Evaluation Of Treatment Benefit Research Articles

Use of long-acting triple therapy for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) in practice: The ELETHON physicians' survey

Gaps in optimal COPD management have been identified in clinical practice, with discrepancies between guideline recommendations and routine care. The reasons for such discrepancies are incompletely understood. The ELETHON survey aimed to identify physicians' attitudes towards general concepts of COPD management and, in particular, initiation of inhaled triple therapies. ELETHON was a nationwide cross-sectional survey with general practitioners (GP) and pulmonary specialists (PS) working in the ambulatory outpatient setting in Germany, using a structured 17-item questionnaire (single or multiple choice questions) addressing the topics of secondary prevention, exacerbation detection, strategies for therapy escalation, choice of inhaled triple therapies and evaluation of treatment benefits. Questionnaires filled by n=2028 GPs and n=371 PS were analyzed. In both groups, secondary prevention was deemed important in COPD care (GP/PS 76.4%/90.6%), with inhalation technique, vaccination status, and appropriate inhaled pharmacotherapy as key components. Activity/rehabilitation was rarely mentioned by GPs (48.3% vs. 84.5%). Exacerbations and symptomatic worsening were the main triggers for therapy escalation, but were not recorded in a structured way. "Hospitalization" and "≥2 ambulatory exacerbations" were mentioned most frequently as thresholds. Neither GPs nor PS measured eosinophils in the majority of patients. Fixed triple combinations were preferred, with availability of different treatment steps in the same device as important decision aid. Treatment success was evaluated by exacerbations, quality of life, symptoms, lung function and rescue medication use, while COPD Assessment Test (CAT) score was rarely used by GPs and PS. The ELETHON survey identified gaps in COPD management in Germany. While secondary prevention is deemed important, escalation of inhaled therapy is undertaken rather late, the reported importance of vaccinations does not match current quota in German COPD patients, and non-pharmacological measures are often unused. Exacerbation and symptom documentation is rather subjective, validated questionnaires and blood eosinophils are of minor relevance. These results provide evidence of barriers and hidden potentials towards optimization of routine ambulatory care for COPD patients in Germany.

Symptoms of Major Depressive Disorder Scale: Performance of a Novel Patient-Reported Symptom Measure

BackgroundThe Symptoms of Major Depressive Disorder Scale (SMDDS) was expressly developed on the basis of qualitative data to directly incorporate patients' voices into evaluation of treatment benefit in major depressive disorder (MDD) clinical trials. ObjectivesTo collect quantitative data necessary to refine/optimize the SMDDS and document its psychometric properties. MethodsIn this multicenter, observational study, participants with clinically diagnosed MDD completed questionnaires in 2 waves. Wave 1 was designed to refine the SMDDS using Rasch measurement evaluations and item reduction analyses. On a subset of wave 1 subjects, 7 to 12 months later, wave 2 further examined item performance and measurement properties. Exploratory factor analyses and assessments of construct validity and reliability (internal consistency and reproducibility) were completed. ResultsUsing wave 1 data (N = 315; females = 71%, white = 81%, mean age = 44 years), the SMDDS was revised from 36 to 16 items. The Rasch item threshold map indicated that all but 1 item (suicidal ideation) were appropriately ordered. The 207 wave 2 participants were 74% females, 82% white, with a mean age of 45 years. The exploratory factor analyses resulted in a single component (all standardized factor loadings >0.46). Cronbach α was 0.93 and the 7-day test-retest intraclass correlation coefficient (n = 93) was 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.77-0.89). SMDDS scores discriminated between MDD severity levels. ConclusionsThe 16-item SMDDS generated highly reliable scores with substantial evidence of construct validity. On the basis of the evidence of appropriate content validity and sound psychometric performance, the Food and Drug Administration qualified the SMDDS as an outcome measure to support exploratory efficacy endpoints in MDD clinical trials.

Development and psychometric evaluation of the Diabetic Gastroparesis Symptom Severity Diary.

BackgroundDiabetic gastroparesis (DG) is defined as delayed gastric emptying with associated gastrointestinal symptoms, without mechanical obstruction. Patient-reported symptoms are critical for diagnosis and evaluation of treatment benefit in DG. The Diabetic Gastroparesis Symptom Severity Diary (DGSSD), a new patient-reported outcome measure, was developed for use in clinical trials to support product approval and labeling claims for DG treatments.Materials and methodsInitial DGSSD development was based on a review of the existing instruments and qualitative research (focus groups and cognitive debriefing interviews) in 41 patients with DG. Psychometric evaluations (individual items and composite scores) were conducted using data from Phase IIa and IIb relamorelin clinical trials.ResultsQualitative research in patients with DG resulted in a six-item DGSSD, included in the Phase IIa trial, addressing symptom severity for nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, early satiety, and bloating, as well as vomiting frequency. An item addressing severity of postprandial fullness (PPF) was subsequently added based on regulatory advice and included in the Phase IIb trial. Measurement properties were generally strong for weekly averages of daily item and composite scores. Item-level intraclass correlation coefficients ranged from 0.79 to 0.97 and correlations with other measures matched hypothesized patterns; the discriminating ability and responsiveness of the DGSSD were also supported. Multiple methods supported the computation of a composite score based on items addressing nausea, abdominal pain, bloating, and PPF severity.ConclusionQualitative and quantitative evidence support use of the DGSSD as a reliable and valid measure from which to derive endpoints to evaluate treatment benefit in future DG interventional trials.

Gait characterization in golden retriever muscular dystrophy dogs using linear discriminant analysis

BackgroundAccelerometric analysis of gait abnormalities in golden retriever muscular dystrophy (GRMD) dogs is of limited sensitivity, and produces highly complex data. The use of discriminant analysis may enable simpler and more sensitive evaluation of treatment benefits in this important preclinical model.MethodsAccelerometry was performed twice monthly between the ages of 2 and 12 months on 8 healthy and 20 GRMD dogs. Seven accelerometric parameters were analysed using linear discriminant analysis (LDA). Manipulation of the dependent and independent variables produced three distinct models. The ability of each model to detect gait alterations and their pattern change with age was tested using a leave-one-out cross-validation approach.ResultsSelecting genotype (healthy or GRMD) as the dependent variable resulted in a model (Model 1) allowing a good discrimination between the gait phenotype of GRMD and healthy dogs. However, this model was not sufficiently representative of the disease progression. In Model 2, age in months was added as a supplementary dependent variable (GRMD_2 to GRMD_12 and Healthy_2 to Healthy_9.5), resulting in a high overall misclassification rate (83.2%). To improve accuracy, a third model (Model 3) was created in which age was also included as an explanatory variable. This resulted in an overall misclassification rate lower than 12%. Model 3 was evaluated using blinded data pertaining to 81 healthy and GRMD dogs. In all but one case, the model correctly matched gait phenotype to the actual genotype. Finally, we used Model 3 to reanalyse data from a previous study regarding the effects of immunosuppressive treatments on muscular dystrophy in GRMD dogs. Our model identified significant effect of immunosuppressive treatments on gait quality, corroborating the original findings, with the added advantages of direct statistical analysis with greater sensitivity and more comprehensible data representation.ConclusionsGait analysis using LDA allows for improved analysis of accelerometry data by applying a decision-making analysis approach to the evaluation of preclinical treatment benefits in GRMD dogs.

Quality of Life in Patients with Atopic Dermatitis: Disease Burden, Measurement, and Treatment Benefit.

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is often markedly impaired in both adults and children with atopic dermatitis. The quality of life of the parents of infants or children with this chronic disease is also affected owing to problems such as itch-induced sleeping problems and treatment effort. As HRQoL is only partly associated with disease severity, both parameters should be evaluated in research and clinical practice. For the measurement of HRQoL, both skin- and disease-specific questionnaires are available in addition to generic instruments. In randomized controlled trials on atopic dermatitis, HRQoL is most commonly evaluated with the Dermatology Life Quality Index for use in adults and related questionnaires for children and families, such as the Children's Dermatology Life Quality Index. There is evidence that different treatment modalities may be effective in improving HRQoL in adults, children, and parents, which is supported by the patients' own evaluation of treatment benefit in an observational study.

A two-stage patient enrichment adaptive design in phase II oncology trials

Illustrated is the use of a patient enrichment adaptive design in a randomized phase II trial which allows the evaluation of treatment benefits by the biomarker expression level and makes interim adjustment according to the pre-specified rules. The design was applied to an actual phase II metastatic hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) trial in which progression-free survival (PFS) in two biomarker-defined populations is evaluated at both interim and final analyses. As an extension, a short-term biomarker is used to predict the long-term PFS in a Bayesian model in order to improve the precision of hazard ratio (HR) estimate at the interim analysis. The characteristics of the extended design are examined in a number of scenarios via simulations. The recommended adaptive design is shown to be useful in a phase II setting. When a short-term maker which correlates with the long-term PFS is available, the design can be applied in smaller early phase trials in which PFS requires longer follow-up. In summary, the adaptive design offers flexibility in randomized phase II patient enrichment trials and should be considered in an overall personalized healthcare (PHC) strategy.

Evaluation of Treatment Benefit: Randomized Controlled Trials and Population-Based Observational Research

TO THE EDITOR: An editorial by Goodwin et al 1 prioritized randomized controlled trials (RCTs) over observational research for demonstrating benefits of treatment. We agree that RCTs remain the gold standard for establishing efficacy of new cancer therapies under controlled conditions. However, we suggest that the editorial undervaluedtheabilityofpopulation-basedobservationalresearchtoinvestigate effects of new therapies among patients treated in routine practice.Wedisagreewiththeeditorialstatement 1 thatRCTsestablish both efficacy and effectiveness and propose that population-based studies are necessary and complementary to ensure that results of RCTs translate into benefits for the general population, that is, to demonstrate effectiveness. The strength of RCTs derives from the power of randomization toensurethattheonlydifferencebetweentreatmentarmsisexposure to the treatment of interest. However, problems related to design, analysis,andreportinglimitmanyRCTsandhowtheycanbeapplied to manage patients in routine practice. Older patients, patients with comorbidities,andpatientsfromdisadvantagedsocioeconomicbackgrounds are underrepresented in RCTs, and there can be substantial differences in the provision of care for patients in RCTs compared with routine practice. Surrogate end points are used widely in RCTs despite lack of validation that they predict improvement in duration or quality of survival. RCTs underestimate and under-report harms from new cancer therapies, especially chronic toxicities in patients receiving targeted agents. 2 Selective reporting can sometimes give the impressionthatexperimentaltherapyisprovidingbenefitwhenthere is no difference in the primary outcome compared with the control arm and/or increased toxicities associated with the new treatment. 3,4 Large sample sizes of RCTs allow detection of differences between armsthatarestatisticallysignificantbutofmarginalclinicalrelevance. Given the greater toxicity expected when treatment is applied to a population with greater comorbidity, a small increase in overall (or progression-free) survival observed in a large RCT may disappear when some treatments are applied in routine practice. Advances in information technology have enabled large-scale population-based observational studies to combine databases such as cancer registries and hospital records. These studies can provide insights into benefits and treatment-related toxicities of patients underrepresented in RCTs, including the elderly and patients with comorbidities. Examples include the finding of increased cardiovascular disease and diabetes among men treated with androgen deprivation for localized prostate cancer 5 and risks of cardiac disease after radiotherapyforbreastcancer. 6 Population-basedstudiescanidentify

Evaluation of treatment benefit to an unselected population of patients with metastatic colorectal cancer, referred to oncological treatment.

e14677 Background: Patients, with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), participating in clinical trials are a selected group with a better performance status compared to all patients, who are referred to oncological treatment. The aim of the study was to evaluate the benefit of standard treatment modalities, offered to an unselected group of patients, referred to our Dept. of Oncology. Methods: Consecutive patients treated with more than one cycle of chemotherapy, registrated in our database from May 2003 to July 2012, were included. Clinical information was obtained from patient files. The outcome was overall survival for various groups. Following parameters were collected: Gender, age, primary tumor site, resection status of primary tumor, number of metastic sites, liver-only mets, number of chemotherapy regimens, +/- Bevazicumab and rate of palliative radiation. Results: 266 consequtive patients, treated with more than one cycle of chemotherapy, were included. Median age 67 (31-86) years, 150 male (59%). Distribution of the primary tumor was 35/37/28% for rectum/left colon/right colon. 192/59/15 (72/22/6%) had the primary tumor resected/not resected/stent. 54/37/9% had one metastic site/ two sites/three or more sites. 24% had liver only. As first line chemotherapy 29% received Capecitabine (CAP), 55% CAP + Oxaliplatin, and 8% CAP + Irinotecan. 44% received Bevacizumab. 69%/27% received either second and third line chemotherapy. 19% received palliative radiotherapy. Median OS for the whole population was 17 months CI ( 15-19). Patients with one, two or three, or more mets sites had a OS of 21(CI: 16-26)/17 (14-20)/9 (4-149) months, respectively. For patients receiving one, two, or three lines of chemotherapy OS was respectively 8/16/28 months. Addition of Bevacizumab to chemotherapy regimens had an OS of 27 months CI (24-30), compared to 20 months (16-24) for chemotherapy alone. Conclusions: Unselected mCRC patients, treated with standard chemotherapy regimens, seem to obtain the same OS benefit as seen in clinical trials. Survival benefit was dependent on the number of metastatic sites, the number of cht. regimens received and addition of Bevacizumab to the treatment.

Evaluation of Treatment Benefit in Journal of Clinical Oncology

Evaluation of Treatment Benefit in <i>Journal of Clinical Oncology</i>

Perceived control over ejaculation is central to treatment benefit in men with premature ejaculation: results from phase III trials with dapoxetine

To assess the utility of perceived control over ejaculation ('control') in the evaluation of treatment benefit in men with premature ejaculation (PE), and to compare effects associated with a two-category or greater increase in this variable between men receiving dapoxetine and placebo. This subanalysis used combined data from all treatment groups in an integrated analysis of two identically designed, 12-week, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trials of dapoxetine. Men (2614) met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (fourth edition, text revision) criteria for PE, had a stopwatch-measured intravaginal ejaculatory latency time (IELT) of < or =2 min in > or =75% of events in a 2-week baseline period, and self-reported moderate or severe PE. Men received placebo or dapoxetine 30 or 60 mg, 1-3 h before intercourse. The stopwatch-measured IELT was recorded for each episode; the patient-reported global impression of change (PGI; 7-point scale, 'much worse' to 'much better'), control and satisfaction with sexual intercourse (5-point scales, 'very poor' to 'very good') were assessed monthly. The utility of a two-category or greater increase in control was evaluated by examining the relationship of this variable with IELT and satisfaction with sexual intercourse. Of 2341 men with baseline and endpoint assessments, 96.8% reported 'very poor' or 'poor' control at baseline, and 748 (32%) reported a two-category or greater increase in control after treatment. More than 95% of those men rated their PE as 'slightly better', 'better', or 'much better' on the PGI; 67.1% gave ratings of 'better' or 'much better.' They also had greater improvements in IELT than men with less than a two-category increase in control, with a mean (sd) change from baseline of 3.7 (4.3) vs 0.77 (1.8) min, respectively, and a greater percentage reported good or very good satisfaction with sexual intercourse than men with less than a two-category increase in control (74% vs 19%, respectively). Nausea, headache and upper respiratory tract infection were the most common adverse events reported by men with a two-category or greater increase in control (15.8%, 7.4% and 6.6%, respectively) and those without (8.5%, 5.5% and 6.5%, respectively). The proportions of men with a two-category or greater increase in control with dapoxetine 30 and 60 mg were 36.3% and 44.5%, respectively (vs 15% with placebo). A two-category or greater increase in control (5-point scale) is useful for assessing the treatment benefit in men with PE; it corresponds with improvements in the man's perception of his condition, substantially greater prolongation of IELT, and higher levels of satisfaction with sexual intercourse.