An overview of cardiovascular risk factor burden in sub-Saharan African countries: a socio-cultural perspective

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries are currently experiencing one of the most rapid epidemiological transitions characterized by increasing urbanization and changing lifestyle factors. This has resulted in an increase in the incidence of non-communicable diseases, especially cardiovascular disease (CVD). This double burden of communicable and chronic non-communicable diseases has long-term public health impact as it undermines healthcare systems.</p> <p>Purpose</p> <p>The purpose of this paper is to explore the socio-cultural context of CVD risk prevention and treatment in sub-Saharan Africa. We discuss risk factors specific to the SSA context, including poverty, urbanization, developing healthcare systems, traditional healing, lifestyle and socio-cultural factors.</p> <p>Methodology</p> <p>We conducted a search on African Journals On-Line, Medline, PubMed, and PsycINFO databases using combinations of the key country/geographic terms, disease and risk factor specific terms such as "diabetes and Congo" and "hypertension and Nigeria". Research articles on clinical trials were excluded from this overview. Contrarily, articles that reported prevalence and incidence data on CVD risk and/or articles that report on CVD risk-related beliefs and behaviors were included. Both qualitative and quantitative articles were included.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The epidemic of CVD in SSA is driven by multiple factors working collectively. Lifestyle factors such as diet, exercise and smoking contribute to the increasing rates of CVD in SSA. Some lifestyle factors are considered gendered in that some are salient for women and others for men. For instance, obesity is a predominant risk factor for women compared to men, but smoking still remains mostly a risk factor for men. Additionally, structural and system level issues such as lack of infrastructure for healthcare, urbanization, poverty and lack of government programs also drive this epidemic and hampers proper prevention, surveillance and treatment efforts.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Using an African-centered cultural framework, the PEN3 model, we explore future directions and efforts to address the epidemic of CVD risk in SSA.</p

Health-related quality of life from the FALCON phase III randomised trial of fulvestrant 500 mg versus anastrozole for hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer

Background The phase III randomised FALCON trial (NCT01602380) demonstrated improved progression-free survival with fulvestrant 500 mg versus anastrozole 1 mg in endocrine therapy-naïve postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (LA/MBC). Furthermore, overall health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was maintained and comparable for fulvestrant and anastrozole. Here, we present additional analyses of patient-reported HRQoL outcomes from FALCON. Methods Women with endocrine therapy-naïve HR+ LA/MBC were randomised 1:1 to fulvestrant (days 0, 14, 28, then every 28 d) or anastrozole (daily) until disease progression or discontinuation. HRQoL was assessed by FACT-B questionnaire (TOI and FACT-B total score) at randomisation and every 12 weeks during treatment. HRQoL data post-treatment (with or without progression) were also collected. Results In total, 462 patients were randomised (fulvestrant, n = 230; anastrozole, n = 232). Compliance to FACT-B overall ranged from 60.0 to 97.4%. Mean change from baseline in TOI and FACT-B total score remained broadly stable (approximately ± 3 points to week 132) and was similar between arms during treatment. HRQoL was also maintained in FACT-B subscales. Approximately one-third of patients had improved TOI (≥+6 points) and FACT-B (≥+8 points) total scores from baseline up to week 120 and 132, respectively, of treatment with fulvestrant (ranges 26.4–45.0% and 22.4–35.8%, respectively) and anastrozole (ranges 18.6–32.9%, and 22.7–37.9%, respectively). Conclusions Mean change from baseline in TOI and FACT-B total score was maintained for fulvestrant and anastrozole; similar proportions of patients in both arms had improved TOI and FACT-B total scores

Additional file 1: of Patients’ experience of recurrent/metastatic head and neck squamous cell carcinoma and their perspective on the EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-H&N35 questionnaires: a qualitative study

1. Literature review and 2. Conceptual Saturation Analysis. Literature review search strategy and list of publications finally included in the development of the patient road map. Results of the conceptual saturation analysis from the 14 patient interviews. (DOCX 84 kb

Patient-reported outcomes in patients with a germline BRCA mutation and HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer receiving olaparib versus chemotherapy in the OlympiAD trial

Background: The phase III OlympiAD study (NCT02000622) showed a statistically significant progression-free survival benefit with olaparib versus chemotherapy treatment of physician's choice (TPC) in patients with a germline BRCA mutation and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer. From this study, we report the effect of olaparib on health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Methods: Patients were randomised 2:1 to olaparib monotherapy (300 mg twice daily) or single-agent TPC. The primary HRQoL end-point was mean change from baseline in the two-item global health status/QoL score determined from patient-completed European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30-item module (EORTC QLQ-C30) questionnaires and assessed using a mixed model for repeated measures. Symptoms and functioning domains, best overall response and time to deterioration of QoL were also evaluated. Results: Overall questionnaire compliance rates were 93.2% for olaparib and 76.3% for TPC. Between-treatment global health status/QoL comparison showed a significant improvement in the olaparib arm versus the TPC arm, with mean change of 3.9 (standard deviation 1.2) versus -3.6 (2.2), a difference of 7.5 points (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.48, 12.44; P = 0.0035). A higher proportion of patients in the olaparib arm showed a best overall response of 'improvement' in global health status/QoL (33.7% vs 13.4%). Median time to global health status/QoL deterioration was not reached in olaparib patients and was 15.3 months for TPC patients (hazard ratio: 0.44 [95% CI: 0.25, 0.77]; P = 0.004). For EORTC QLQ-C30 symptoms and functioning subscales, only nausea/vomiting symptom score was worse in the olaparib arm than in the TPC arm (across all visits compared with baseline). Conclusion: HRQoL was consistently improved for patients treated with olaparib, compared with chemotherapy TPC. (C) 2019 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd

Patient-reported outcomes with olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: a randomised, double-blind, phase 2 trial

Background Results of this double-blind, phase 2 trial showed patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer given olaparib plus abiraterone versus placebo plus abiraterone had significantly improved progression-free survival. Here, we present an exploratory analysis of pain and health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Methods This double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial was conducted across 41 urological oncology sites in 11 countries in Europe and North America. Eligible patients were aged 18 years or older, had metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer, and had previously received docetaxel and up to one additional line of previous chemotherapy. Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer was defined as increasing prostate-specific antigen (PSA) concentration or other signs of disease progression despite androgen-deprivation therapy and serum testosterone concentrations at castrate levels (≤50 ng/dL), and with at least one metastatic lesion on bone scan, CT, or MRI. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive oral olaparib (300 mg twice per day) plus oral abiraterone (1000 mg once a day) and oral prednisone or prednisolone (5 mg twice a day) or placebo plus abiraterone (1000 mg once a day) and prednisone or prednisolone (5 mg twice a day). Randomisation was done without stratification and by use of an interactive voice or web response system. A randomised treatment kit ID number was assigned sequentially to each patient as they became eligible. The primary endpoint (radiographic progression-free survival) has previously been reported. HRQOL was a prespecified exploratory patient-reported outcome. Patients were asked to complete the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF), single-item worst bone pain, Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) questionnaire, and EuroQol-5 five-dimension five level (EQ-5D-5L) assessment at baseline, at weeks 4, 8, and 12, then every 12 weeks until treatment discontinuation. Prespecified outcomes were change from baseline in BPI-SF worst pain, single-item worst bone pain and FACT-P Total Outcome Index (TOI) scale scores, time to deterioration in BPI-SF worst pain and worst bone pain, and assessment of the EQ-5D-5L pain and discomfort domain. All analyses were exploratory and done in the full analysis set (all randomly assigned patients, including patients who were randomly assigned but did not subsequently go on to receive study treatment), with the exception of mean baseline and total change from baseline analyses, for which we used the population who had a valid baseline and at least one post-baseline assessment. This trial is registered with Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01972217, and is no longer recruiting patients. Findings Between Nov 25, 2014, and July 14, 2015, 171 patients were assessed for eligibility. 29 patients were excluded, and 142 were enrolled and randomly assigned to receive olaparib and abiraterone (n=71) or placebo and abiraterone (n=71). Data cutoff was Sept 22, 2017. Median follow-up was 15·9 months (IQR 8·1–25·5) in the olaparib plus abiraterone group and 24·5 months (8·1–27·6) in the placebo plus abiraterone group. Questionnaire compliance was generally high (43–100%). Least-squares mean changes from baseline in BPI-SF worst pain, single-item worst bone pain, and FACT-P TOI remained stable across all visits for patients in both treatment groups. Adjusted mean change in FACT-P TOI from baseline across all visits was −0·10 (95% CI −2·50 to 2·71) in the olaparib plus abiraterone group and −1·20 (−4·15 to 1·74) in the placebo plus abiraterone group (difference 1·30, 95% CI −2·70 to 5·30; p=0·52). Time to deterioration in pain was similar in both groups (BPI-SF worst pain HR 0·90 [95% CI 0·62–1·32], p=0·30; worst bone pain HR 0·85 [0·59–1·22], p=0·18). Improvement rates in the pain and discomfort domain of the EQ-5D-5L were similar in both groups from baseline to week 48, beyond which a higher proportion of patients in the olaparib plus abiraterone arm reported an improvement compared to the placebo plus abiraterone group. Interpretation In these prespecified exploratory analyses, there was no significant difference in pain or HRQOL when olaparib was added to abiraterone. In this phase 2 trial, a statistically significant radiographic progression-free survival benefit was observed with the olaparib plus abiraterone combination. These results suggest that the improved survival benefits observed when combining olaparib with abiraterone does not result in different HRQOL compared with placebo plus abiraterone. Phase 3 studies are required to validate these results

Enabling patient-reported outcome measures in clinical trials, exemplified by cardiovascular trials

Abstract Objectives There has been limited success in achieving integration of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical trials. We describe how stakeholders envision a solution to this challenge. Methods Stakeholders from academia, industry, non-profits, insurers, clinicians, and the Food and Drug Administration convened at a Think Tank meeting funded by the Duke Clinical Research Institute to discuss the challenges of incorporating PROs into clinical trials and how to address those challenges. Using examples from cardiovascular trials, this article describes a potential path forward with a focus on applications in the United States. Results Think Tank members identified one key challenge: a common understanding of the level of evidence that is necessary to support patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in trials. Think Tank participants discussed the possibility of creating general evidentiary standards depending upon contextual factors, but such guidelines could not be feasibly developed because many contextual factors are at play. The attendees posited that a more informative approach to PROM evidentiary standards would be to develop validity arguments akin to courtroom briefs, which would emphasize a compelling rationale (interpretation/use argument) to support a PROM within a specific context. Participants envisioned a future in which validity arguments would be publicly available via a repository, which would be indexed by contextual factors, clinical populations, and types of claims. Conclusions A publicly available repository would help stakeholders better understand what a community believes constitutes compelling support for a specific PROM in a trial. Our proposed strategy is expected to facilitate the incorporation of PROMs into cardiovascular clinical trials and trials in general