1. Enabling patient-reported outcome measures in clinical trials, exemplified by cardiovascular trials
- Author
-
Michael C. Edwards, Gustavo Buchele, Adrian F. Hernandez, Amy E. Rudolph, Nikunj Patel, Denise Bury, Bryce B. Reeve, Karon F. Cook, John A. Spertus, Michael Woloschak, Matthew T. Roe, Kevin P. Weinfurt, Arnold Degboe, Elizabeth Nicole Bush, Marc Boutin, Theresa Coles, Lothar Roessig, Pauline McNulty, Trish Kay-Mugford, and Margaret Vernon
- Subjects
Computer applications to medicine. Medical informatics ,R858-859.7 ,Context (language use) ,Prom ,030204 cardiovascular system & hematology ,Food and drug administration ,03 medical and health sciences ,0302 clinical medicine ,Clinical trials ,Argument ,Surveys and Questionnaires ,Humans ,030212 general & internal medicine ,Patient Reported Outcome Measures ,Think Tank meeting results ,Medical education ,Clinical Trials as Topic ,Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health ,General Medicine ,Evidence-based medicine ,United States ,Clinical trial ,Clinical research ,Cardiovascular Diseases ,Patient-reported outcome measures ,Quality of Life ,Commentary ,Patient-reported outcome ,Patient Participation ,Psychology - Abstract
Objectives There has been limited success in achieving integration of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical trials. We describe how stakeholders envision a solution to this challenge. Methods Stakeholders from academia, industry, non-profits, insurers, clinicians, and the Food and Drug Administration convened at a Think Tank meeting funded by the Duke Clinical Research Institute to discuss the challenges of incorporating PROs into clinical trials and how to address those challenges. Using examples from cardiovascular trials, this article describes a potential path forward with a focus on applications in the United States. Results Think Tank members identified one key challenge: a common understanding of the level of evidence that is necessary to support patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in trials. Think Tank participants discussed the possibility of creating general evidentiary standards depending upon contextual factors, but such guidelines could not be feasibly developed because many contextual factors are at play. The attendees posited that a more informative approach to PROM evidentiary standards would be to develop validity arguments akin to courtroom briefs, which would emphasize a compelling rationale (interpretation/use argument) to support a PROM within a specific context. Participants envisioned a future in which validity arguments would be publicly available via a repository, which would be indexed by contextual factors, clinical populations, and types of claims. Conclusions A publicly available repository would help stakeholders better understand what a community believes constitutes compelling support for a specific PROM in a trial. Our proposed strategy is expected to facilitate the incorporation of PROMs into cardiovascular clinical trials and trials in general.
- Published
- 2021