Raising the profile of pilot and feasibility studies in relation to the development, evaluation and implementation of patient-reported outcome measures.

This editorial introduces a new special series on the pilot and feasibility testing of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the on-line open access journal Pilot and Feasibility Studies. Pilot and feasibility studies are typically implemented to address issues of uncertainty before undertaking a larger definitive study such as a randomised controlled trial or large scale survey. This editorial considers the role that such pilot and feasibility testing plays in relation to the development, evaluation and implementation of PROMs. This is often an essential element of PROM research but is typically overlooked-especially within current methodological guidance, reporting space and also debate. This editorial aims to open up a dialogue about the role of pilot and feasibility testing in relation to PROMs. It highlights some of the areas in PROMs research where these types of studies have been carried out and discusses the ways in which the PROM community may be better supported and encouraged to integrate this element of the research process into their PROM-based work

Mode equivalence and acceptability of tablet computer-, interactive voice response system-, and paper-based administration of the U.S. National Cancer Institute’s Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE)

Background PRO-CTCAE is a library of items that measure cancer treatment-related symptomatic adverse events (NCI Contracts: HHSN261201000043C and HHSN 261201000063C). The objective of this study is to examine the equivalence and acceptability of the three data collection modes (Web-enabled touchscreen tablet computer, Interactive voice response system [IVRS], and paper) available within the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) measurement system. Methods Participants (n = 112; median age 56.5; 24 % high school or less) receiving treatment for cancer at seven US sites completed 28 PRO-CTCAE items (scoring range 0–4) by three modes (order randomized) at a single study visit. Subjects completed one page (approx. 15 items) of the EORTC QLQ-C30 between each mode as a distractor. Item scores by mode were compared using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC); differences in scores within the 3-mode crossover design were evaluated with mixed-effects models. Difficulties with each mode experienced by participants were also assessed. Results 103 (92 %) completed questionnaires by all three modes. The median ICC comparing tablet vs IVRS was 0.78 (range 0.55–0.90); tablet vs paper: 0.81 (0.62–0.96); IVRS vs paper: 0.78 (0.60–0.91); 89 % of ICCs were ≥0.70. Item-level mean differences by mode were small (medians [ranges] for tablet vs. IVRS = −0.04 [−0.16–0.22]; tablet vs paper = −0.02 [−0.11–0.14]; IVRS vs paper = 0.02 [−0.07–0.19]), and 57/81 (70 %) items had bootstrapped 95 % CI around the effect sizes within +/−0.20. The median time to complete the questionnaire by tablet was 3.4 min; IVRS: 5.8; paper: 4.0. The proportion of participants by mode who reported “no problems” responding to the questionnaire was 86 % tablet, 72 % IVRS, and 98 % paper. Conclusions Mode equivalence of items was moderate to high, and comparable to test-retest reliability (median ICC = 0.80). Each mode was acceptable to a majority of respondents. Although the study was powered to detect moderate or larger discrepancies between modes, the observed ICCs and very small mean differences between modes provide evidence to support study designs that are responsive to patient or investigator preference for mode of administration, and justify comparison of results and pooled analyses across studies that employ different PRO-CTCAE modes of administration. Trial registration NCT Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT0215863

Impact of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic on the health of individuals with intoxication-type metabolic diseases : data from the E-IMD consortium

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic challenges healthcare systems worldwide. Within inherited metabolic disorders (IMDs) the vulnerable subgroup of intoxication-type IMDs such as organic acidurias (OA) and urea cycle disorders (UCD) show risk for infection-induced morbidity and mortality. This study (observation period February 2020 to December 2021) evaluates impact on medical health care as well as disease course and outcome of SARS-CoV-2 infections in patients with intoxication-type IMDs managed by participants of the European Registry and Network for intoxication type metabolic diseases Consortium (E-IMD). Survey's respondents managing 792 patients (n = 479 pediatric; n = 313 adult) with intoxication-type IMDs (n = 454 OA; n = 338 UCD) in 14 countries reported on 59 (OA: n = 36; UCD: n = 23), SARS-CoV-2 infections (7.4%). Medical services were increasingly requested (95%), mostly alleviated by remote technologies (86%). Problems with medical supply were scarce (5%). Regular follow-up visits were reduced in 41% (range 10%–50%). Most infected individuals (49/59; 83%) showed mild clinical symptoms, while 10 patients (17%; n = 6 OA including four transplanted MMA patients; n = 4 UCD) were hospitalized (metabolic decompensation in 30%). ICU treatment was not reported. Hospitalization rate did not differ for diagnosis or age group (p = 0.778). Survival rate was 100%. Full recovery was reported for 100% in outpatient care and 90% of hospitalized individuals. SARS-CoV-2 impacts health care of individuals with intoxication-type IMDs worldwide. Most infected individuals, however, showed mild symptoms and did not require hospitalization. SARS-CoV-2-induced metabolic decompensations were usually mild without increased risk for ICU treatment. Overall prognosis of infected individuals is very promising and IMD-specific or COVID-19-related complications have not been observed