RESUMEN
Rationale: The effect of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions on physical activity (PA) outcomes is not fully elucidated in patients with COPD. The objectives of the present study were to provide estimation of treatment effects of all available interventions on PA outcomes in patients with COPD and to provide recommendations regarding the future role of PA outcomes in pharmacological trials. Materials and methods: This review was conducted according to the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and reported in line with PRISMA. Records were identified through searches of 12 scientific databases; the most updated search was performed in January 2023. Results: 74 studies published from 2000 to 2021 were included, with a total of 8140 COPD patients. Forced expiratory volume in 1â s % predicted ranged between 31% and 74%, with a mean of 55%. Steps/day constituted the most frequently assessed PA outcome in interventional studies. Compared to usual care, PA behavioural modification interventions resulted in improvements in the mean (95% CI) steps/day when implemented alone (by 1035 (576-1493); p<0.00001) or alongside exercise training (by 679 (93-1266); p=0.02). Moreover, bronchodilator therapy yielded a favourable difference of 396 (125-668; p=0.004) steps/day, compared to placebo. Conclusions: PA behavioural modification and pharmacological interventions lead to significant improvements in steps/day, compared to control and placebo groups, respectively. Compared to bronchodilator therapy, PA behavioural modification interventions were associated with a 2-fold greater improvement in steps/day. Large-scale pharmacological studies are needed to establish an intervention-specific minimal clinically important difference for PA outcomes as well as their convergent validity to accelerate qualification as potential biomarkers and efficacy end-points for regulatory approval.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Patient-facing digital technologies (also called "Patient Technology" [PT]) have the potential to serve a variety of functions in clinical trials, such as capturing clinical endpoints, engaging patients, and facilitating remote study conduct. However, these technologies are not yet accepted as mainstream research tools, and the opportunities, challenges, and facilitators associated with their implementation in clinical trials have not been fully characterized. METHODS: In order to understand the factors affecting PT adoption, the TransCelerate Patient Technology Initiative conducted a series of surveys, interviews, and focus groups with approximately 600 subject matter experts, including pharmaceutical company representatives, clinical trial investigators at a number of trial sites worldwide, and clinical trial participants. All interview and survey responses were blinded and aggregated by a third-party consultant and themes were extracted. RESULTS: There was general consensus around the potential value of patient-facing technology as a clinical research tool, though a variety of challenges faced by each stakeholder were discussed. Detailed accounts of opportunities (improved patient experience, compliance, and engagement; clinical trial efficiencies; improved data quality and insights) and barriers (organizational and corporate cultural challenges, business-related challenges, user willingness and burden, and regulatory challenges) are reported. CONCLUSIONS: While the barriers to PT adoption explored here were numerous, they were also generally consistent. A number of proposals for establishing more holistic, collaborative, and strategic approaches to PT implementation in clinical trials are discussed. Such approaches could facilitate more effective, widespread adoption of PT, and thereby a more patient-centric clinical trial paradigm.