Abstract 153: Use Of Patient-reported Outcome Measures (PROMS) In The Primary Publications Of Acute Stroke Clinical Trials (2010-2020)

Abstract

Background: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) describe health status from the perspective of the patient. There is growing interest in the use of PROMs in clinical trials and there have been major efforts to develop PROMs for neurological conditions (e.g., Neuro-QOL, PROMIS). However, the extent to which such measures are used in stroke trials is uncertain. We sought to determine how often contemporary acute stroke trials included PROMs as primary or secondary outcome measures. Methods: We searched MEDLINE for completed RCTs published in one of nine major journals between 2010 and 2020. Eligible studies were phase 2 or 3 trials undertaken to test therapeutic interventions within one month of stroke onset. For each trial we accessed the primary publication as well as the published protocol and supplement when available. We abstracted key trial characteristics including all primary and secondary efficacy outcome measures. We defined PROMs using online databases (qolid.org) with the focus on self-reported measures of quality of life, symptoms, and function collected without interpretation of an external party. Results: 115 trials met eligibility criteria. Only one trial used a PROM for its primary outcome measure (visual analogue pain scale), but 40 trials (35%) listed at least one PROM as a secondary outcome measure in its primary publication. An additional 15 trials (13%) listed at least one PROM in their protocol. Among the 55 trials that defined at least one PROM as a secondary outcome measure, the most commonly used measure was Euro-QOL (n=42, 76%) followed by SIS-16 (n=9, 16%), SF-36 (n=7, 13%), and the stroke-specific QOL scale (n=5, 9%). Other PROMs included various measures of anxiety and depression (n=9, 16%). Only one study used a Neuro-QOL based measure. Of the 41 trials that listed a PROM as a primary or secondary outcome in the primary publication, 39 (95%) provided PROM results, but of these only 7 (18%) found statistically significant treatment differences. Conclusions: While about half of acute stroke trials listed at least one PROM as a secondary outcome, they played a minor role in the presentation of trial results. Inclusion of PROMs in acute stroke trials requires greater attention during both the design and reporting phases of the trial.