Cargando…
Review of patient-reported outcomes in multiple myeloma registrational trials: highlighting areas for improvement
Over the past 13 years, there have been advances in characterizing the patient experience in oncology trials, primarily using patient-reported outcomes (PROs). This review aims to provide details on the PRO measures and analyses used in multiple myeloma (MM) registrational trials. We identified regi...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Nature Publishing Group UK
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8408214/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34465728 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41408-021-00543-y |
_version_ | 1783746780912943104 |
---|---|
author | Fernandes, Laura L. Zhou, Jiaxi Kanapuru, Bindu Horodniceanu, Erica Gwise, Thomas Kluetz, Paul G. Bhatnagar, Vishal |
author_facet | Fernandes, Laura L. Zhou, Jiaxi Kanapuru, Bindu Horodniceanu, Erica Gwise, Thomas Kluetz, Paul G. Bhatnagar, Vishal |
author_sort | Fernandes, Laura L. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Over the past 13 years, there have been advances in characterizing the patient experience in oncology trials, primarily using patient-reported outcomes (PROs). This review aims to provide details on the PRO measures and analyses used in multiple myeloma (MM) registrational trials. We identified registrational trials supporting MM indications from 2007 to 2020 from FDA databases. Trial protocols, statistical analysis plans, and clinical study reports were reviewed for PRO measures used, collection methods, statistical analyses, baseline and instrument completion definitions, and thresholds for clinical meaningfulness. Twenty-five trials supporting 20 MM indications were identified; 17 (68%) contained submitted PRO data. Of the 17 trials, 14 were randomized controlled trials and the remainder were single-arm trials. All but one trial were open label trials. Seven trials collected data electronically and five in paper format. The majority of trials evaluated at least two PRO measures (82%) with two trials (12%) utilizing four measures. Nine unique PRO measures were used, most commonly the EORTC QLQ-30 (87%), EQ-5D (65%), and QLQ-MY20 (47%). All 17 (100%) trials provided descriptive summaries, 10 (59%) carried out longitudinal mixed model analysis, 9 (53%) conducted responder analysis, and 2 (12%) did a basic inferential test. We noted substantial heterogeneity in terms of PRO collection methods, measures, definitions, and analyses, which may hinder the ability to effectively capture and interpret patient experience in future MM clinical trials. Further research is needed to determine the most appropriate approaches for statistical and analytical methodologies for PRO data in MM trials. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8408214 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | Nature Publishing Group UK |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-84082142021-09-16 Review of patient-reported outcomes in multiple myeloma registrational trials: highlighting areas for improvement Fernandes, Laura L. Zhou, Jiaxi Kanapuru, Bindu Horodniceanu, Erica Gwise, Thomas Kluetz, Paul G. Bhatnagar, Vishal Blood Cancer J Article Over the past 13 years, there have been advances in characterizing the patient experience in oncology trials, primarily using patient-reported outcomes (PROs). This review aims to provide details on the PRO measures and analyses used in multiple myeloma (MM) registrational trials. We identified registrational trials supporting MM indications from 2007 to 2020 from FDA databases. Trial protocols, statistical analysis plans, and clinical study reports were reviewed for PRO measures used, collection methods, statistical analyses, baseline and instrument completion definitions, and thresholds for clinical meaningfulness. Twenty-five trials supporting 20 MM indications were identified; 17 (68%) contained submitted PRO data. Of the 17 trials, 14 were randomized controlled trials and the remainder were single-arm trials. All but one trial were open label trials. Seven trials collected data electronically and five in paper format. The majority of trials evaluated at least two PRO measures (82%) with two trials (12%) utilizing four measures. Nine unique PRO measures were used, most commonly the EORTC QLQ-30 (87%), EQ-5D (65%), and QLQ-MY20 (47%). All 17 (100%) trials provided descriptive summaries, 10 (59%) carried out longitudinal mixed model analysis, 9 (53%) conducted responder analysis, and 2 (12%) did a basic inferential test. We noted substantial heterogeneity in terms of PRO collection methods, measures, definitions, and analyses, which may hinder the ability to effectively capture and interpret patient experience in future MM clinical trials. Further research is needed to determine the most appropriate approaches for statistical and analytical methodologies for PRO data in MM trials. Nature Publishing Group UK 2021-08-31 /pmc/articles/PMC8408214/ /pubmed/34465728 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41408-021-00543-y Text en © This is a U.S. government work and not under copyright protection in the U.S.; foreign copyright protection may apply 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Article Fernandes, Laura L. Zhou, Jiaxi Kanapuru, Bindu Horodniceanu, Erica Gwise, Thomas Kluetz, Paul G. Bhatnagar, Vishal Review of patient-reported outcomes in multiple myeloma registrational trials: highlighting areas for improvement |
title | Review of patient-reported outcomes in multiple myeloma registrational trials: highlighting areas for improvement |
title_full | Review of patient-reported outcomes in multiple myeloma registrational trials: highlighting areas for improvement |
title_fullStr | Review of patient-reported outcomes in multiple myeloma registrational trials: highlighting areas for improvement |
title_full_unstemmed | Review of patient-reported outcomes in multiple myeloma registrational trials: highlighting areas for improvement |
title_short | Review of patient-reported outcomes in multiple myeloma registrational trials: highlighting areas for improvement |
title_sort | review of patient-reported outcomes in multiple myeloma registrational trials: highlighting areas for improvement |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8408214/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34465728 http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41408-021-00543-y |
work_keys_str_mv | AT fernandeslaural reviewofpatientreportedoutcomesinmultiplemyelomaregistrationaltrialshighlightingareasforimprovement AT zhoujiaxi reviewofpatientreportedoutcomesinmultiplemyelomaregistrationaltrialshighlightingareasforimprovement AT kanapurubindu reviewofpatientreportedoutcomesinmultiplemyelomaregistrationaltrialshighlightingareasforimprovement AT horodniceanuerica reviewofpatientreportedoutcomesinmultiplemyelomaregistrationaltrialshighlightingareasforimprovement AT gwisethomas reviewofpatientreportedoutcomesinmultiplemyelomaregistrationaltrialshighlightingareasforimprovement AT kluetzpaulg reviewofpatientreportedoutcomesinmultiplemyelomaregistrationaltrialshighlightingareasforimprovement AT bhatnagarvishal reviewofpatientreportedoutcomesinmultiplemyelomaregistrationaltrialshighlightingareasforimprovement |