Evaluation of LOXL1 gene polymorphisms in exfoliation syndrome and exfoliation glaucoma

Purpose: To evaluate genetic susceptibility of lysyl oxidase-like 1 (LOXL1) gene polymorphisms to exfoliation syndrome (XFS) and exfoliation glaucoma (XFG) in a case-control cohort of American and European patients. Methods: DNA from a total of 620 individuals including 287 exfoliation patients and 333 healthy control subjects were extracted by standard methods. Three single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of rs1048661 (R141L), rs3825942 (G153D), and rs2165241 were genotyped in these individuals by SNaPshot Assay. The seven coding exons of the LOXL1 gene and their immediate flanking regions were directly sequenced in 95 affected patients. Data management and case-control association studies were performed with SNP-STAT and PLINK programs. The obtained DNA sequences were evaluated with the STADEN package. Results: The 287 unrelated exfoliation cases comprised of 171 American patients (mostly of European background) and 116 patients from 12 European countries. This phenotype was further divided into patients with exfoliation only and no glaucoma (XFO; n=95), exfoliation with glaucoma (XFG; n=133), and exfoliation unclassified (XFU; n=59). Genotypic data were analyzed separately for XFO, XFG, XFU, and XFS (all exfoliations; n=287) and for Americans and Europeans. The observed genotypic frequencies for each exfoliation phenotype or population were tabulated separately and tested for deviation from the Hardy–Weinberg equilibrium (HWE) using a standard Χ2 test. There were no HWE deviations and no significant genotypic differences between these subcategories for the three studied SNPs. For the combined exfoliation cohort, homozygote genotypes of G/G (rs1048661), G/G (rs3825942), and T/T (rs2165241) were significantly overrepresented. Likewise, case-control allelic association for rs1048661 (p=7.74x10−9), rs3825942 (p=3.10x10−17), and rs2165241 (p=4.85x10−24) were highly significant. The corresponding two-locus haplotype frequencies of GG for rs1048661-rs3825942 (p=1.47x10−27), GT for rs1048661-rs2165241 (p=1.29x10−24), and GT for rs3825942-rs2165241 (p=2.02x10−24) were highly associated with exfoliation phenotypes. The combined effect of these three SNPs revealed that the GGT haplotype is overrepresented by 66% in exfoliation cases, and this deviation from controls is highly significant (p=1.93x10−24). This haplotype constituted a major risk factor for development of exfoliation in both XFS and XFG. By contrast, the GAC haplotype was significantly underrepresented (p=4.99x10−18) in exfoliation cases by 83% and may potentially have a protective effect for this condition with an estimated attributable risk percent reduction of 457%. The only other haplotype that was significantly different between cases and controls was TGC (p=5.82x10−9). No observation was made for the GAT haplotype. The combined three haplotypes of GGT, GAC, and TGC were associated with 91% of the exfoliation syndrome cases in the studied populations. Seven coding exons of LOXL1 were also sequenced in 95 affected cases. In addition to the three above-mentioned SNPs, 12 other variations were also observed in these patients(G240G, D292D, A320A, V385V, rs2304719, IVS3+23C>T, IVS3–155G>A, IVS3–101G>A, IVS4+49G>A, rs2304721, IVS5–121C>T, and rs2304722). None were considered a disease-causing mutation. Conclusions: We confirmed a strong association with LOXL1 variants in our patients. For the LOXL1 gene, individual alleles of rs1048661 (G), rs3825942 (G), and rs2165241 (T) are highly associated with XFS and XFG in American and European populations. The GGT haplotype constitutes a major risk haplotype for exfoliation, and GAC may have a protective role. DNA sequencing of 95 affected patients did not show any mutations in this gene. The LOXL1 SNPs are located in the 15q24.1 band and within a genetic locus (GLC1N) that is associated with primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG). However, the LOXL1 genetic predisposition is only limited to exfoliation with or without glaucoma and does not include the POAG phenotype

Systematic evaluation of patient-reported outcome (PRO) protocol content and reporting in UK cancer clinical trials: the EPiC study protocol.

Emerging evidence suggests that patient-reported outcome (PRO)-specific information may be omitted in trial protocols and that PRO results are poorly reported, limiting the use of PRO data to inform cancer care. This study aims to evaluate the standards of PRO-specific content in UK cancer trial protocols and their arising publications and to highlight examples of best-practice PRO protocol content and reporting where they occur. The objective of this study is to determine if these early findings are generalisable to UK cancer trials, and if so, how best we can bring about future improvements in clinical trials methodology to enhance the way PROs are assessed, managed and reported.Trials in which the primary end point is based on a PRO will have more complete PRO protocol and publication components than trials in which PROs are secondary end points.Completed National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Portfolio Cancer clinical trials (all cancer specialities/age-groups) will be included if they contain a primary/secondary PRO end point. The NIHR portfolio includes cancer trials, supported by a range of funders, adjudged as high-quality clinical research studies. The sample will be drawn from studies completed between 31 December 2000 and 1 March 2014 (n=1141) to allow sufficient time for completion of the final trial report and publication. Two reviewers will then review the protocols and arising publications of included trials to: (1) determine the completeness of their PRO-specific protocol content; (2) determine the proportion and completeness of PRO reporting in UK Cancer trials and (3) model factors associated with PRO protocol and reporting completeness and with PRO reporting proportion.The study was approved by the ethics committee at University of Birmingham (ERN_15-0311). Trial findings will be disseminated via presentations at local, national and international conferences, peer-reviewed journals and social media including the CPROR twitter account and UOB departmental website (http://www.birmingham.ac.uk/cpro0r)

International perspectives on suboptimal patient-reported outcome trial design and reporting in cancer clinical trials: a qualitative study

Purpose: Evidence suggests that the patient-reported outcome (PRO) content of cancer trial protocols is frequently inadequate and non-reporting of PRO findings is widespread. This qualitative study examined the factors influencing suboptimal PRO protocol content, implementation, and reporting, and use of PRO data during clinical interactions. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with four stakeholder groups: (1) trialists and chief investigators; (2) people with lived experience of cancer; (3) international experts in PRO cancer trial design; (4) journal editors, funding panelists, and regulatory agencies. Data were analyzed using directed thematic analysis with an iterative coding frame. Results: Forty-four interviews were undertaken. Several factors were identified that could influenced effective integration of PROs into trials and subsequent findings. Participants described (1) late inclusion of PROs in trial design; (2) PROs being considered a lower priority outcome compared to survival; (3) trialists’ reluctance to collect or report PROs due to participant burden, missing data, and perceived reticence of journals to publish; (4) lack of staff training. Strategies to address these included training research personnel and improved communication with site staff and patients regarding the value of PROs. Examples of good practice were identified. Conclusion: Misconceptions relating to PRO methodology and its use may undermine their planning, collection, and reporting. There is a role for funding, regulatory, methodological, and journalistic institutions to address perceptions around the value of PROs, their position within the trial outcomes hierarchy, that PRO training and guidance is available, signposted, and readily accessible, with accompanying measures to ensure compliance with international best practice guidelines

Preliminary evidence on the uptake, use and benefits of the CONSORT-PRO extension.

PURPOSE: This study assessed the uptake of the CONsolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT)-Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) statement; determined if use of CONSORT-PRO was associated with more complete reporting of PRO endpoints in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and identified the extent to which high-impact journals publishing RCTs with PRO endpoints endorse CONSORT-PRO. METHODS: CONSORT-PRO citations were identified by systematically searching Medline, EMBASE and Google from 2013 (year CONSORT-PRO released) to 17 December 2015. RCTs that cited CONSORT-PRO (cases) were compared to a comparable control sample of RCTs in terms of adherence to CONSORT-PRO using t tests. General linear models assessed the relationship between CONSORT-PRO score and key, pre-specified variables. The 100 highest-impact journals that published RCTs with PRO endpoints (2014-2015) were identified via a systematic Medline search. Instructions for authors were reviewed to determine whether journals endorsed CONSORT-PRO. RESULTS: Total CONSORT-PRO scores ranged from 47 to 100% for cases and 25-96% for controls. Cases had significantly higher total CONSORT-PRO scores compared to controls: t = 2.64, p = 0.01. 'Citing CONSORT-PRO', 'journal endorsing CONSORT-PRO' and 'dedicated PRO paper' were significant predictors of higher CONSORT-PRO adherence score: R (2) = 0.48, p < 0.001. 11/100 top-ranked journals endorsed CONSORT-PRO in their instructions to authors, seven of these journals published RCTs included as cases in this study. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated improved PRO reporting associated with journal endorsement and author use of the CONSORT-PRO extension. Despite growing awareness, more work is needed to promote appropriate use of CONSORT-PRO to improve completeness of reporting; in particular, stronger journal endorsement of CONSORT-PRO

Electronic Patient Reporting of Adverse Events and Quality of Life: A Prospective Feasibility Study in General Oncology

PURPOSE: Adverse event (AE) reporting is essential in clinical trials. Clinician interpretation can result in under-reporting; therefore, the value of patient self-reporting has been recognized. The National Cancer Institute has developed a Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) for direct patient AE reporting. A nonrandomized prospective cohort feasibility study aimed to explore the compliance and acceptability of an electronic (Internet or telephone) system for collecting patient self-reported AEs and quality of life (QOL). METHODS: Oncology patients undergoing treatment (chemotherapy, targeted agents, hormone therapy, radiotherapy, and/or surgery) at 2 hospitals were sent automated weekly reminders to complete PRO-CTCAE once a week and QOL (for a maximum of 12 weeks). Patients had to speak/understand English and have access to the Internet or a touch-tone telephone. Primary outcome was compliance (proportion of expected questionnaires), and recruitment rate, attrition, and patient/staff feedback were also explored. RESULTS: Of 520 patients, 249 consented (47.9%)—mean age was 62 years, 51% were male, and 70% were married—and 230 remained on the study at week 12. PRO-CTCAE was completed at 2,301 (74.9%) of 3,074 timepoints and QOL at 749 (79.1%) of 947 timepoints. Individual weekly/once every 4 weeks compliance reduced over time but was more than 60% throughout. Of 230 patients, 106 (46.1%) completed 13 or more PRO-CTCAE, and 136 (59.1%) of 230 patients completed 4 QOL questionnaires. Most were completed on the Internet (82.3%; mean age, 60.8 years), which was quicker, but older patients preferred the telephone option (mean age, 70.0 years). Positive feedback was received from patients and staff. CONCLUSION: Self-reporting of AEs and QOL using an electronic home-based system is feasible and acceptable. Implementation of this approach in cancer clinical trials may improve the precision and accuracy of AE reporting

International perspectives on suboptimal patient-reported outcome trial design and reporting in cancer clinical trials: A qualitative study

Abstract Purpose: Evidence suggests that the patient- reported outcome (PRO) content of cancer trial protocols is frequently inadequate and non- reporting of PRO findings is widespread. This qualitative study examined the factors influencing suboptimal PRO protocol content, implementation, and reporting, and use of PRO data during clinical interactions. Methods: Semi- structured interviews were conducted with four stakeholder groups: (1) trialists and chief investigators; (2) people with lived experience of cancer; (3) international experts in PRO cancer trial design; (4) journal editors, funding panelists, and regulatory agencies. Data were analyzed using directed thematic analysis with an iterative coding frame. Results: Forty- four interviews were undertaken. Several factors were identified that could influenced effective integration of PROs into trials and subsequent findings. Participants described (1) late inclusion of PROs in trial design; (2) PROs being considered a lower priority outcome compared to survival; (3) trialists’ reluctance to collect or report PROs due to participant burden, missing data, and perceived reticence of journals to publish; (4) lack of staff training. Strategies to address these included training research personnel and improved communication with site staff and patients regarding the value of PROs. Examples of good practice were identified. Conclusion: Misconceptions relating to PRO methodology and its use may under-mine their planning, collection, and reporting. There is a role for funding, regulatory, methodological, and journalistic institutions to address perceptions around the value of PROs, their position within the trial outcomes hierarchy, that PRO training and guidance is available, signposted, and readily accessible, with accompanying measures to ensure compliance with international best practice guideline

Systematic Evaluation of Patient-Reported Outcome Protocol Content and Reporting in Cancer Trials

Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are captured within cancer trials to help future patients and their clinicians make more informed treatment decisions. However, variability in standards of PRO trial design and reporting threaten the validity of these endpoints for application in clinical practice. Methods: We systematically investigated a cohort of randomized controlled cancer trials that included a primary or secondary PRO. For each trial, an evaluation of protocol and reporting quality was undertaken using standard checklists. General patterns of reporting where also explored. Results: Protocols (101 sourced, 44.3%) included a mean (SD) of 10 (4) of 33 (range = 2–19) PRO protocol checklist items. Recommended items frequently omitted included the rationale and objectives underpinning PRO collection and approaches to minimize/address missing PRO data. Of 160 trials with published results, 61 (38.1%, 95% confidence interval = 30.6% to 45.7%) failed to include their PRO findings in any publication (mean 6.43-year follow-up); these trials included 49 568 participants. Although two-thirds of included trials published PRO findings, reporting standards were often inadequate according to international guidelines (mean [SD] inclusion of 3 [3] of 14 [range = 0–11]) CONSORT PRO Extension checklist items). More than one-half of trials publishing PRO results in a secondary publication (12 of 22, 54.5%) took 4 or more years to do so following trial closure, with eight (36.4%) taking 5–8 years and one trial publishing after 14 years. Conclusions: PRO protocol content is frequently inadequate, and nonreporting of PRO findings is widespread, meaning patient-important information may not be available to benefit patients, clinicians, and regulators. Even where PRO data are published, there is often considerable delay and reporting quality is suboptimal. This study presents key recommendations to enhance the likelihood of successful delivery of PROs in the future

Australian utility weights for the EORTC QLU-C10D, a multi-attribute utility instrument derived from the cancer-specific quality of life questionnaire, EORTC QLQ-C30

Background: The EORTC QLU-C10D is a new multi-attribute utility instrument derived from the widely-used cancer-specific quality of life questionnaire, EORTC QLQ-C30. The QLU-C10D contains ten dimensions (Physical, Role, Social and Emotional Functioning; Pain, Fatigue, Sleep, Appetite, Nausea, Bowel Problems), each with 4 levels. To be used in cost-utility analysis, country-specific valuation sets are required. Objective: To provide Australian utility weights for the QLU-C10D. Methods: An Australian online panel was quota sampled to ensure population representativeness by sex and age (≥18y). Participants completed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) consisting of 16 choice-pairs. Each pair comprised two QLU-C10D health states plus life expectancy. Data were analysed using conditional logistic regression, parameterised to fit the quality-adjusted life-year framework. Utility weights were calculated as the ratio of each QOL dimension-level coefficient to the coefficient on life expectancy. Results: 1979 panel members opted-in, 1904 (96%) completed at least one choice-pair, and 1846 (93%) completed all 16 choice-pairs. Dimension weights were generally monotonic: poorer levels within each dimension were generally associated with greater utility decrements. The dimensions that impacted most on choice were, in order, Physical Functioning, Pain, Role Functioning and Emotional Functioning. Oncology-relevant dimensions with moderate impact were Nausea and Bowel Problems. Fatigue, Trouble Sleeping and Appetite had relatively small impact. The value of the worst health state was -0.096, somewhat worse than death. Conclusions: This study provides the first country-specific value set for the QLU-C10D, which can facilitate cost-utility analyses when applied to data collected with the EORTC QLQ-C30, prospectively and retrospectively

United States Value Set for the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-General Eight Dimensions (FACT-8D), a Cancer-Specific Preference-Based Quality of Life Instrument

Objectives: To develop a value set reflecting the United States (US) general population’s preferences for health states described by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy (FACT) eight-dimensions preference-based multi-attribute utility instrument (FACT-8D), derived from the FACT-General cancer-specific health-related quality-of-life (HRQL) questionnaire. Methods: A US online panel was quota-sampled to achieve a general population sample representative by sex, age (≥ 18 years), race and ethnicity. A discrete choice experiment (DCE) was used to value health states. The valuation task involved choosing between pairs of health states (choice-sets) described by varying levels of the FACT-8D HRQL dimensions and survival (life-years). The DCE included 100 choice-sets; each respondent was randomly allocated 16 choice-sets. Data were analysed using conditional logit regression parameterized to fit the quality-adjusted life-year framework, weighted for sociodemographic variables that were non-representative of the US general population. Preference weights were calculated as the ratio of HRQL-level coefficients to the survival coefficient. Results: 2562 panel members opted in, 2462 (96%) completed at least one choice-set and 2357 (92%) completed 16 choice-sets. Pain and nausea were associated with the largest utility weights, work and sleep had more moderate utility weights, and sadness, worry and support had the smallest utility weights. Within dimensions, more severe HRQL levels were generally associated with larger weights. A preference-weighting algorithm to estimate US utilities from responses to the FACT-General questionnaire was generated. The worst health state’s value was −0.33. Conclusions: This value set provides US population utilities for health states defined by the FACT-8D for use in evaluating oncology treatments

Prediction of risk and incidence of dry eye in critical patients

Objectives: to estimate the incidence of dry eye, to identify risk factors and to establish a risk prediction model for its development in adult patients admitted to the intensive care unit of a public hospital. Method: concurrent cohort, conducted between March and June, 2014, with 230 patients admitted to an intensive care unit. Data were analyzed by bivariate descriptive statistics, with multivariate survival analysis and Cox regression. Results: 53% out of 230 patients have developed dry eye, with onset mean time of 3.5 days. Independent variables that significantly and concurrently impacted the time for dry eye to occur were: O2 in room air, blinking more than five times per minute (lower risk factors) and presence of vascular disease (higher risk factor). Conclusion: dry eye is a common finding in patients admitted to adults intensive care units, and care for its prevention should be established