Outcome selection and role of patient reported outcomes in contemporary cardiovascular trials: systematic review

Objectives To systematically assess the type of outcomes selected and the prevalence of patient reported outcomes in contemporary cardiovascular trials and to quantify any misuse or underuse of patient reported outcomes using a specially developed tool that would allow estimation of the relevance of such outcomes to clinical decision making. Design Systematic review. Data sources Medline and Embase. Study selection Randomised controlled trials of the treatment for or prevention of cardiovascular disease published in 10 leading general medical and cardiology journals from January 2005 to December 2008. Results Primary outcomes were patient important (death, morbidity, or patient reported outcomes) in only 93 of 413 trials (23%, SE 2%), whereas another 92 (22%, SE 2%) combined these outcomes with other less important ones into a composite. Sixty five trials (16%; SE 2%) used at least one instrument to measure patient reported outcomes, mostly in trials where such information would have been important or crucial for clinical decision making (52 trials). Patient reported outcomes were judged to be of little incremental value to a large number of, mostly explanatory, cardiovascular trials (152 trials). However, many trials in which patient reported outcomes would have been important or crucial for clinical decision making did not report such outcomes (122 of 174 trials, 70%). These included several trials that primarily aimed to improve symptoms or functional status, trials that tested interventions with a considerable potential for causing harm (mainly bleeding) that were not meaningfully measured, and trials with composite outcomes that were dominated by outcomes of questionable importance to patients. Conclusions Despite a continued rise in the reporting of patient reported outcomes with no evidence for their misuse in more recent cardiovascular trials, they seem to be still underused once their relevance to clinical decision making has been taken into account. This was largely explained by inappropriate use of composite outcomes and inadequate measurement of harms.

[1]  D. Altman,et al.  Composite Outcomes in Cardiovascular Research: A Survey of Randomized Trials , 2008, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[2]  S. Wilson.  Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes , 1987 .

[3]  Gordon H Guyatt,et al.  Patient-important outcomes in registered diabetes trials. , 2008, JAMA.

[4]  A. Kastrati,et al.  Absorption, Metabolization, and Antiplatelet Effects of 300-, 600-, and 900-mg Loading Doses of Clopidogrel: Results of the ISAR-CHOICE (Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Choose Between 3 High Oral Doses for Immediate Clopidogrel Effect) Trial , 2005, Circulation.

[5]  P. Fayers,et al.  Quality of Life: The assessment, analysis and interpretation of patient-reported outcomes , 2007 .

[6]  D. Osoba,et al.  Letters to the editor: Assessing quality of life in clinical trials , 1993 .

[7]  Robert M Califf,et al.  A comparison of the clinical impact of bleeding measured by two different classifications among patients with acute coronary syndromes. , 2006, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[8]  B. Gersh.  Prasugrel versus Clopidogrel in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes , 2008 .

[9]  I. Piña,et al.  Clinical and analytical considerations in the study of health status in device trials for heart failure. , 2005, Journal of cardiac failure.

[10]  D. Osoba,et al.  Assessing quality of life in clinical trials. , 1993, Annals of oncology : official journal of the European Society for Medical Oncology.

[11]  Nick Freemantle,et al.  Composite outcomes in randomized trials: greater precision but with greater uncertainty? , 2003, JAMA.

[12]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Better Reporting of Harms in Randomized Trials: An Extension of the CONSORT Statement , 2004, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[13]  D. Goldfarb.  Patients at the centre: in our practice, and in our use of language , 2004, ACP journal club.

[14]  S. V. Zanten.  Quality of life as outcome measures in randomized clinical trials. An overview of three general medical journals. , 1991 .

[15]  E. Antman,et al.  Prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[16]  E. Korn,et al.  Quality-of-life assessment in cancer treatment protocols: research issues in protocol development. , 1992, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[17]  N. Frasure-smith,et al.  Effects of citalopram and interpersonal psychotherapy on depression in patients with coronary artery disease: the Canadian Cardiac Randomized Evaluation of Antidepressant and Psychotherapy Efficacy (CREATE) trial. , 2007, JAMA.

[18]  C. Furberg,et al.  Assessment of quality of life in clinical trials of cardiovascular therapies. , 1984, The American journal of cardiology.

[19]  S. Veldhuyzen van Zanten.  Quality of life as outcome measures in randomized clinical trials. An overview of three general medical journals. , 1991, Controlled clinical trials.

[20]  N. Alpert,et al.  High-dose folic acid acutely improves coronary vasodilator function in patients with coronary artery disease. , 2005, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[21]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Measuring quality of life in clinical trials: a taxonomy and review. , 1989, CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne.

[22]  J. Spertus.  Evolving Applications for Patient-Centered Health Status Measures , 2008, Circulation.

[23]  A. Fioritti,et al.  Quality of Life Assessment of Randomized Controlled Trials , 2006, Tumori.

[24]  H. Krum,et al.  Losartan Increases Bradykinin Levels in Hypertensive Humans , 2005, Circulation.

[25]  Quality of life and clinical trials , 1995, The Lancet.

[26]  S. Pocock.  A perspective on the role of quality-of-life assessment in clinical trials. , 1991, Controlled clinical trials.

[27]  J. Guralnik,et al.  Measurement of walking endurance and walking velocity with questionnaire: validation of the walking impairment questionnaire in men and women with peripheral arterial disease. , 1998, Journal of vascular surgery.

[28]  D. Cella,et al.  Quality-of-life assessment in cancer clinical trials: a status report. , 1992, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[29]  Ian Harvey,et al.  A pragmatic–explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS): a tool to help trial designers , 2009, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[30]  A. Cohen-Solal,et al.  Plasma brain natriuretic peptide-guided therapy to improve outcome in heart failure: the STARS-BNP Multicenter Study. , 2007, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[31]  E. Unger,et al.  Weighing benefits and risks--the FDA's review of prasugrel. , 2009, The New England journal of medicine.

[32]  J. Donovan,et al.  Reporting on quality of life in randomised controlled trials: bibliographic study , 1998, BMJ.

[33]  Mike Clarke,et al.  Standardising outcomes for clinical trials and systematic reviews , 2007, Trials.

[34]  S. Kaasa.  Measurement of quality of life in clinical trials. , 1992, Oncology.

[35]  Robert M Califf,et al.  Lessons learned from recent cardiovascular clinical trials: Part II. , 2002, Circulation.

[36]  J. Lellouch,et al.  Explanatory and pragmatic attitudes in therapeutical trials. , 1967, Journal of chronic diseases.

[37]  N. Leidy,et al.  Incorporating the patient's perspective into drug development and communication: an ad hoc task force report of the Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Harmonization Group meeting at the Food and Drug Administration, February 16, 2001. , 2003, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[38]  Robert M Califf,et al.  Lessons learned from recent cardiovascular clinical trials: Part I. , 2002, Circulation.

[39]  A. McCarthy.  Quality of Life: The Assessment, Analysis and Interpretation of Patient-Reported Outcomes (2nd Ed.) , 2009, Research and Theory for Nursing Practice.

[40]  S. Nekolla,et al.  Mechanical reperfusion in patients with acute myocardial infarction presenting more than 12 hours from symptom onset: a randomized controlled trial. , 2005, JAMA.

[41]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Reporting and interpretation of SF-36 outcomes in randomised trials: systematic review , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[42]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Development and testing of a new measure of health status for clinical trials in heart failure , 1989, Journal of General Internal Medicine.

[43]  Gordon H Guyatt,et al.  Problems with use of composite end points in cardiovascular trials: systematic review of randomised controlled trials , 2007, BMJ : British Medical Journal.