groups.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

The review will adhere to this protocol which has also been registered with PROSPERO (CRD42021282074).

Knowledge translation concerns for the CONSORT-PRO extension reporting guidance: a review of reviews

This review of reviews aimed to appraise the use of the CONSORT-PRO Extension as an evaluation tool for assessing the reporting of patient-reported outcome (PROs) in publications, and to describe the reporting of PRO research across reviews. We also outlined how variation in such evaluations impacts knowledge translation and may lead to potential misuse of the CONSORT-PRO Extension. We systematically searched Medline, Pubmed and CINAHL from 2013 to 2025 March 2021 for reviews of the completeness of reporting of PRO endpoints according to CONSORT-PRO criteria. Two reviewers extracted details of each review, the percentage of included studies that addressed each CONSORT-PRO item, and key recommendations from each review. Fourteen reviews met inclusion criteria, and only six of these used the full CONSORT-PRO checklist with minimal justified modifications. The remaining eight studies made significant or unjustified adjustments to the CONSORT-PRO Extension. Review studies also varied in how they scored multi-component CONSORT-PRO items. CONSORT-PRO items were often unreported in trial reports, and certain CONSORT-PRO items were reported less often than others. The reporting of statistical approaches to dealing with missing PRO data were poor in RCTs included in all 14 review articles. Studies reviewing PRO publications often omitted recommended CONSORT-PRO items from their evaluations, which may cause confusion among readers regarding how best to report their PRO research according to the CONSORT-PRO extension. Many trials published since CONSORT-PRO's release did not report recommended CONSORT-PRO items, which may lead to misinterpretation and consequently to research waste.

Patient Reported Outcome Measures for Rheumatoid Arthritis Disease Activity: a systematic review following COSMIN guidelines

BACKGROUND

The current standard of care in rheumatoid arthritis (RA) requires regular assessment of disease activity (DA). All standard RA DA measurement instruments require joint counts to be undertaken by a healthcare professional with/without a blood test. Few healthcare providers have the capacity to assess patients as frequently as stipulated by guidelines. Patient Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) could be an efficient and informative way to assess RA DA, which is highlighted by the SARS-COV-2 pandemic, as most consultations are remote rather than face-to-face. We aimed to assess all PROMs for RA DA against the internationally recognised COSMIN guidelines to provide evidence-based recommendations to select the most suitable PROMs.

METHODS

Review registered on PROSPERO as CRD42020176176. The search strategy was based on a previous similar systematic review and expanded to include all articles up to January 2019. All identified articles were rated by two independent assessors following the COSMIN guidelines.

RESULTS

668 abstracts were identified, with 10 articles included. A further 21 were identified from a previous review. Ten PROMs were identified. There was insufficient evidence to place any of the identified PROMs into recommendation for use category A due to lack of evidence for content validity, as stipulated by the COSMIN guidelines.

CONCLUSION

Lack of evidence of content validity limits suitable PROM selection, therefore none can be recommended for use. It is acknowledged that all included PROMs were developed before the COSMIN guidelines were published. Future research on PROMs for RA DA must provide evidence of content validity.

Outcome selection for tissue-agnostic drug trials for immune-mediated inflammatory diseases: a systematic review of core outcome sets and regulatory guidance

Background

Tissue-agnostic drug development provides a paradigm shift in precision medicine and requires innovative trial designs. However, outcome selection for such trials can prove challenging. The objectives of this review were to: (i)

Identify and map core outcome sets (COS), across 11 immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) in order to facilitate the selection of relevant outcomes across the conditions for innovative trials of tissue-agnostic drug therapies.

(ii)

Compare outcomes or endpoints recommended by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) to identify and highlight similarities and differences.

Methods

The Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET), International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM), FDA and EMA databases were searched from inception to 28th December 2019. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts of retrieved entries and conducted the subsequent full text screening. Hand searching of the reference lists and citation searching of the selected publications was conducted. The methodological quality of the included peer-reviewed articles was independently assessed by the reviewers based on the items of the COS–Standards for Development recommendations (COS–STAD) checklist. Core outcomes from the included publications were extracted and mapped across studies and conditions. Regulatory guidance from FDA and EMA, where available for clinical trials for the IMIDs, were obtained from their databases and recommendations on outcomes to measure directly compared.

Results

Forty-four COS publications were included in the final analysis. Outcomes such as disease activity, pain, fatigue, quality of life, physical function, work limitation/productivity, steroid use and biomarkers were recommended across majority of the conditions. There were significant similarities and differences in FDA and EMA recommendations. The only instance where either regulatory body directly referenced a COS was for jSLE—both referenced the Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organization (PRINTO) COS.

Conclusions

The findings from this systematic review provide valuable information to inform outcome selection in tissue-agnostic trials for IMIDs. There is a need for increased collaboration between regulators and COS developers and inclusion of regulators as key stakeholders in COS development to enhance the quality of COS.

Trial registration

Not registered.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06000-w.

Standardising the Assessment of Patient-reported Outcome Measures in Localised Prostate Cancer. A Systematic Review

CONTEXT

Prostate cancer (PCa) is the second most common cancer among men worldwide. Urinary, bowel, and sexual function, as well as hormonal symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL), were prioritised by patients and professionals as part of a core outcome set for localised PCa regardless of treatment type.

OBJECTIVE

To systematically review the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in localised PCa and recommend PROMs for use in routine practice and research settings.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

The psychometric properties of PROMs measuring functional and HRQoL domains used in randomised controlled trials including patients with localised PCa were assessed according to the Consensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) methodology. MEDLINE and Embase were searched to identify publications evaluating psychometric properties of the PROMs. The characteristics and methodological quality of the studies included were extracted, tabulated, and assessed according to the COSMIN criteria.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

Overall, 27 studies evaluating psychometric properties of the Expanded Prostate Cancer Index Composite (EPIC), University of California-Los Angeles Prostate Cancer Index (UCLA-PCI), European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) quality of life core 30 (QLQ-C30) and prostate cancer 25 (QLQ-PR25) modules, International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF), and the 36-item (SF-36) and 12-item Short-Form health survey (SF-12) PROMs were identified and included in the systematic review. EPIC and EORTC QLQ-C30, a general module that assesses patients' physical, psychological, and social functions, were characterised by high internal consistency (Cronbach's α 0.46-0.96 and 0.68-0.94 respectively) but low content validity. EORTC QLQ-PR25, which is primarily designed to assess PCa-specific HRQoL, had moderate content validity and internal consistency (Cronbach's α 0.39-0.87). UCLA-PCI was characterised by moderate content validity and high internal consistency (Cronbach's α 0.21-0.94). However, it does not directly assess hormonal symptoms, whereas EORTC QLQ-PR25 does.

CONCLUSION

The tools with the best evidence for psychometric properties and feasibility for use in routine practice and research settings to assess PROMs in patients with localised PCa were EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-PR25. Since EORTC QLQ-C30 is a general module that does not directly assess PCa-specific issues, it should be adopted in conjunction with the QLQ-PR25 module.

PATIENT SUMMARY

We reviewed and appraised the measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measure questionnaires used for patients with localised prostate cancer. We found good evidence to suggest that two questionnaires (EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-PR25) can be used to measure urinary, bowel, and sexual functions and health-related quality of life.

A scoping review of patient and public perspectives on cell and gene therapies

Aim: The development and introduction of cell and gene therapies presents complex social and economic issues. Fully addressing these challenges requires engagement with patients and the public. Materials & methods: A systematically conducted scoping review was undertaken to gauge current patient and public knowledge and perspectives, and as such inform requirements for future research, education and engagement activities. Results: A heterogeneous collection of 35 studies were identified. Levels of knowledge among patients and the public were extremely variable. Studies indicated general acceptance of therapies. Conclusion: The review identified the need for tailored educational activities, and in particular the importance of addressing misconceptions. There is also a need for robust qualitative research considering perspectives on current and forthcoming licensed therapies.

Symptoms, complications and management of long COVID: a review

Globally, there are now over 160 million confirmed cases of COVID-19 and more than 3 million deaths. While the majority of infected individuals recover, a significant proportion continue to experience symptoms and complications after their acute illness. Patients with 'long COVID' experience a wide range of physical and mental/psychological symptoms. Pooled prevalence data showed the 10 most prevalent reported symptoms were fatigue, shortness of breath, muscle pain, joint pain, headache, cough, chest pain, altered smell, altered taste and diarrhoea. Other common symptoms were cognitive impairment, memory loss, anxiety and sleep disorders. Beyond symptoms and complications, people with long COVID often reported impaired quality of life, mental health and employment issues. These individuals may require multidisciplinary care involving the long-term monitoring of symptoms, to identify potential complications, physical rehabilitation, mental health and social services support. Resilient healthcare systems are needed to ensure efficient and effective responses to future health challenges.

'Give Us The Tools!': development of knowledge transfer tools to support the involvement of patient partners in the development of clinical trial protocols with patient-reported outcomes (PROs), in accordance with SPIRIT-PRO Extension

OBJECTIVES

(a) To adapt the Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT)-patient-reported outcome (PRO) Extension guidance to a user-friendly format for patient partners and (b) to codesign a web-based tool to support the dissemination and uptake of the SPIRIT-PRO Extension by patient partners.

DESIGN

A 1-day patient and public involvement session.

PARTICIPANTS

Seven patient partners.

METHODS

A patient partner produced an initial lay summary of the SPIRIT-PRO guideline and a glossary. We held a 1-day PPI session in November 2019 at the University of Birmingham. Five patient partners discussed the draft lay summary, agreed on the final wording, codesigned and agreed the final content for both tools. Two additional patient partners were involved in writing the manuscript. The study compiled with INVOLVE guidelines and was reported according to the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public 2 checklist.

RESULTS

Two user-friendly tools were developed to help patients and members of the public be involved in the codesign of clinical trials collecting PROs. The first tool presents a lay version of the SPIRIT-PRO Extension guidance. The second depicts the most relevant points, identified by the patient partners, of the guidance through an interactive flow diagram.

CONCLUSIONS

These tools have the potential to support the involvement of patient partners in making informed contributions to the development of PRO aspects of clinical trial protocols, in accordance with the SPIRIT-PRO Extension guidelines. The involvement of patient partners ensured the tools focused on issues most relevant to them.

A narrative review of current evidence supporting the implementation of electronic patient-reported outcome measures in the management of chronic diseases

An application of telemedicine of growing interest and relevance is the use of personal computers and mobile devices to collect patient-reported outcomes (PROs). PROs are self-reports of patients' health status without interpretation by anyone else. The tools developed to assess PROs are known as patient-reported outcomes measures (PROMs). The technological innovations that have led to an increased ownership of electronic devices have also facilitated the development of electronic PROMs (ePROMs). ePROMs are a conduit for telemedicine in the care of patients with chronic diseases. Various studies have demonstrated that the use of ePROMs in routine clinical practice is both acceptable and feasible with patients increasingly expressing a preference for an electronic mode of administration. There is increasing evidence that the use of electronic patient-reported outcome (ePROMs) could have significant impacts on outcomes valued by patients, healthcare providers and researchers. Whilst the development and implementation of these systems may be initially costly and resource-intensive, patient preferences and existing evidence to support their implementation suggests the need for continued research prioritisation in this area. This narrative review summarises and discusses evidence of the impact of ePROMs on clinical parameters and outcomes relevant to chronic diseases. We also explore recently published literature regarding issues that may influence the robust implementation of ePROMs for routine clinical practice.