Cargando…

MON-630 Elevating the Patient Voice in Type 1 Diabetes Clinical Trials: A Comparison of In-Depth Exit Interviews and Diabetes-Specific Questionnaires

Healthcare decisions are more effective when the patient voice is included in clinical research, and the Food and Drug Administration encourages the patient’s voice in drug development and regulatory decision-making. Clinical trials should not only demonstrate the effect of a drug on clinical outcom...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Ervin, Claire, Joish, Vijay N, Castro, Colleen, DiBenedetti, Dana, Evans, Emily, Carroll, Amy, Lapuerta, Pablo
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7207836/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1210/jendso/bvaa046.1290
_version_ 1783530698700750848
author Ervin, Claire
Joish, Vijay N
Castro, Colleen
DiBenedetti, Dana
Evans, Emily
Carroll, Amy
Lapuerta, Pablo
author_facet Ervin, Claire
Joish, Vijay N
Castro, Colleen
DiBenedetti, Dana
Evans, Emily
Carroll, Amy
Lapuerta, Pablo
author_sort Ervin, Claire
collection PubMed
description Healthcare decisions are more effective when the patient voice is included in clinical research, and the Food and Drug Administration encourages the patient’s voice in drug development and regulatory decision-making. Clinical trials should not only demonstrate the effect of a drug on clinical outcomes but should also demonstrate that these outcomes are important or meaningful to patients. Several qualitative and quantitative methods are available to collect patient experience data (e.g., traditional patient-reported outcome [PRO] measures, interviews with clinical trial participants). We aimed to understand if in-depth exit interviews were more effective assessments of the patient experience in recent type 1 diabetes (T1D) clinical trials than existing diabetes-specific PROs. In-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with 41 adults with T1D who had completed or withdrew from a phase 3 study of sotagliflozin, a dual inhibitor of SGLT1 and SGLT2. A targeted literature review was conducted to identify diabetes-specific PROs used in randomized controlled clinical trials of novel T1D medications reported over the past 5 years. Included trials had to investigate a pharmaceutical intervention for adults with T1D and report a diabetes-specific PRO. The concepts assessed in the PRO measures were mapped against those elicited during the 41 exit interviews. A total of 336 publications were identified in the literature search of which 26 were eligible for analysis. Eight diabetes-specific PROs were identified and reviewed from which 54 concepts related to the patient experience were identified. The patient exit interviews included 42/54 (78%) of the patient experience-related concepts identified across all 8 PROs from the literature review. Of the 8 PRO instruments, the Diabetes Quality of Life Measure (DQOL) covered the most concepts (18/54, 33%), followed closely by the Audit of the Diabetes-Dependent Quality of Life (ADDQoL; 16/54, 30%). Some of the most prominent concepts from both approaches were related to impact on life and family; fear of complications; and impact on physical activity, lifestyle and social perceptions. There were several concepts identified in the exit interviews that were not covered in any of the 8 PRO instruments (related to keeping blood sugars within a desired range, ability to manage changes in insulin use). Overall, the exit interviews appeared to provide a more comprehensive picture of patient experience domains. Although existing diabetes PRO measures cover a range of concepts and may adequately assess changes in certain outcomes, data from patient exit interviews provide more comprehensive insights into the patient experience. Exit interview data may provide a more detailed understanding of the disease burden and impact of treatment on improvements in well-being, daily functioning, and treatment satisfaction.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7207836
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72078362020-05-13 MON-630 Elevating the Patient Voice in Type 1 Diabetes Clinical Trials: A Comparison of In-Depth Exit Interviews and Diabetes-Specific Questionnaires Ervin, Claire Joish, Vijay N Castro, Colleen DiBenedetti, Dana Evans, Emily Carroll, Amy Lapuerta, Pablo J Endocr Soc Diabetes Mellitus and Glucose Metabolism Healthcare decisions are more effective when the patient voice is included in clinical research, and the Food and Drug Administration encourages the patient’s voice in drug development and regulatory decision-making. Clinical trials should not only demonstrate the effect of a drug on clinical outcomes but should also demonstrate that these outcomes are important or meaningful to patients. Several qualitative and quantitative methods are available to collect patient experience data (e.g., traditional patient-reported outcome [PRO] measures, interviews with clinical trial participants). We aimed to understand if in-depth exit interviews were more effective assessments of the patient experience in recent type 1 diabetes (T1D) clinical trials than existing diabetes-specific PROs. In-depth qualitative interviews were conducted with 41 adults with T1D who had completed or withdrew from a phase 3 study of sotagliflozin, a dual inhibitor of SGLT1 and SGLT2. A targeted literature review was conducted to identify diabetes-specific PROs used in randomized controlled clinical trials of novel T1D medications reported over the past 5 years. Included trials had to investigate a pharmaceutical intervention for adults with T1D and report a diabetes-specific PRO. The concepts assessed in the PRO measures were mapped against those elicited during the 41 exit interviews. A total of 336 publications were identified in the literature search of which 26 were eligible for analysis. Eight diabetes-specific PROs were identified and reviewed from which 54 concepts related to the patient experience were identified. The patient exit interviews included 42/54 (78%) of the patient experience-related concepts identified across all 8 PROs from the literature review. Of the 8 PRO instruments, the Diabetes Quality of Life Measure (DQOL) covered the most concepts (18/54, 33%), followed closely by the Audit of the Diabetes-Dependent Quality of Life (ADDQoL; 16/54, 30%). Some of the most prominent concepts from both approaches were related to impact on life and family; fear of complications; and impact on physical activity, lifestyle and social perceptions. There were several concepts identified in the exit interviews that were not covered in any of the 8 PRO instruments (related to keeping blood sugars within a desired range, ability to manage changes in insulin use). Overall, the exit interviews appeared to provide a more comprehensive picture of patient experience domains. Although existing diabetes PRO measures cover a range of concepts and may adequately assess changes in certain outcomes, data from patient exit interviews provide more comprehensive insights into the patient experience. Exit interview data may provide a more detailed understanding of the disease burden and impact of treatment on improvements in well-being, daily functioning, and treatment satisfaction. Oxford University Press 2020-05-08 /pmc/articles/PMC7207836/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1210/jendso/bvaa046.1290 Text en © Endocrine Society 2020. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial reproduction and distribution of the work, in any medium, provided the original work is not altered or transformed in any way, and that the work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Diabetes Mellitus and Glucose Metabolism
Ervin, Claire
Joish, Vijay N
Castro, Colleen
DiBenedetti, Dana
Evans, Emily
Carroll, Amy
Lapuerta, Pablo
MON-630 Elevating the Patient Voice in Type 1 Diabetes Clinical Trials: A Comparison of In-Depth Exit Interviews and Diabetes-Specific Questionnaires
title MON-630 Elevating the Patient Voice in Type 1 Diabetes Clinical Trials: A Comparison of In-Depth Exit Interviews and Diabetes-Specific Questionnaires
title_full MON-630 Elevating the Patient Voice in Type 1 Diabetes Clinical Trials: A Comparison of In-Depth Exit Interviews and Diabetes-Specific Questionnaires
title_fullStr MON-630 Elevating the Patient Voice in Type 1 Diabetes Clinical Trials: A Comparison of In-Depth Exit Interviews and Diabetes-Specific Questionnaires
title_full_unstemmed MON-630 Elevating the Patient Voice in Type 1 Diabetes Clinical Trials: A Comparison of In-Depth Exit Interviews and Diabetes-Specific Questionnaires
title_short MON-630 Elevating the Patient Voice in Type 1 Diabetes Clinical Trials: A Comparison of In-Depth Exit Interviews and Diabetes-Specific Questionnaires
title_sort mon-630 elevating the patient voice in type 1 diabetes clinical trials: a comparison of in-depth exit interviews and diabetes-specific questionnaires
topic Diabetes Mellitus and Glucose Metabolism
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7207836/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1210/jendso/bvaa046.1290
work_keys_str_mv AT ervinclaire mon630elevatingthepatientvoiceintype1diabetesclinicaltrialsacomparisonofindepthexitinterviewsanddiabetesspecificquestionnaires
AT joishvijayn mon630elevatingthepatientvoiceintype1diabetesclinicaltrialsacomparisonofindepthexitinterviewsanddiabetesspecificquestionnaires
AT castrocolleen mon630elevatingthepatientvoiceintype1diabetesclinicaltrialsacomparisonofindepthexitinterviewsanddiabetesspecificquestionnaires
AT dibenedettidana mon630elevatingthepatientvoiceintype1diabetesclinicaltrialsacomparisonofindepthexitinterviewsanddiabetesspecificquestionnaires
AT evansemily mon630elevatingthepatientvoiceintype1diabetesclinicaltrialsacomparisonofindepthexitinterviewsanddiabetesspecificquestionnaires
AT carrollamy mon630elevatingthepatientvoiceintype1diabetesclinicaltrialsacomparisonofindepthexitinterviewsanddiabetesspecificquestionnaires
AT lapuertapablo mon630elevatingthepatientvoiceintype1diabetesclinicaltrialsacomparisonofindepthexitinterviewsanddiabetesspecificquestionnaires