Predictors of quality of life, functional status, depression and fatigue in early arthritis: comparison between clinically suspect arthralgia, unclassified arthritis and rheumatoid arthritis.

BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is often preceded by symptomatic phases during which classification criteria are not fulfilled. The health burden of these "at-risk" stages is not well described. This study assessed health-related quality of life (HRQoL), function, fatigue and depression in newly presenting patients with clinically suspect arthralgia (CSA), unclassified arthritis (UA) or RA. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis of baseline Patient-Reported Outcome Measures (PROMs) was conducted in patients from the Birmingham Early Arthritis Cohort. HRQoL, function, depression and fatigue at presentation were assessed using EQ-5D, HAQ-DI, PHQ-9 and FACIT-F. PROMs were compared across CSA, UA and RA and with population averages from the HSE with descriptive statistics. Multivariate linear regression assessed associations between PROMs and clinical and sociodemographic variables. RESULTS: Of 838 patients included in the analysis, 484 had RA, 200 had CSA and 154 had UA. Patients with RA reported worse outcomes for all PROMs than those with CSA or UA. However, "mean EQ-5D utilities were 0.65 (95%CI: 0.61 to 0.69) in CSA, 0.61 (0.56 to 0.66) in UA and 0.47 (0.44 to 0.50) in RA, which was lower than in general and older (≥ 65 years) background populations." In patients with CSA or UA, HRQoL was comparable to chronic conditions such as heart failure, severe COPD or mild angina. Higher BMI and older age (≥ 60 years) predicted worse depression (PHQ-9: -2.47 (-3.85 to -1.09), P < 0.001) and fatigue (FACIT-F: 5.05 (2.37 to 7.73), P < 0.001). Women were more likely to report worse function (HAQ-DI: 0.13 (0.03 to 0.21), P = 0.01) and fatigue (FACIT-F: -3.64 (-5.59 to -1.70), P < 0.001), and residents of more deprived areas experienced decreased function (HAQ-DI: 0.23 (0.10 to 0.36), P = 0.001), greater depression (PHQ-9: 1.89 (0.59 to 3.18), P = 0.004) and fatigue (FACIT-F: -2.60 (-5.11 to 0.09), P = 0.04). After adjustments for confounding factors, diagnostic category was not associated with PROMs, but disease activity and polypharmacy were associated with poorer performance across all PROMs. CONCLUSIONS: Patient-reported outcomes were associated with disease activity and sociodemographic characteristics. Patients presenting with RA reported a higher health burden than those with CSA or UA, however HRQoL in the pre-RA groups was significantly lower than population averages.

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.

[Special issue PRO] Considering endpoints for comparative tolerability of cancer treatments using patient report given the estimand framework.

Regulatory agencies are advancing the use of systematic approaches to collect patient experience data, including patient-reported outcomes (PROs), in cancer clinical trials to inform regulatory decision-making. Due in part to clinician under-reporting of symptomatic adverse events, there is a growing recognition that evaluation of cancer treatment tolerability should include the patient experience, both in terms of the overall side effect impact and symptomatic adverse events. Methodologies around implementation, analysis, and interpretation of "patient" reported tolerability are under development, and current approaches are largely descriptive. There is robust guidance for use of PROs as efficacy endpoints to compare cancer treatments, but it is unclear to what extent this can be relied-upon to develop tolerability endpoints. An important consideration when developing endpoints to compare tolerability between treatments is the linkage of trial design, objectives, and statistical analysis. Despite interest in and frequent collection of PRO data in oncology trials, heterogeneity in analyses and unclear PRO objectives mean that design, objectives, and analysis may not be aligned, posing substantial challenges for the interpretation of results. The recent ICH E9 (R1) estimand framework represents an opportunity to help address these challenges. Efforts to apply the estimand framework in the context of PROs have primarily focused on efficacy outcomes. In this paper, we discuss considerations for comparing the patient-reported tolerability of different treatments in an oncology trial context.

Directrices para presentación de informes de ensayos clínicos sobre intervenciones con inteligencia artificial: extensión CONSORT-AI / Reporting guidelines for clinical trial reports for interventions involving artificial intelligence: the CONSORT-AI extension / Diretrizes para relatórios de ensaios clínicos com intervenções que utilizam inteligência artificial: a extensão CONSORT-AI

resumen está disponible en el texto completo

ABSTRACT The CONSORT 2010 statement provides minimum guidelines for reporting randomized trials. Its widespread use has been instrumental in ensuring transparency in the evaluation of new interventions. More recently, there has been a growing recognition that interventions involving artificial intelligence (AI) need to undergo rigorous, prospective evaluation to demonstrate impact on health outcomes. The CONSORT-AI (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Artificial Intelligence) extension is a new reporting guideline for clinical trials evaluating interventions with an AI component. It was developed in parallel with its companion statement for clinical trial protocols: SPIRIT-AI (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials-Artificial Intelligence). Both guidelines were developed through a staged consensus process involving literature review and expert consultation to generate 29 candidate items, which were assessed by an international multi-stakeholder group in a two-stage Delphi survey (103 stakeholders), agreed upon in a two-day consensus meeting (31 stakeholders) and refined through a checklist pilot (34 participants). The CONSORT-AI extension includes 14 new items that were considered sufficiently important for AI interventions that they should be routinely reported in addition to the core CONSORT 2010 items. CONSORT-AI recommends that investigators provide clear descriptions of the AI intervention, including instructions and skills required for use, the setting in which the AI intervention is integrated, the handling of inputs and outputs of the AI intervention, the human-AI interaction and provision of an analysis of error cases. CONSORT-AI will help promote transparency and completeness in reporting clinical trials for AI interventions. It will assist editors and peer reviewers, as well as the general readership, to understand, interpret and critically appraise the quality of clinical trial design and risk of bias in the reported outcomes.

RESUMO A declaração CONSORT 2010 apresenta diretrizes mínimas para relatórios de ensaios clínicos randomizados. Seu uso generalizado tem sido fundamental para garantir a transparência na avaliação de novas intervenções. Recentemente, tem-se reconhecido cada vez mais que intervenções que incluem inteligência artificial (IA) precisam ser submetidas a uma avaliação rigorosa e prospectiva para demonstrar seus impactos sobre os resultados de saúde. A extensão CONSORT-AI (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials - Artificial Intelligence) é uma nova diretriz para relatórios de ensaios clínicos que avaliam intervenções com um componente de IA. Ela foi desenvolvida em paralelo à sua declaração complementar para protocolos de ensaios clínicos, a SPIRIT-AI (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials - Artificial Intelligence). Ambas as diretrizes foram desenvolvidas por meio de um processo de consenso em etapas que incluiu revisão da literatura e consultas a especialistas para gerar 29 itens candidatos. Foram feitas consultas sobre esses itens a um grupo internacional composto por 103 interessados diretos, que participaram de uma pesquisa Delphi em duas etapas. Chegou-se a um acordo sobre os itens em uma reunião de consenso que incluiu 31 interessados diretos, e os itens foram refinados por meio de uma lista de verificação piloto que envolveu 34 participantes. A extensão CONSORT-AI inclui 14 itens novos que, devido à sua importância para as intervenções de IA, devem ser informados rotineiramente juntamente com os itens básicos da CONSORT 2010. A CONSORT-AI preconiza que os pesquisadores descrevam claramente a intervenção de IA, incluindo instruções e as habilidades necessárias para seu uso, o contexto no qual a intervenção de IA está inserida, considerações sobre o manuseio dos dados de entrada e saída da intervenção de IA, a interação humano-IA e uma análise dos casos de erro. A CONSORT-AI ajudará a promover a transparência e a integralidade nos relatórios de ensaios clínicos com intervenções que utilizam IA. Seu uso ajudará editores e revisores, bem como leitores em geral, a entender, interpretar e avaliar criticamente a qualidade do desenho do ensaio clínico e o risco de viés nos resultados relatados.

Directrices para los protocolos de ensayos clínicos de intervenciones con inteligencia artificial: la extensión SPIRIT-AI / Guidelines for clinical trial protocols for interventions involving artificial intelligence: the SPIRIT-AI extension / Diretrizes para protocolos de ensaios clínicos com intervenções que utilizam inteligência artificial: a extensão SPIRIT-AI

resumen está disponible en el texto completo

ABSTRACT The SPIRIT 2013 statement aims to improve the completeness of clinical trial protocol reporting by providing evidence-based recommendations for the minimum set of items to be addressed. This guidance has been instrumental in promoting transparent evaluation of new interventions. More recently, there has been a growing recognition that interventions involving artificial intelligence (AI) need to undergo rigorous, prospective evaluation to demonstrate their impact on health outcomes. The SPIRIT-AI (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials-Artificial Intelligence) extension is a new reporting guideline for clinical trial protocols evaluating interventions with an AI component. It was developed in parallel with its companion statement for trial reports: CONSORT-AI (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Artificial Intelligence). Both guidelines were developed through a staged consensus process involving literature review and expert consultation to generate 26 candidate items, which were consulted upon by an international multi-stakeholder group in a two-stage Delphi survey (103 stakeholders), agreed upon in a consensus meeting (31 stakeholders) and refined through a checklist pilot (34 participants). The SPIRIT-AI extension includes 15 new items that were considered sufficiently important for clinical trial protocols of AI interventions. These new items should be routinely reported in addition to the core SPIRIT 2013 items. SPIRIT-AI recommends that investigators provide clear descriptions of the AI intervention, including instructions and skills required for use, the setting in which the AI intervention will be integrated, considerations for the handling of input and output data, the human-AI interaction and analysis of error cases. SPIRIT-AI will help promote transparency and completeness for clinical trial protocols for AI interventions. Its use will assist editors and peer reviewers, as well as the general readership, to understand, interpret and critically appraise the design and risk of bias for a planned clinical trial.

RESUMO A declaração SPIRIT 2013 tem como objetivo melhorar a integralidade dos relatórios dos protocolos de ensaios clínicos, fornecendo recomendações baseadas em evidências para o conjunto mínimo de itens que devem ser abordados. Essas orientações têm sido fundamentais para promover uma avaliação transparente de novas intervenções. Recentemente, tem-se reconhecido cada vez mais que intervenções que incluem inteligência artificial (IA) precisam ser submetidas a uma avaliação rigorosa e prospectiva para demonstrar seus impactos sobre os resultados de saúde. A extensão SPIRIT-AI (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials - Artificial Intelligence) é uma nova diretriz de relatório para protocolos de ensaios clínicos que avaliam intervenções com um componente de IA. Essa diretriz foi desenvolvida em paralelo à sua declaração complementar para relatórios de ensaios clínicos, CONSORT-AI (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials - Artificial Intelligence). Ambas as diretrizes foram desenvolvidas por meio de um processo de consenso em etapas que incluiu revisão da literatura e consultas a especialistas para gerar 26 itens candidatos. Foram feitas consultas sobre esses itens a um grupo internacional composto por 103 interessados diretos, que participaram de uma pesquisa Delphi em duas etapas. Chegou-se a um acordo sobre os itens em uma reunião de consenso que incluiu 31 interessados diretos, e os itens foram refinados por meio de uma lista de verificação piloto que envolveu 34 participantes. A extensão SPIRIT-AI inclui 15 itens novos que foram considerados suficientemente importantes para os protocolos de ensaios clínicos com intervenções que utilizam IA. Esses itens novos devem constar dos relatórios de rotina, juntamente com os itens básicos da SPIRIT 2013. A SPIRIT-AI preconiza que os pesquisadores descrevam claramente a intervenção de IA, incluindo instruções e as habilidades necessárias para seu uso, o contexto no qual a intervenção de IA será integrada, considerações sobre o manuseio dos dados de entrada e saída, a interação humano-IA e a análise de casos de erro. A SPIRIT-AI ajudará a promover a transparência e a integralidade nos protocolos de ensaios clínicos com intervenções que utilizam IA. Seu uso ajudará editores e revisores, bem como leitores em geral, a entender, interpretar e avaliar criticamente o delineamento e o risco de viés de um futuro estudo clínico.

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.

More and more patients tell clinicians how they feel by completing questionnaires electronically. Therefore, it is important to assess how easy it is for patients to do this. In this study, we describe how we developed an electronic platform for patients to report their symptoms and how we tested the usability of this platform with patient partners and research nurses. Once the electronic platform was developed, quality of life and symptoms questionnaires were programmed onto it. Alerts were sent to the clinical team if specific scores were obtained on the symptoms questionnaires. Although two patient partners were not able to finish the testing session because of technical issues, the ones who completed the session liked its simplicity and responsiveness. The research nurses also liked the system and only suggested minor modifications. Following this testing, we refined the electronic platform to test it further in a larger study which investigates the safety and use of a drug. We hope that thanks to this electronic platform, we will obtain useful information on the safety and efficacy of treatment.

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.

Perspectives on Patient-Reported Outcome Data After Treatment Discontinuation in Cancer Clinical Trials.

OBJECTIVES: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) data are critical in understanding treatments from the patient perspective in cancer clinical trials. The potential benefits and methodological approaches to the collection of PRO data after treatment discontinuation (eg, because of progressive disease or unacceptable drug toxicity) are less clear. The purpose of this article is to describe the Food and Drug Administration's Oncology Center of Excellence and the Critical Path Institute cosponsored 2-hour virtual roundtable, held in 2020, to discuss this specific issue. METHODS: We summarize key points from this discussion with 16 stakeholders representing academia, clinical practice, patients, international regulatory agencies, health technology assessment bodies/payers, industry, and PRO instrument development. RESULTS: Stakeholders recognized that any PRO data collection after treatment discontinuation should have clearly defined objectives to ensure that data can be analyzed and reported. CONCLUSIONS: Data collection after discontinuation without a justification for its use wastes patients' time and effort and is unethical.

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.

"I just wanted to speak to someone- and there was no one ": using Burden of Treatment Theory to understand the impact of a novel ATMP on early recipients.

BACKGROUND: Advanced therapy medicinal products such as Chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy offer ground-breaking opportunities for the treatment of various cancers, inherited diseases, and chronic conditions. With development of these novel therapies continuing to increase it's important to learn from the experiences of patients who were among the first recipients of ATMPs. In this way we can improve the clinical and psychosocial support offered to early patient recipients in the future to support the successful completion of treatments and trials. STUDY DESIGN: We conducted a qualitative investigation informed by the principles of the key informant technique to capture the experience of some of the first patients to experience CAR-T therapy in the UK. A directed content analysis was used to populate a theoretical framework informed by Burden of Treatment Theory to determine the lessons that can be learnt in supporting their care, support, and ongoing self-management. RESULTS: A total of five key informants were interviewed. Their experiences were described within the three domains of the burden of treatment framework; (1) The health care tasks delegated to patients, Participants described the frequency of follow-up and the resources involved, the esoteric nature of the information provided by clinicians; (2) Exacerbating factors of the treatment, which notably included the lack of understanding of the clinical impacts of the treatment in the broader health service, and the lack of a peer network to support patient understanding; (3) Consequences of the treatment, in which they described the anxiety induced by the process surrounding their selection for treatment, and the feeling of loneliness and isolation at being amongst the very first recipients. CONCLUSIONS: If ATMPs are to be successfully introduced at the rates forecast, then it is important that the burden placed on early recipients is minimised. We have discovered how they can feel emotionally isolated, clinically vulnerable, and structurally unsupported by a disparate and pressured health service. We recommend that where possible, structured peer support be put in place alongside signposting to additional information that includes the planned pattern of follow-up, and the management of discharged patients would ideally accommodate individual circumstances and preferences to minimize the burden of treatment.

Recommendations on the use of item libraries for patient-reported outcome measurement in oncology trials: findings from an international, multidisciplinary working group.

The use of item libraries for patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurement in oncology allows for the customisation of PRO assessment to measure key health-related quality of life concepts of relevance to the target population and intervention. However, no high-level recommendations exist to guide users on the design and implementation of these customised PRO measures (item lists) across different PRO measurement systems. To address this issue, a working group was set up, including international stakeholders (academic, independent, industry, health technology assessment, regulatory, and patient advocacy), with the goal of creating recommendations for the use of item libraries in oncology trials. A scoping review was carried out to identify relevant publications and highlight any gaps. Stakeholders commented on the available guidance for each research question, proposed recommendations on how to address gaps in the literature, and came to an agreement using discussion-based methods. Nine primary research questions were identified that formed the scope and structure of the recommendations on how to select items and implement item lists created from item libraries. These recommendations address methods to drive item selection, plan the structure and analysis of item lists, and facilitate their use in conjunction with other measures. The findings resulted in high-level, instrument-agnostic recommendations on the use of item-library-derived item lists in oncology trials.

Directrices para los protocolos de ensayos clínicos de intervenciones con inteligencia artificial: la extensión SPIRIT-AI / Guidelines for clinical trial protocols for interventions involving artificial intelligence: the SPIRIT-AI extension / Diretrizes para protocolos de ensaios clínicos com intervenções que utilizam inteligência artificial: a extensão SPIRIT-AI

resumen está disponible en el texto completo

ABSTRACT The SPIRIT 2013 statement aims to improve the completeness of clinical trial protocol reporting by providing evidence-based recommendations for the minimum set of items to be addressed. This guidance has been instrumental in promoting transparent evaluation of new interventions. More recently, there has been a growing recognition that interventions involving artificial intelligence (AI) need to undergo rigorous, prospective evaluation to demonstrate their impact on health outcomes. The SPIRIT-AI (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials-Artificial Intelligence) extension is a new reporting guideline for clinical trial protocols evaluating interventions with an AI component. It was developed in parallel with its companion statement for trial reports: CONSORT-AI (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials-Artificial Intelligence). Both guidelines were developed through a staged consensus process involving literature review and expert consultation to generate 26 candidate items, which were consulted upon by an international multi-stakeholder group in a two-stage Delphi survey (103 stakeholders), agreed upon in a consensus meeting (31 stakeholders) and refined through a checklist pilot (34 participants). The SPIRIT-AI extension includes 15 new items that were considered sufficiently important for clinical trial protocols of AI interventions. These new items should be routinely reported in addition to the core SPIRIT 2013 items. SPIRIT-AI recommends that investigators provide clear descriptions of the AI intervention, including instructions and skills required for use, the setting in which the AI intervention will be integrated, considerations for the handling of input and output data, the human-AI interaction and analysis of error cases. SPIRIT-AI will help promote transparency and completeness for clinical trial protocols for AI interventions. Its use will assist editors and peer reviewers, as well as the general readership, to understand, interpret and critically appraise the design and risk of bias for a planned clinical trial.

RESUMO A declaração SPIRIT 2013 tem como objetivo melhorar a integralidade dos relatórios dos protocolos de ensaios clínicos, fornecendo recomendações baseadas em evidências para o conjunto mínimo de itens que devem ser abordados. Essas orientações têm sido fundamentais para promover uma avaliação transparente de novas intervenções. Recentemente, tem-se reconhecido cada vez mais que intervenções que incluem inteligência artificial (IA) precisam ser submetidas a uma avaliação rigorosa e prospectiva para demonstrar seus impactos sobre os resultados de saúde. A extensão SPIRIT-AI (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials - Artificial Intelligence) é uma nova diretriz de relatório para protocolos de ensaios clínicos que avaliam intervenções com um componente de IA. Essa diretriz foi desenvolvida em paralelo à sua declaração complementar para relatórios de ensaios clínicos, CONSORT-AI (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials - Artificial Intelligence). Ambas as diretrizes foram desenvolvidas por meio de um processo de consenso em etapas que incluiu revisão da literatura e consultas a especialistas para gerar 26 itens candidatos. Foram feitas consultas sobre esses itens a um grupo internacional composto por 103 interessados diretos, que participaram de uma pesquisa Delphi em duas etapas. Chegou-se a um acordo sobre os itens em uma reunião de consenso que incluiu 31 interessados diretos, e os itens foram refinados por meio de uma lista de verificação piloto que envolveu 34 participantes. A extensão SPIRIT-AI inclui 15 itens novos que foram considerados suficientemente importantes para os protocolos de ensaios clínicos com intervenções que utilizam IA. Esses itens novos devem constar dos relatórios de rotina, juntamente com os itens básicos da SPIRIT 2013. A SPIRIT-AI preconiza que os pesquisadores descrevam claramente a intervenção de IA, incluindo instruções e as habilidades necessárias para seu uso, o contexto no qual a intervenção de IA será integrada, considerações sobre o manuseio dos dados de entrada e saída, a interação humano-IA e a análise de casos de erro. A SPIRIT-AI ajudará a promover a transparência e a integralidade nos protocolos de ensaios clínicos com intervenções que utilizam IA. Seu uso ajudará editores e revisores, bem como leitores em geral, a entender, interpretar e avaliar criticamente o delineamento e o risco de viés de um futuro estudo clínico.

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.

Listening to the Patient Voice Adds Value to Cancer Clinical Trials.

Randomized clinical trials are critical for evaluating the safety and efficacy of interventions in oncology and informing regulatory decisions, practice guidelines, and health policy. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in randomized trials to reflect the impact of receiving cancer therapies from the patient perspective and can inform evaluations of interventions by providing evidence that cannot be obtained or deduced from clinicians' reports or from other biomedical measures. This commentary focuses on how PROs add value to clinical trials by representing the patient voice. We employed 2 previously published descriptive frameworks (addressing how PROs are used in clinical trials and how PROs have an impact, respectively) and selected 9 clinical trial publications that illustrate the value of PROs according to the framework categories. These include 3 trials where PROs were a primary trial endpoint, 3 trials where PROs as secondary endpoints supported the primary endpoint, and 3 trials where PROs as secondary endpoints contrast the primary endpoint findings in clinically important ways. The 9 examples illustrate that PROs add valuable data to the care and treatment context by informing future patients about how they may feel and function on different treatments and by providing clinicians with evidence to support changes to clinical practice and shared decision making. Beyond the patient and clinician, PROs can enable administrators to consider the cost-effectiveness of implementing new interventions and contribute vital information to policy makers, health technology assessors, and regulators. These examples provide a strong case for the wider implementation of PROs in cancer trials.

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.

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.

Impact of Blinding on Patient-Reported Outcome Differences Between Treatment Arms in Cancer Randomized Controlled Trials.

Some concerns have been raised about potential bias in patient-reported outcome (PRO) results from open-label cancer randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We investigated if open-label trials favor the experimental treatment over the standard treatment more frequently than blinded trials. We also examined if the effect of blinding differs for distal vs more proximal PROs. We assessed 538 RCTs with a PRO endpoint conducted in the most prevalent cancers, of which 366 (68.0%) were open-label, 148 (27.5%) were blinded, and 24 (4.5%) were categorized as unclear. In our multivariable logistic regression model, we did not observe a statistically significant association of the independent variable treatment concealment (blinded vs open-label) on the dependent variable measuring the proportion of trials favoring the experimental treatment (adjusted odds ratio = 1.19, 95% confidence interval = 0.79 to 1.79; 2-sided P = .40). This was also the case when comparing distal and proximal PROs. Our findings provide novel evidence-based data that support the validity of PRO results from open-label cancer RCTs.

International perspectives on suboptimal patient-reported outcome trial design and reporting in cancer clinical trials: A qualitative study.

PURPOSE: Evidence suggests that the patient-reported outcome (PRO) content of cancer trial protocols is frequently inadequate and non-reporting of PRO findings is widespread. This qualitative study examined the factors influencing suboptimal PRO protocol content, implementation, and reporting, and use of PRO data during clinical interactions. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with four stakeholder groups: (1) trialists and chief investigators; (2) people with lived experience of cancer; (3) international experts in PRO cancer trial design; (4) journal editors, funding panelists, and regulatory agencies. Data were analyzed using directed thematic analysis with an iterative coding frame. RESULTS: Forty-four interviews were undertaken. Several factors were identified that could influenced effective integration of PROs into trials and subsequent findings. Participants described (1) late inclusion of PROs in trial design; (2) PROs being considered a lower priority outcome compared to survival; (3) trialists' reluctance to collect or report PROs due to participant burden, missing data, and perceived reticence of journals to publish; (4) lack of staff training. Strategies to address these included training research personnel and improved communication with site staff and patients regarding the value of PROs. Examples of good practice were identified. CONCLUSION: Misconceptions relating to PRO methodology and its use may undermine their planning, collection, and reporting. There is a role for funding, regulatory, methodological, and journalistic institutions to address perceptions around the value of PROs, their position within the trial outcomes hierarchy, that PRO training and guidance is available, signposted, and readily accessible, with accompanying measures to ensure compliance with international best practice guidelines.

Past and Current Practice of Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement in Randomized Cancer Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: In our systematic review, we assessed past and current practice of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurement in cancer randomized, controlled trials (RCTs). METHODS: We included RCTs with PRO endpoints evaluating conventional medical treatments, conducted in patients with the most prevalent solid tumor types (breast, lung, colorectal, prostate, bladder, and gynecological cancers) and either published in 2004 to 2018 or registered on clinicaltrials.gov and initiated in 2014 to 2019. Frequency of use of individual PRO measures was assessed overall, over time, and by cancer site. RESULTS: Screening of 42 095 database records and 3425 registered trials identified 480 published and 537 registered trials meeting inclusion criteria. Among published trials, the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) measures were used most often (54.8% of trials), followed by the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (FACIT) measures (35.8%), the EQ-5D (10.2%), the SF-36 (7.3%), and the MD Anderson Symptom Inventory (MDASI; 2.5%). Among registered trials, the EORTC measures were used in 66.1% of the trials, followed by the FACIT measures (25.9%), the EQ-5D (23.1%), the SF-36 (4.8%), the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE; 2.2%), the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System (PROMIS) measures (1.7%), and the MDASI measures (1.1%). CONCLUSION: The PRO measures most frequently used in RCTs identified in our review differ substantially in terms of content and domains, reflecting the ongoing debate among the scientific community, healthcare providers, and regulators on the type of PRO to be measured. Current findings may contribute to better informing the development of an internationally agreed core outcome set for future cancer trials.

International guidance on the selection of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical trials: a review.

PURPOSE: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in clinical trials to provide patients' perspectives regarding symptoms, health-related quality of life, and satisfaction with treatments. A range of guidance documents exist for the selection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical trials, and it is unclear to what extent these documents present consistent recommendations. METHODS: We conducted a targeted review of publications and regulatory guidance documents that advise on the selection of PROMs for use in clinical trials. A total of seven guidance documents from the US Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, and scientific consortia from professional societies were included in the final review. Guidance documents were analyzed using a content analysis approach comparing them with minimum standards recommended by the International Society for Quality of Life Research. RESULTS: Overall there was substantial agreement between guidance regarding the appropriate considerations for PROM selection within a clinical trial. Variations among the guidance primarily related to differences in their format and differences in the perspectives and mandates of their respective organizations. Whereas scientific consortia tended to produce checklist or rating-type guidance, regulatory groups tended to use more narrative-based approaches sometimes supplemented with lists of criteria. CONCLUSION: The consistency in recommendations suggests an emerging consensus in the field and supports use of any of the major guidance documents available to guide PROM selection for clinical trials without concern of conflicting recommendations. This work represents an important first step in the international PROTEUS Consortium's ongoing efforts to optimize the use of PROs in clinical trials.