Perception of burden of oral and inhaled corticosteroid adverse effects on asthma-specific quality of life.

BACKGROUND: A multistakeholder core outcome set created for asthma trials showed that asthma-specific quality of life (QoL) was a critically meaningful outcome. However, the definition and measurement methods were undetermined. The adverse effects (AEs) of corticosteroids may be a vital clinical trial outcome. Nevertheless, the AE burden from the patient perspective has not yet been elucidated in an asthma population. OBJECTIVE: To characterize patient burden of AEs in oral (OCS) and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) and how this relates to QoL within an asthma population. METHODS: We used a convergent parallel mixed-methods design with quantitative surveys of known ICS and OCS AEs that were distributed through the Allergy & Asthma Network database, social channels, and the Asthma UK newsletter. Participants rated the AEs that were (1) most burdensome and (2) most desired to be eliminated. Qualitative interviews and focus groups were performed to better understand patient views on barriers reported in the quantitative data, and to identify patient-important barriers that were not a part of the quantitative survey. RESULTS: The 3 most burdensome AEs for OCS were bone mineral density, infectious complications, and weight gain, whereas weight gain was the most desired to be eliminated. The 3 most burdensome AEs for ICS were pneumonia, hoarse voice, and oral thrush, with concordant results for the most desired to be eliminated. In the focus groups, OCS AEs were concordant with quantitative findings. Focus groups identified unmeasured psychosocial effects, such as embarrassment. CONCLUSION: The most burdensome AEs may not be those that would cause patients to stop therapy. Furthermore, qualitative focus groups suggest a psychosocial burden associated with ICS, which needs further investigation.

A multistakeholder Delphi consensus core outcome set for clinical trials in moderate-to-severe asthma (coreASTHMA).

BACKGROUND: Treatments for long-term control of asthma have improved and include a promising but expensive class of biologic therapies. However, the clinical trials evaluating these and other novel treatments have used a variety of different outcomes to evaluate efficacy. The evolution of asthma care calls for a re-examination of outcomes that are most important to patients and other stakeholders. OBJECTIVE: To develop a core set of outcomes to be measured in phase 3 and phase 4 clinical drug trials in patients with moderate-to-severe asthma. METHODS: We used a robust and in-depth multistakeholder consensus process bringing together patients, clinicians, regulators, payers, health technology assessors, researchers, and product developers to reach consensus on outcomes. We used a modified Delphi method to reach consensus, an approach adapted from the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials Initiative aligned with contemporary methodological standards for core outcome set development. RESULTS: The following outcomes were included in the final core set: severe asthma exacerbation, change in asthma control, asthma-specific or severe asthma-specific quality of life, asthma-specific hospital stay (ie, >24-hour stays at any level of care) or admission, and asthma-specific emergency department visit. CONCLUSION: These 5 outcomes represent a minimum set of core outcomes for use in phase 3 and phase 4 clinical drug trials in moderate-to-severe asthma. Consistent collection of these outcomes as minimum, independent of whether additional heterogeneous primary or secondary outcomes are included, will allow for meaningful comparisons of the effect of asthma therapies across clinical trials.

The asthma evidence base: a call for core outcomes in interventional trials.

OBJECTIVES: Biologic therapies are emerging as an option to treat a subset of patients with severe asthma, however no direct comparison between these agents has been conducted. Furthermore, heterogeneity of outcomes in clinical trials makes it difficult to compare these agents and traditional therapies. The extent to which this heterogeneity exists has major implications for evidence-based decisions and is yet to be fully reported. We conducted a literature search to examine outcomes currently being used in clinical trials for asthma. DATA SOURCES: The Cochrane Library and Clinicaltrials.gov were searched for clinical trials of asthma interventions. STUDY SELECTIONS: We limited our search to phase 2 through 4 clinical trials in adults, as early-phase trials tend to have pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic endpoints as primary outcomes. Interventions for acute exacerbations were excluded. RESULTS: We identified 117 studies and subsequently identified 111 outcomes. The most prevalent outcomes were asthma control and symptom severity, FEV1, and change in ACQ scale. Twenty patient-reported outcomes instruments were identified and de-facto standard asthma outcomes and PROs were under-reported in examined literature. Existing quality of life tools did not capture the day-to-day experience or the unique treatment burden from oral corticosteroids for patient with severe asthma. Compounding the absence of trials directly comparing therapies, the significant variation we identified in outcome definitions and measurement create hurdles to effectively compare traditional and biologic therapies. CONCLUSION: With the growing number of clinical trials evaluating advanced therapies such as biologics, a wide range of primary and secondary outcomes are evaluated. A core outcome set created by relevant stakeholders is needed to collectively evaluate pooled outcomes in order to allow more meaningful comparisons of asthma therapies and to incorporate the patient experience.

Addressing heterogenous outcomes in uterine fibroid research: a call to action.

Uterine fibroid tumors are the most common benign pelvic tumors in women, with complications that include heavy menstrual bleeding, pelvic pain, reproductive complications, and bulk-related symptoms. Although the majority of uterine fibroid tumors are asymptomatic, those women who experience symptoms can experience substantial burdens on quality of life and daily functioning. Comparative effectiveness reviews of available medical, surgical, and radiologic treatments have found that a lack of high-quality data to inform treatment decisions is, in part, due to the use of heterogeneous outcomes and instruments in clinical studies. With multiple new interventions emerging, this call-to-action encourages the development and use of a core outcome set that will capture the most relevant, patient-important outcomes in late-phase and after-marketing therapeutic trials for uterine fibroid tumors. The core outcome set should be developed by a diverse, multistakeholder group comprised of key healthcare decision-makers. Development and uptake of a core outcome set ensures that a consistent, collaboratively vetted set of outcomes will be accessible across different studies and promotes transparency for innovators who seek to anticipate the evidence needs of patients, providers, payers, regulators, and other stakeholders.