Early implant placement versus ridge preservation and delayed implant placement: Analysis of profilometric, clinician- and patient-reported outcomes from a two-centre RCT.

OBJECTIVES: To compare early implant placement (EP) to alveolar ridge preservation and delayed implant placement (ARP/DP) in terms of contour changes, along with clinician- and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) until the delivery of the implant-supported restoration. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients with a failing single tooth in the maxilla or mandible were recruited in two centres. After tooth extraction, patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to either EP or ARP/DP. At abutment connection and crown delivery, the buccal contour changes at 3 mm below the mucosal margin (primary outcome) along with clinician- (ease of treatment) and patient-reported outcomes were assessed using numeric rating scales and OHIP-14. RESULTS: A total of 46 patients were analysed. The mean buccal contour at abutment connection decreased by -1.2 ± 0.6 mm in group EP and -1.6 ± 0.8 mm in group ARP/DP (estimated mean difference; 0.45 [95%CI, -0.02; 0.94]; p = .061) with no significant differences between the groups. ARP/DP was consistently easier than EP across all stages of the surgery (estimated mean difference; 2.0 [95%CI, 1.3; 2.7] p < .001): during flap elevation (EP: 4.8 vs. ARP/DP: 1.6), implant placement (EP: 5.7 vs. ARP/DP: 2.2) and wound closure (EP: 3.4 vs. ARP/DP: 1.6). Both interventions improved quality of life but patients who underwent ARP/DP were significantly more satisfied at the time of crown delivery (ARP/DP: 9.6 vs. EP: 9.1, p = .02). CONCLUSIONS: EP and ARP/DP show no significant differences in buccal contour changes, aesthetics and patient-reported outcomes. However, ARP/DP is an easier procedure at all stages of the surgery compared to EP and could therefore be the preferred therapy for less experienced clinicians.

Clinician-Reported Physical and Cognitive Impairments After Convulsive Status Epilepticus: Post Hoc Study of a Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Clinician-reported outcome (ClinRO) measures are emerging as useful contributors to assessments of treatment benefits. The objective of this study was to collect ClinRO measures of physical and cognitive impairments after convulsive status epilepticus (CSE) requiring intensive care unit admission. METHODS: We conducted a post hoc analysis of the data from HYBERNATUS, a multicenter open-label controlled trial that randomized 270 critically ill patients with CSE requiring mechanical ventilation in 11 French intensive care units to therapeutic hypothermia (32-34 °C for 24 h) plus standard care or standard care alone. We included all patients who attended a day 90 in-person neurologist visit with measurement of the functional independence measure (FIM) score (range from 18 [total assistance] to 126 [total independence]), Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score (range 0-30), and Glasgow outcome scale (GOS) score (1, death; 2, vegetative state; 3, severe disability; 4, moderate disability; and 5, mild or no disability). These three scores were compared across groups defined by several patient and CSE characteristics. RESULTS: Of 229 patients with GOS scores ≥ 3 on day 90 (male sex, 58.2%; median age, 56 years [47-67]), 67 (29%) attended an in-person neurologist visit. Twenty-nine (43%) patients had a previous history of epilepsy, and 16 (24%) patients had a primary brain insult. CSE was refractory in 22 (33%) patients. On day 90 after CSE onset, median FIM and MMSE scores were 121 (112-125) and 26.0 (24.0-28.8), respectively. The GOS score was 3 in 16 (33.8%) patients, 4 in 9 (13.4%) patients, and 5 in 42 (62.7%) patients. Worse GOS score values were significantly associated with worse FIM and MMSE scores. CONCLUSIONS: In patients attending the in-person neurologist visit on day 90 after CSE onset, ClinRO measures indicated that the main impairments were cognitive. FIM and MMSE scores were associated with GOS scores. Further studies are needed to evaluate the possible impact of neuroprotective and rehabilitation strategies on disability and cognitive impairments in survivors of CSE. Clinical trial registration NCT01359332.

Correspondence Between Clinician Ratings of Vulvovaginal Health and Patient-Reported Sexual Function After Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Tools for diagnosing sexual dysfunction and for tracking outcomes of interest include clinician interviews, physical exam, and patient self-report. Limited work has described relationships among these three sources of information regarding female sexual dysfunction and vulvovaginal health. AIM: We describe correlations among data collected from clinician interviews, clinical gynecological examination, and patient self-report. METHODS: Data are from a single-site, single-arm, prospective trial in 100 postmenopausal patients with a history of breast or endometrial cancer who sought treatment for vulvovaginal symptoms. The trial collected a standardized clinical gynecologic exam, clinician-reported outcome (ClinRO) measures of vulvovaginal dryness and pain, and patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures of sexual function, including PROMIS Sexual Function and Satisfaction (SexFS) lubrication, vaginal discomfort, labial discomfort, and clitoral discomfort and Female Sexual Function Index (FSFI) lubrication and pain. We examined polyserial correlations between measures with bootstrapped 95% confidence intervals from the baseline and 12-14-week timepoints. RESULTS: All of the relationships between the ClinRO variables and the PRO variables were in the expected direction (ie, positive), but the strength of the relationships varied substantially. At 12-14 weeks, there were medium-to-large correlations between ClinRO vaginal dryness and SexFS Lubrication (0.64), ClinRO vulvar dryness and SexFS Lubrication (0.46), ClinRO vulvar discomfort and SexFS Labial Discomfort (0.70), and ClinRO vulvar discomfort and SexFS Clitoral Discomfort (0.43). With one exception, the correlations between the exam variables and the corresponding PRO scores were small (range 0.01-0.27). STRENGTHS & LIMITATIONS: Our study included a comprehensive, standardized gynecologic exam designed specifically to evaluate sexual dysfunction as well as established PRO measures with significant evidence for validity. A limitation of our findings is that the sample size was relatively small, and our sample was restricted to women who received cancer treatments known to have dramatic effects on vulvovaginal tissue quality. CONCLUSION: Patient- and clinician-reported vulvovaginal dryness and discomfort were moderately correlated with each other but not with clinical gynecologic exam findings. Understanding the relationships among these different types of data highlights the distinct contributions of each to understand vulvovaginal tissue quality and patient sexual function after cancer. Flynn KE, Lin L, Carter J, et al. Correspondence Between Clinician Ratings of Vulvovaginal Health and Patient-Reported Sexual Function After Cancer. J Sex Med 2021;18:1768-1774.

Outcome measures to assess the effectiveness of endodontic treatment for pulpitis and apical periodontitis for use in the development of European Society of Endodontology S3-level clinical practice guidelines: A consensus-based development.

AIMS: The European Society of Endodontology (ESE) is in the process of developing S3-level clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of pulpal and apical disease. In order to support robust systematic literature reviews, appropriate outcome measures (OMs) with minimum follow-up times must first be identified. Hence, the current project aimed to identify the appropriate OMs with minimum/maximum follow-up time to assess the effectiveness of endodontic treatment for pulpitis and apical periodontitis for use in the development of ESE S3-level guidelines through a standard consensus-based methodology. METHODOLOGY: After a literature search, lists of relevant OMs were identified by the guideline development group (GDG) for the treatment of pulpitis (working group [WG] 1), the non-surgical treatment of apical periodontitis (WG 2), the surgical treatment of apical periodontitis (WG 3) and the regenerative treatment of apical periodontitis (WG 4). OMs relevant to each WG were ranked by the 43 members of the GDG in their importance to the patient using a 9-point Likert scale. Items with a score of 7-9 (critical importance) by more than 70% and items with a score of 1-3 (limited importance) by less than 30% of members were included, whereas the items with a score of 1-3 by more than 70% and items with a score of 7-9 by less than 30% were excluded. Several online Delphi meetings established an edited list of only important OMs. The ranked OMs were discussed by the GDG and harmonized to produce 'most critical', 'critical' and 'important' measures. After establishing the final ranked measures, the minimum and maximum length of follow-up related to each OM was defined by the guideline steering group. RESULTS: The Delphi survey took place over two rounds. The patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) 'tooth survival' was rated the 'most critical measure' in all four WGs, while other PROMs including 'pain' and 'need for medication' were considered 'critical', alongside the clinician-reported outcome measures (CROM), 'radiographic assessment'. The PROMs 'The need for further intervention' and 'oral-health-related-quality-of-life' (OHRQoL) were included, but as 'important' not 'critical' measures. Differences occurred between WGs with 'vitality testing' defined as critical in WG1 and 'increased length and width of the root' defined as 'critical' in WG4. A minimum of 1-year and maximum of 'as long as possible' for all OMs were deemed necessary, except 'pain', 'swelling', 'medication' and 'OHRQoL', where shorter follow-up was accepted. CONCLUSIONS: The GDG consensus process established the PROM "tooth survival" as the "most-critical". The identified OMs and length of follow-up will be applied to all the commissioned systematic reviews that will inform the subsequent process when developing the ESE S3-level clinical practice guidelines.

Outcome measures to assess the effectiveness of endodontic treatment for pulpitis and apical periodontitis for use in the development of European Society of Endodontology (ESE) S3 level clinical practice guidelines: a protocol.

The European Society of Endodontology (ESE) is in the process of developing S3Level Clinical Practice Guidelines for the treatment of pulpal and apical disease for the benefit of clinicians and patients. In order to ensure a homogenous review process in the development of the clinical practice guidelines, it is essential that the core outcomes for all endodontic treatments are standardized and recommendations are made regarding minimum follow-up time specific to each outcome measure. In the absence of a recognized core outcome set in Endodontics, the current project aimed to follow an established consensus process to define the most appropriate clinician and patient-reported outcomes. As part of the project, recommendations will also be agreed regarding an acceptable minimum follow-up period for studies by literature review and group discussion. The selected outcome measures and follow-up periods will be used in subsequent systematic analyses of the literature to investigate the effectiveness of endodontic treatment to alleviate pulpitis and apical periodontitis. In this paper, previous reviews, ESE Guidelines and Position Statements were searched in order to compile a list of potentially important outcome measures for the treatment of pulpitis (working group 1), the nonsurgical treatment of apical periodontitis (working group 2), the surgical treatment of apical periodontitis (working group 3) and the regenerative treatment of apical periodontitis (working group 4). Initially, the two S3 guideline leads selected two independent senior clinical academics with experience of evidence-based dentistry to lead each of the four working groups forming a 10-member steering group. The working group leads in turn selected 32 academics with experience of evidence-based dentistry to lead the individual systematic reviews contained within the respective working groups. These 42 individuals make up the Guideline Development Group (GDG). Prior to the selected systematic reviewers commencing writing and submitting the review protocol, the complete list of outcome variables identified in this document will be ranked by the 42 members of the GDG in their importance to the individual patient using a 9-point Likert scale. A summary of the survey scores will thereafter be shared with the members of the group and the final list of clinician and patient-reported outcome measures rated as critical for decision making (7-9 on Likert scale by majority of survey participants) to guide systematic reviews will be consented and confirmed during an online meeting of the steering group. In this online meeting, another aspect with regard to meaningfulness of clinical trial results to be addressed in systematic reviews will be consented: length of follow-up. In order to develop high quality guidelines, it is suggested that the follow-up period after treatment should be related to the specific outcome measure being addressed; however, a minimum of one year for assessing the effectiveness of treatments for pulpitis and apical periodontitis should be considered. It is accepted, that selected research questions that focus on pain, swelling, medication taken or investigating diagnostic accuracy are likely to have shorter follow-up periods. As a result of the GDG consensus process, the outcome measures and length of follow-up will, alongside the use of standard instruments to assess the methodological quality of clinical trials and other comparative studies, be applied to all the commissioned systematic reviews that will inform the subsequent process when developing the ESE S3 Level Clinical Practice Guidelines.

Staging and managing patients with acromegaly in clinical practice: baseline data from the SAGIT® validation study.

PURPOSE: The SAGIT® instrument, designed to assist clinicians to stage acromegaly, assess treatment response and adapt patient management, was well received by endocrinologists in a pilot study. We report an interim analysis of baseline data from the validation phase. METHODS: The SAGIT® validation study (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02539927) is an international, non-interventional study. Data collection included: demographic/disease characteristics; medical/surgical histories; concomitant acromegaly treatments; investigators' subjective evaluation of disease-control status (clinical global evaluation of disease control [CGE-DC]; controlled/not controlled/yet to be clarified) and clinical disease activity (active/not active); growth hormone (GH) and insulin-like growth factor-1 (IGF-1) levels; investigators' therapeutic decision. RESULTS: Of 228 patients enrolled, investigators considered disease to be controlled in 110 (48.2%), not controlled in 105 (46.1%), and yet to be clarified in 13 (5.7%) according to CGE-DC. Thirty-three patients were treatment-naïve (not controlled, n = 31; yet to be clarified, n = 2). Investigators considered 48.2% patients in the controlled and 95.2% in the not-controlled groups to have clinically active disease. In the controlled group, 29.7% of patients did not exhibit hormonal control (GH ≤ 2.5 µg/L; normalized IGF-1) and 47.3% did not have rigorous hormonal control (GH < 1.0 µg/L; normalized IGF-1) by contemporary consensus. Current acromegaly treatment was continued with no change for 91.8% of patients in the controlled and 40.0% in the not-controlled groups. CONCLUSIONS: These data highlight discrepancies between investigator-evaluated disease-control status, disease activity, hormonal control, and treatment decisions in acromegaly. Once validated, the SAGIT® instrument may assist clinicians in making active management decisions for patients with acromegaly.

Determinants of Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity and Physician's Global Assessment of Disease Activity in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: A post hoc analysis of overall and Japanese results from phase 3 clinical trials.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the determinants of Patient's Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PtGA) and Physician's Global Assessment of Disease Activity (PhGA) in overall and Japanese patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) from two large randomized controlled trials. METHODS: Post hoc analysis of overall and Japanese RA patients who had previous inadequate responses to methotrexate or who had no/minimal previous disease-modifying antirheumatic drug treatment. We examined correlations between PtGA/PhGA and tender joint count in 28 joints (TJC28), swollen joint count in 28 joints (SJC28), inflammatory markers, pain visual analog scale (VAS), and other patient-reported outcomes at baseline, Week 12, and Week 24. Determinants of PtGA/PhGA were identified. RESULTS: In overall populations, pain VAS was the main determinant of PtGA, whereas TJC28 was the main determinant of PhGA in both studies. In Japanese populations, consistent with overall populations, pain VAS was the main determinant of PtGA in both studies; in contrast to overall populations, pain VAS and SJC28/TJC28 played an important role in PhGA. CONCLUSION: Pain was the most important determinant of PtGA, whereas determinants of PhGA varied between populations/studies and were mostly explained by pain/joint counts. Physicians should be aware of patients' perceptions of disease activity when performing assessments/prescribing treatments.

Clinician-Reported Outcome Assessments of Treatment Benefit: Report of the ISPOR Clinical Outcome Assessment Emerging Good Practices Task Force.

A clinician-reported outcome (ClinRO) assessment is a type of clinical outcome assessment (COA). ClinRO assessments, like all COAs (patient-reported, observer-reported, or performance outcome assessments), are used to 1) measure patients' health status and 2) define end points that can be interpreted as treatment benefits of medical interventions on how patients feel, function, or survive in clinical trials. Like other COAs, ClinRO assessments can be influenced by human choices, judgment, or motivation. A ClinRO assessment is conducted and reported by a trained health care professional and requires specialized professional training to evaluate the patient's health status. This is the second of two reports by the ISPOR Clinical Outcomes Assessment-Emerging Good Practices for Outcomes Research Task Force. The first report provided an overview of COAs including definitions important for an understanding of COA measurement practices. This report focuses specifically on issues related to ClinRO assessments. In this report, we define three types of ClinRO assessments (readings, ratings, and clinician global assessments) and describe emerging good measurement practices in their development and evaluation. The good measurement practices include 1) defining the context of use; 2) identifying the concept of interest measured; 3) defining the intended treatment benefit on how patients feel, function, or survive reflected by the ClinRO assessment and evaluating the relationship between that intended treatment benefit and the concept of interest; 4) documenting content validity; 5) evaluating other measurement properties once content validity is established (including intra- and inter-rater reliability); 6) defining study objectives and end point(s) objectives, and defining study end points and placing study end points within the hierarchy of end points; 7) establishing interpretability in trial results; and 8) evaluating operational considerations for the implementation of ClinRO assessments used as end points in clinical trials. Applying good measurement practices to ClinRO assessment development and evaluation will lead to more efficient and accurate measurement of treatment effects. This is important beyond regulatory approval in that it provides evidence for the uptake of new interventions into clinical practice and provides justification to payers for reimbursement on the basis of the clearly demonstrated added value of the new intervention.

SAGIT®: clinician-reported outcome instrument for managing acromegaly in clinical practice--development and results from a pilot study.

PURPOSE: The SAGIT instrument is a comprehensive clinician-reported outcome instrument assessing key features of acromegaly: signs and symptoms, associated comorbidities; growth hormone levels; insulin-like growth factor-1 levels; and tumor profile. The SAGIT instrument has been designed to assist endocrinologists managing acromegaly in practice. Here, we report on pre-testing (to assess ease of understanding and acceptability) and a pilot study (to assess relevance, ease of use, and utility in real-life conditions) (NCT02231593). METHODS: For pre-testing, 11 endocrinologists completed the SAGIT instrument using patient medical records and were also interviewed. They subsequently completed a PRAgmatic Content and face validity Test (PRAC-Test(©)) to report their experiences using SAGIT, and feedback was used to revise the instrument. In the pilot study, nine endocrinologists completed the SAGIT instrument in real-time with patients belonging to three different categories (stable/controlled, active/uncontrolled acromegaly, treatment-naïve), while four completed the instrument based on medical-record review. All participants then completed the PRAC-Test(©) and their feedback was used to update the instrument. RESULTS: The SAGIT instrument was well accepted by endocrinologists, with most indicating that it was concise, practical, easy to understand, useful for assessing treatment response, and valuable as a component of the patient's medical record. The pilot study confirmed the instrument's acceptability, utility, and ease of use, and indicated its potential for distinguishing acromegaly clinical stages. CONCLUSIONS: The SAGIT instrument is promising as a tool for use by endocrinologists in everyday practice to assess the status and evolution of disease in patients with acromegaly and to guide treatment decision-making.

Developing a questionnaire for assessing clinician- and patient-reported outcomes in actinic keratosis: Results from an expert panel.

Background: Current assessments on topical treatment attributes in actinic keratosis (AK) do not evaluate safety, effectiveness, and satisfaction from both clinician and patient perspectives, creating an unmet need for more comprehensive AK-specific measures that fully capture the patient experience. Objective: To develop an actinic keratosis-specific expert panel questionnaire (AK-EPQ) of patient-reported outcomes and clinician-reported outcomes for use in research studies. Methods: Using interviews of patients with AK and targeted literature reviews, a 9-person consensus panel of dermatologists with expertise in AK treatment was convened to develop the AK-EPQ to assess AK-specific patient-reported outcomes and clinician-reported outcomes. Results: Nine expert advisers achieved consensus on 11 AK-EPQ items that encompass patient and clinician perspectives of treatment-related local skin reactions, clinical and cosmetic outcomes associated with AK, and satisfaction with treatment; the AK-EPQ will be first implemented in the Patient-Reported Outcomes for Actinic Keratosis study (NCT05260073). Limitations: The AK-EPQ does not directly measure quality of life, although it can be used with validated quality of life instruments. Conclusion: The newly developed AK-EPQ elicits insights into the patient and clinician experience with AK treatments. Comparative probing of these perspectives may help optimize precision medicine in AK treatment.

Clinical outcome measures in vision and eye care.

Traditionally, clinical outcome assessments have focused on the patient's perspective through patient-reported outcome assessments; however, given the complexity, integration, and interactions of various participants within the clinical ophthalmology setting, we propose that additional diverse clinical perspectives should be explored in order to appreciate fully the value of care provided to patients. In this review we introduce a framework by which clinical outcome assessments (COAs) can be organized. Our COA framework is composed of five outcome measurements that encompass the perspectives of each player in a patient's care: clinical data-reported outcomes, patient-reported outcomes, clinician-reported outcomes, observer-reported outcomes, and reviewer-reported outcomes. By establishing a standard for evaluating patient care, we hope to address gaps in expectations of patient care and encourage more thoughtful patient-clinician relationships.

Correlation of Clinician- and Patient-Reported Outcomes in the BC2001 Trial.

AIMS: To evaluate whether there is sufficient correlation between patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and clinician-reported outcomes (CROs) in bladder cancer follow-up post-radiotherapy to streamline data collection and to reduce trial follow-up burden on patients, clinicians and trial programmes. MATERIALS AND METHODS: PROs data were collected within the BC2001 trial using the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy specific to bladder cancer (FACT-BL) questionnaire. CROs data were collected by clinicians using Late Effects in Normal Tissues Subjective, Objective and Management (LENT/SOM). Data were collected at baseline, post-treatment, at 6 and 12 months post-randomisation and then annually to 5 years. The percentage agreement between CROs and PROs measures was evaluated at 2 and 5 years post-randomisation. Concordance was tested using the weighted Kappa statistic with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Correlation was evaluated between six categories of the FACT-BL and LENT/SOM scores. At 2 years the percentage agreement across these domains ranged from 45 to 78%, with the weighted Kappa statistic between 0.07 and 0.35. Results were similar in year 5 with 48-83% agreement and kappa statistics between -0.02 and 0.21. CONCLUSION: The correlation between CROs and PROs in patients treated with radiotherapy for bladder cancer were generally poor. PROs appear to be more sensitive, with higher grade events reported. Further work is needed to evaluate whether PROs alone can be used to evaluate toxicity-related outcomes in randomised controlled trials.

Measuring Overall Severity of Myasthenia Gravis (MG): Evidence for the Added Value of the MG Symptoms PRO.

INTRODUCTION: Accurate measurement of myasthenia gravis (MG) severity is required for appropriate clinical monitoring of patients with MG and assessment of the benefit of new treatments in clinical trials. Our objective was to explore how MG severity can be measured and to determine how the newly developed MG Symptoms Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) instrument complements the available measures of MG severity. METHODS: The conceptual coverage of the Quantitative MG (QMG), MG Composite (MGC), MG-Activities of Daily Living (MG-ADL), and MG Symptoms PRO was scrutinized against core symptoms of MG: muscle weakness in three muscle groups (ocular, bulbar, and respiratory), muscle weakness fatigability, and physical fatigue. Post hoc analyses of the MG0002 study, a Phase 2a clinical trial of rozanolixizumab in adults with moderate to severe generalized MG, included correlation and Rasch model analyses. RESULTS: The qualitative appraisal highlighted that only the MG Symptoms PRO captured physical fatigue. Data from 541 assessments (43 unique patients) were used for the analyses. Correlations ranged between 0.56 and 0.74 for the MG-ADL, QMG, MGC, and MG Symptoms PRO Muscle Weakness Fatigability score, and between 0.20 and 0.71 for the MG Symptoms PRO scores focusing on independent muscle groups. Analyses with the Rasch model estimated a meaningful continuum of severity of MG, including all items, except ocular muscles, from the four instruments. The QMG and MG Symptoms PRO had the broadest coverage of the MG severity continuum. Muscle fatigability and physical fatigue were more characteristic of low severity while bulbar weakness indicated more severe MG. CONCLUSION: The severity of MG can be reflected in a meaningful continuum underpinned by the MG-specific outcome measures. Only ocular muscle manifestations were shown to reflect a possibly different facet of MG severity. With its modular nature and comprehensive content, the MG Symptoms PRO provides complementary information to the outcome measures widely used in MG. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03052751.

Myasthenia gravis (MG) is a chronic disease affecting the communication between nerves and muscles. People with MG experience muscle weakness that worsens after activity and improves after rest. MG can affect different groups of body muscles (e.g., around the eyes, in the limbs, and face or throat).We show that the various symptoms of MG can be used to summarize the overall severity of the disease: people with mild and moderate MG often report only the fast onset of weakness in their limb muscles and mild physical fatigue, while those with more severe MG report more severe fatigue and also difficulties associated with weakness in facial and throat muscles (leading to difficulty with swallowing or speaking) and in respiratory muscles (making breathing difficult). This ordering of MG manifestations will help create more accurate methods to assess the severity of MG that can be used to evaluate new treatments or to monitor patients in the clinic.We also suggest that weakness of muscles around the eyes (leading to eyelid drooping or double vision) may represent a unique aspect of MG, and may not provide as much information to summarize the severity of MG as other symptoms. However, this needs further investigation as our study did not include participants who had weakness in eye muscles as their only symptom.We also document the ability of the MG Symptoms Patient-Reported Outcome questionnaire, a new questionnaire completed by patients, to provide useful information for measuring the severity of MG.

Clinical Outcome Assessment Instruments in Schizophrenia: A Scoping Literature Review with a Focus on the Potential of Patient-reported Outcomes.

Objective: The complexity inherent in the treatment of schizophrenia results in a multitude of outcome assessments being employed when conducting clinical trials. Subjective outcome assessments and minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) to evaluate clinical meaningfulness have gained traction; however, the extent of application in evaluation of treatments for schizophrenia is unknown. A scoping review was conducted to assess the availability of published psychometric evaluations, including MCIDs, for clinical outcome assessments used to evaluate treatments for schizophrenia. Method of Research: Key databases (PubMed®, Embase®, APA PsycINFO®, International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research) were searched for studies on schizophrenia published from 2010 to 2020. Secondary sources (ClinicalTrials.gov, PROLABELS™, FDA.gov) were also reviewed. Clinical outcome assessments were organized by type (patient-reported outcomes [PROs], clinician-reported outcomes [ClinROs], observer-reported outcomes [ObsROs]) and further classified by intended use (generic, mental health, schizophrenia). Reliability and internal consistency were evaluated using Cronbach's α. External validity was evaluated by intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results: Across 140 studies, 66 clinical outcome assessments were identified. MCIDs were reported for eight of the 66 studies. Of these, two were PROs (generic) and six were ClinROs/ObsROs (three mental health-specific, three schizophrenia-specific). Reliability was good across generic, mental health-specific, and schizophrenia-specific categories, whereas external validity was strong mainly for schizophrenia-specific PROs. Overall, ClinROs/ObsROs that focused on mental health had good reliability and strong external validity. Conclusion: This review provides a comprehensive overview of the clinical outcome assessments used in schizophrenia research during the past ten years. Results highlight the heterogeneity of existing outcomes and a growing interest in PROs for schizophrenia.

Long-term progression of clinician-reported and gait performance outcomes in hereditary spastic paraplegias.

Introduction: Hereditary spastic paraplegias (HSPs) are a heterogeneous group of neurodegenerative diseases in which little is known about the most appropriate clinical outcome assessments (COAs) to capture disease progression. The objective of this study was to prospectively determine disease progression after 4.5 years of follow-up with different clinician-reported (ClinRO) and gait performance outcomes (PerFOs). Methods: Twenty-six HSP patients (15 SPG4, 5 SPG7, 4 SPG5, 2 SPG3A) participated in this single-center cohort study in which the ClinRO: Spastic Paraplegia Rating Scale; and the PerFOs: 10-meters walking test and timed-up and go (TUG), at self-selected and maximal walking speeds; Locomotor Rehabilitation Index; and 6-min walking test were performed at baseline and after 1.5 (18 patients) and 4.5 (13 patients) years. Results: In the 3-year interval between the second and third assessments, significant progressions were only found in PerFOs, while in the overall 4.5 years of follow-up, both PerFOs and ClinROs presented significant progressions. The progression slopes of COAs modeled according to the disease duration allowed the estimation of the annual progression of the outcomes and sample size estimations for future clinical trials of interventions with different effect sizes. TUG at maximal walking speed was the only COA capable of differentiating subjects with a worse compared to a stable/better impression of change and would require the smallest sample size if chosen as the primary endpoint of a clinical trial. Discussion: These findings indicate that both performance and clinician-reported outcomes can capture long-term progression of HSPs, with some PerFOs presenting greater sensitivity to change. The presented data are paramount for planning future disease-modifying and symptomatic therapy trials for this currently untreatable group of diseases.

Patient-reported outcome measures compared to clinician reported outcomes regarding incontinence and erectile dysfunction in localized prostate carcinoma after robot assisted radical prostatectomy: Impact on management.

PURPOSE/ BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are widely used after robot assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) in order to evaluate the impact/burden of the treatment. The most bothersome side effects of RARP are urine incontinence (UI) and erectile dysfunction (ED). During the follow up consultations, clinicians report these side effects in interviewing patients. Our study examined the discrepancy between the PROMs and clinician report outcomes (CROs) and hypothesized that the disagreement could have an impact on the management of UI and ED. METHODS: Up to 1 year after RARP, UI and ED recovery of 312 men with localized and locally advanced prostate cancer were assessed using the International Consultation Incontinence Questionnaire Short-Form (ICIQ-SF) and the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-EF) and CROs by interview. Discrepancies between PROs and CROs were studied in light of treatment offered and management. RESULTS: The ICIQ-SF Score matched with CROs in all sum score categories except in ICIQ sum score 6 to 12; here the UI was underreported by clinicians in 58% and 59% of patients at 8 and 12 months (P < 0.001). Furthermore, at 8 and 12 months postoperatively, clinicians underreported UI in 29% and 23% of patients with ICIQ score 13-18 (P < 0.001). The clinician significantly over-reported the recovery of erectile function ("normal erection") (P < 0.001), especially in men with IIEF-EF sum score 6 to 16. Independently of ICIQ-SF/IIEF-EF scores, discrepancy between PROs and CROs did not affect rate of health care offered to patients. CONCLUSIONS: This is to our knowledge the first study that compared the PROs with clinician reported functional outcomes and the impact of discrepancies on the management of side effects of RARP in prostate cancer. Observed discrepancies between the PROs and CROs did not affect offered management and counseling of UI and ED.

Assessment of functioning and disability in patients with low back pain - the low back pain assessment tool. Part 1: development.

PURPOSE: To present the process used to develop the low back pain (LBP) assessment tool including evaluation of the initial content validity of the tool. METHODS: The development process comprised the elements: definition of construct and content, literature search, item generation, needs assessment, piloting, adaptations, design, and technical production. The LBP assessment tool was developed to assess the construct "functioning and disability" as defined by the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Involvement of patients and health professionals was essential. RESULTS: The elements were collapsed into five steps. In total, 18 patients and 12 health professionals contributed to the content and the design of the tool. The LBP assessment tool covered all ICF components shared among 63 ICF categories. CONCLUSIONS: This study presents the process used to develop the LBP assessment tool, which is the first tool to address all ICF components and integrate biopsychosocial perspectives provided by patients and health professionals in the same tool. Initial evaluation of content validity showed adequate reflection of the construct "functioning and disability". Further work on the way will evaluate comprehensiveness, acceptability, and degree of implementation of the LBP assessment tool to strengthen its use for clinical practice.Implications for RehabilitationA biopsychosocial and patients-centred approach is a strong foundation for identifying the many relevant aspects related to low back pain (LBP).Responding to a lack of tools to support a biopsychosocial and patients-centred approach the LBP assessment tool was developed using a robust, multi-step process with involvement of patients and health professionals.The LBP assessment tool is a strong candidate for a user-friendly tool to facilitate use of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health in routine clinical practice.

International Multicenter Validation Study of the SAGIT® Instrument in Acromegaly.

CONTEXT: The SAGIT® instrument (SAGIT) has been developed to enable accurate characterization of acromegaly disease activity. OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the ability of SAGIT to discriminate acromegaly disease control status. METHODS: This multicenter, noninterventional, prospective and retrospective, longitudinal study, conducted at academic and private clinical practice sites, included patients aged ≥ 18 years with a diagnosis of controlled (n = 109) or non-controlled (n = 105) acromegaly, assessed by clinical global evaluation of disease control (CGE-DC) questionnaire, investigator therapeutic decision, and international guidelines. Control status was not determined at baseline for 13 patients. Since 9 patients were enrolled retrospectively, all presented analyses are based on the prospective population (N = 227). Patients were assessed over a 2-year follow-up period. Classification and regression tree (CART) analyses were performed to investigate how SAGIT components at baseline (signs/symptoms [S], associated comorbidities [A], growth hormone levels [G], insulin-like growth factor 1 levels [I], tumor features [T]) discriminate between controlled and non-controlled acromegaly. RESULTS: Baseline mean subscores S, G, I, and T were significantly lower in patients with CGE-DC controlled vs CGE-DC non-controlled acromegaly. SAGIT components I and G for CGE-DC and S, A, G, I, and T for the clinician's therapeutic decision were retained by CART analyses. For international guidelines, only SAGIT component I was retained. The risk for undergoing ≥ 1 treatment change during the study was 3.44 times greater for CGE-DC non-controlled acromegaly relative to CGE-DC controlled acromegaly. CONCLUSION: The SAGIT instrument is a valid and sensitive tool to comprehensively and accurately assess acromegaly severity.

Monitoring Severity of Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) in Infants and Young Children Using the Pediatric RSV Electronic Severity and Outcome Rating System (PRESORS): Results of Initial Quantitative Validation.

PURPOSE: PRESORS ClinRO completed by clinicians and ObsRO completed by caregivers were developed to characterize the clinical course of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infection. This study describes preliminary analysis of PRESORS' measurement properties using clinical trial data. PATIENTS AND METHODS: PRESORS ClinRO and ObsRO data were collected in a 28-day randomized, double-blind, Phase 1b trial of JNJ-53718678 or placebo in infants and children ≤24 months of age treated for RSV infection in hospitals. PRESORS data were scored and key psychometric properties of scores were evaluated, including ability to discriminate between known groups and to detect change over time. Time to resolution of RSV signs was explored using two responder definitions. RESULTS: Daily completion rates for PRESORS ClinRO and ObsRO were high for the 44 children in the study (median: 100% and 93%, respectively). Large floor effects were observed at baseline for signs of severe RSV infection that were either absent (cyanosis, fever, apnea) or rarely reported (reduced urination/dehydration, vomiting). Implausible ObsRO ratings suggested some caregivers could not accurately measure heart rate. Known-group validity was confirmed: children in poor health based on baseline ClinRO had mean baseline composite scores that were significantly worse for both ObsRO (p=0.001) and ClinRO (p<0.001) compared to those with better overall health. ObsRO (p=0.009) and ClinRO (p<0.001) composite scores were responsive to change in overall health status from baseline to Day 3. Mean scores for RSV sign dimensions decreased rapidly from baseline to Day 7 except for coughing and sleep ratings by caregivers. Time to recovery varied greatly depending on definitions used. CONCLUSION: PRESORS ClinRO and ObsRO can inform endpoints and enable monitoring the clinical course of RSV in pediatric trials. Improved alignment between ClinRO and ObsRO and revisions ensuring caregivers can assess all signs will be addressed in revised PRESORS.