Guidelines for Inclusion of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Clinical Trial Protocols: The SPIRIT-PRO Extension

Importance Patient-reported outcome (PRO) data from clinical trials can provide valuable evidence to inform shared decision making, labeling claims, clinical guidelines, and health policy; however, the PRO content of clinical trial protocols is often suboptimal. The SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) statement was published in 2013 and aims to improve the completeness of trial protocols by providing evidence-based recommendations for the minimum set of items to be addressed, but it does not provide PRO-specific guidance. Objective To develop international, consensus-based, PRO-specific protocol guidance (the SPIRIT-PRO Extension). Design, Setting, and Participants The SPIRIT-PRO Extension was developed following the Enhancing Quality and Transparency of Health Research (EQUATOR) Network’s methodological framework for guideline development. This included (1) a systematic review of existing PRO-specific protocol guidance to generate a list of potential PRO-specific protocol items (published in 2014); (2) refinements to the list and removal of duplicate items by the International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) Protocol Checklist Taskforce; (3) an international stakeholder survey of clinical trial research personnel, PRO methodologists, health economists, psychometricians, patient advocates, funders, industry representatives, journal editors, policy makers, ethicists, and researchers responsible for evidence synthesis (distributed by 38 international partner organizations in October 2016); (4) an international Delphi exercise (n = 137 invited; October 2016 to February 2017); and (5) consensus meeting (n = 30 invited; May 2017). Prior to voting, consensus meeting participants were informed of the results of the Delphi exercise and given data from structured reviews evaluating the PRO protocol content of 3 defined samples of trial protocols. Results The systematic review identified 162 PRO-specific protocol recommendations from 54 sources. The ISOQOL Taskforce (n = 21) reduced this to 56 items, which were considered by 138 international stakeholder survey participants and 99 Delphi panelists. The final wording of the SPIRIT-PRO Extension was agreed on at a consensus meeting (n = 29 participants) and reviewed by external group of experts during a consultation period. Eleven extensions and 5 elaborations to the SPIRIT 2013 checklist were recommended for inclusion in clinical trial protocols in which PROs are a primary or key secondary outcome. Extension items focused on PRO-specific issues relating to the trial rationale, objectives, eligibility criteria, concepts used to evaluate the intervention, time points for assessment, PRO instrument selection and measurement properties, data collection plan, translation to other languages, proxy completion, strategies to minimize missing data, and whether PRO data will be monitored during the study to inform clinical care. Conclusions and Relevance The SPIRIT-PRO guidelines provide recommendations for items that should be addressed and included in clinical trial protocols in which PROs are a primary or key secondary outcome. Improved design of clinical trials including PROs could help ensure high-quality data that may inform patient-centered care.

[1]  D. Stryer,et al.  Practical clinical trials: increasing the value of clinical research for decision making in clinical and health policy. , 2003, JAMA.

[2]  Sandra A Mitchell,et al.  Patient-Reported Outcomes in Cancer Clinical Trials: Measuring Symptomatic Adverse Events With the National Cancer Institute's Patient-Reported Outcomes Version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE). , 2016, American Society of Clinical Oncology educational book. American Society of Clinical Oncology. Annual Meeting.

[3]  Rachel M. Taylor,et al.  Systematic evaluation of patient-reported outcome (PRO) protocol content and reporting in UK cancer clinical trials: the EPiC study protocol , 2016, BMJ Open.

[4]  H. Draper,et al.  Patient-reported outcome alerts: ethical and logistical considerations in clinical trials. , 2013, Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

[5]  Caroline B. Terwee,et al.  How to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a “Core Outcome Set” – a practical guideline , 2016, Trials.

[6]  Lori Frank,et al.  The PCORI perspective on patient-centered outcomes research. , 2014, JAMA.

[7]  D. G. Altman,et al.  GRIPP2 reporting checklists: tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research , 2017, Research Involvement and Engagement.

[8]  Inconsistencies in Quality of Life Data Collection in Clinical Trials: A Potential Source of Bias? Interviews with Research Nurses and Trialists , 2013, PloS one.

[9]  H. Draper,et al.  Current practices in patient-reported outcome (PRO) data collection in clinical trials: a cross-sectional survey of UK trial staff and management , 2016, BMJ Open.

[10]  M. Stockler,et al.  The administration of patient-reported outcome questionnaires in cancer trials: Interviews with trial coordinators regarding their roles, experiences, challenges and training , 2017, Contemporary clinical trials communications.

[11]  M. King,et al.  Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Assessment in Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review of Guidance for Trial Protocol Writers , 2014, PloS one.

[12]  L. Collette,et al.  Analysing data from patient-reported outcome and quality of life endpoints for cancer clinical trials: a start in setting international standards. , 2016, The Lancet. Oncology.

[13]  P. Fayers,et al.  Quality of life assessment in clinical trials—guidelines and a checklist for protocol writers: the U.K. Medical Research Council experience , 1997 .

[14]  D. Wild,et al.  Principles of Good Practice for the Translation and Cultural Adaptation Process for Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Measures: report of the ISPOR Task Force for Translation and Cultural Adaptation. , 2005, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[15]  David Cella,et al.  Recommendations on evidence needed to support measurement equivalence between electronic and paper-based patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures: ISPOR ePRO Good Research Practices Task Force report. , 2009, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[16]  D. Osoba,et al.  Missing quality of life data in cancer clinical trials: serious problems and challenges. , 1998, Statistics in medicine.

[17]  H. Draper,et al.  Management of Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Alerts in Clinical Trials: A Cross Sectional Survey. , 2016, PloS one.

[18]  R. Hays,et al.  Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. , 2008, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[19]  M. Stockler,et al.  The patient-reported outcome content of international ovarian cancer randomised controlled trial protocols , 2016, Quality of Life Research.

[20]  D. Moher,et al.  Putting patients at the heart of health-care research , 2015, The Lancet.

[21]  D. Cella,et al.  Developing a Valid Patient‐Reported Outcome Measure , 2011, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[22]  D A Revicki,et al.  Recommendations for evaluating the validity of quality of life claims for labeling and promotion. , 1999, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[23]  S. Staniszewska,et al.  Establishing the values for patient engagement (PE) in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) research: an international, multiple-stakeholder perspective , 2016, Quality of Life Research.

[24]  D. Patrick Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in randomized trials: the CONSORT PRO extension. , 2013, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[25]  Melanie Calvert,et al.  Design, implementation and reporting strategies to reduce the instance and impact of missing patient-reported outcome (PRO) data: a systematic review , 2016, BMJ Open.

[26]  Matthias Briel,et al.  Evaluation of the patient-reported outcome (PRO) content of clinical trial protocols , 2014 .

[27]  A. Gnanasakthy,et al.  Patient reported outcomes: looking beyond the label claim , 2010, Health and quality of life outcomes.

[28]  M. King A point of minimal important difference (MID): a critique of terminology and methods , 2011, Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research.

[29]  Jane M Blazeby,et al.  Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider , 2012, Trials.

[30]  D. Moher,et al.  Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines , 2010, PLoS medicine.

[31]  David Moher,et al.  SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials , 2013, BMJ.

[32]  D. Fairclough Design and analysis of quality of life studies in clinical trials , 2002, Quality of Life Research.

[33]  N. Santanello,et al.  Analysis and interpretation of results based on patient-reported outcomes. , 2007, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[34]  M. King,et al.  Mode of administration does not cause bias in patient-reported outcome results: a meta-analysis , 2016, Quality of Life Research.

[35]  U. Gunnarsson,et al.  Quality of life in patients with a permanent stoma after rectal cancer surgery , 2016, Quality of Life Research.

[36]  David Moher,et al.  SPIRIT 2013 Statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. , 2015, Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health.