Interpreting and Reporting Results Based on Patient-Reported Outcomes

AbstractThis article deals with the incorporation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into clinical trials and focuses on issues associated with the interpretation and reporting of PRO data. The primary focus and context of this information relates to the evidentiary support and reporting for a labeling or advertising claim of a PRO benefit for a new or approved pharmaceutical product. This manuscript focuses on issues associated with assessing clinical significance and common pitfalls to avoid in presenting results related to PROs. Specifically, the questions addressed by this manuscript involve: What are the best methods to assess clinical significance for PROs? How should investigators present PRO data most effectively in a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) application? In labeling or in a scientific publication? Guidelinesfor interpreting clinical significance of PROs and for comprehensively reporting on the methods, measures and results of clinical trials that incorporate PROs are important for clinicians, regulatory agencies, and most of all to patients. Clear specifications for considering a finding on a PRO measure, as clinically meaningful, need to be determined by instrument developers and psychometricians; they need to be reported for all clinical trials involving PRO end points. Clinical trial reports need to be comprehensive, clear, and sufficient to enable any reader to understand the methods, PRO measures, statistical analysis, and results

The Mayo Clinic Manuscript Series Relative to the Discussion, Dissemination, and Operationalization of the Food and Drug Administration Guidance on Patient-Reported Outcomes

AbstractPatient-reported outcomes (PROs) have become increasingly prevalent in clinical research and practice. On February 2, 2006, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a draft guidance document with respect to incorporating PROs into clinical research endeavors which include FDA involvement. Researchers at the Mayo Clinic worked with FDA personnel and experts from academia, industry, clinical research, and clinical practice to facilitate discussion, dissemination, and operationalization of the FDA guidance document. This article introduces a manuscript series that resulted from this collective effort. Basic terms are definedand a précis of each article in the manuscript series is given. The ultimate conclusion to be drawn from this series is that, while the goals of assessing and analyzing PRO elements of clinical practice and research are challenging, there now exists a scientific foundation that makes achieving these goals feasible and the results credible. This is vitally important because after all, at the heart of all healthcare endeavors is the patient

Analysis and Interpretation of Results Based on Patient-Reported Outcomes

AbstractThis article is part of a series of manuscripts dealing with the incorporation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into clinical trials. The issues dealt with in this manuscript concern the common pitfalls to avoid in statistical analysis and interpretation of PROs. Specifically, the questions addressed by this manuscript involve the analysis pitfalls with PRO data in clinical trials and how can they be avoided (e.g.,missing data, multiplicity, null results etc.). The manuscript provides key literature for existing resources and proposes new guidelines

Effects of Carpal Tunnel Syndrome on Dexterous Manipulation Are Grip Type-Dependent

Carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) impairs sensation of a subset of digits. Although the effects of CTS on manipulation performed with CTS-affected digits have been studied using precision grip tasks, the extent to which CTS affects multi-digit force coordination has only recently been studied. Whole-hand manipulation studies have shown that CTS patients retain the ability to modulate multi-digit forces to object mass, mass distribution, and texture. However, CTS results in sensorimotor deficits relative to healthy controls, including significantly larger grip force and lower ability to balance the torques generated by the digits. Here we investigated the effects of CTS on multi-digit force modulation to object weight when manipulating an object with a variable number of fingers. We hypothesized that CTS patients would be able to modulate digit forces to object weight. However, as different grip types involve the exclusive use of CTS-affected digits (‘uniform’ grips) or a combination of CTS-affected and non-affected digits (‘mixed’ grips), we addressed the question of whether ‘mixed’ grips would reduce or worsen CTS-induced force coordination deficits. The former scenario would be due to adding digits with intact tactile feedback, whereas the latter scenario might occur due to a potentially greater challenge for the central nervous system of integrating ‘noisy’ and intact tactile feedback. CTS patients learned multi-digit force modulation to object weight regardless of grip type. Although controls exerted the same total grip force across all grip types, patients exerted significantly larger grip force than controls but only for manipulations with four and five digits. Importantly, this effect was due to CTS patients’ inability to change the finger force distribution when adding the ring and little fingers. These findings suggest that CTS primarily challenges sensorimotor integration processes for dexterous manipulation underlying the coordination of CTS-affected and non-affected digits

Lenalidomide and dexamethasone in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma and impaired renal function: PrE1003, a PrECOG study

Renal insufficiency is common in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma and can often limit choice of therapy. Lenalidomide, a critical agent in the treatment of relapsed multiple myeloma, is renally cleared., This phase I/II trial evaluated the efficacy and safety of lenalidomide with dexamethasone in patients with relapsed multiple myeloma and renal insufficiency. Three groups were treated, with creatinine clearance 30–60 cc/hr (group A), CrCl \u3c 30 not on dialysis (group B), and patients on dialysis (group C) at escalating doses of lenalidomide. A total of 63 patients were treated and no DLTs were observed in phase I. All three groups were able to escalate to full dose lenalidomide 25 mg daily 21/28 days, although due to reduced accrual the phase II component was not entirely completed for groups B and C. Adverse events were as expected, including anemia, diarrhea and fatigue. Ten patients experienced grade 3–4 pneumonia. Overall response rate was 54% across all groups. PFS was 7.5 months and OS was 19.7 months. Lenalidomide can be given at full dose 25 mg daily 21/28 in patients with a CrCl \u3e 30, and can be given daily to those with CrCl \u3c 30, even when on dialysis, at doses of at least 15 mg daily

Analysis and Interpretation of Results Based on Patient-Reported Outcomes

ABSTRACT This article is part of a series of manuscripts dealing with the incorporation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into clinical trials. The issues dealt with in this manuscript concern the common pitfalls to avoid in statistical analysis and interpretation of PROs. Specifically, the questions addressed by this manuscript involve the analysis pitfalls with PRO data in clinical trials and how can they be avoided (e.g.,missing data, multiplicity, null results etc.). The manuscript provides key literature for existing resources and proposes new guidelines

Neoadjuvant chemoradiation compared to neoadjuvant radiation alone and surgery alone for Stage II and III soft tissue sarcoma of the extremities

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Neoadjuvant chemoradiation (NCR) prior to resection of extremity soft tissue sarcoma (STS) has been studied, but data are limited. We present outcomes with NCR using a variety of chemotherapy regimens compared to neoadjuvant radiation without chemotherapy (NR) and surgery alone (SA).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We conducted a retrospective chart review of 112 cases.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Treatments included SA (36 patients), NCR (39 patients), and NR (37 patients). NCR did not improve the rate of margin-negative resections over SA or NR. Loco-regional relapse-free survival, distant metastases-free survival, and overall survival (OS) were not different among the treatment groups. Patients with relapsed disease (OR 11.6; p = 0.01), and tumor size greater than 5 cm (OR 9.4; p = 0.01) were more likely to have a loco-regional recurrence on logistic regression analysis. Significantly increased OS was found among NCR-treated patients with tumors greater than 5 cm compared to SA (3 year OS 69 vs. 40%; p = 0.03). Wound complication rates were higher after NCR compared to SA (50 vs. 11%; p = 0.003) but not compared to NR (p = 0.36). Wet desquamation was the most common adverse event of NCR.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>NCR and NR are acceptable strategies for patients with STS. NCR is well-tolerated, but not clearly superior to NR.</p