METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to pembrolizumab 200 mg or placebo every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles plus investigator's choice chemotherapy (nab-paclitaxel, paclitaxel, or gemcitabine plus carboplatin). The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30 (QLQ-C30), Breast Cancer-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire, and EuroQol 5-Dimension questionnaire visual analog scale were prespecified. Patient-reported outcomes were analyzed for patients who received at least 1 dose of study treatment and completed at least 1 patient-reported outcome assessment. Changes in patient-reported outcome scores from baseline were assessed at week 15 (latest time point at which completion and compliance rates were at least 60% and at least 80%, respectively). Time to deterioration in patient-reported outcomes was defined as time to first onset of at least a 10-point worsening in score from baseline.
RESULTS: Patient-reported outcome analyses included 317 patients with tumor PD-L1 combined positive score of at least 10 (pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy: n = 217; placebo plus chemotherapy: n = 100). There were no between-group differences in change from baseline to week 15 in QLQ-C30 global health status/quality of life (QOL; least-squares mean difference = -1.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -6.92 to 3.30), emotional functioning (least-squares mean difference = -1.43, 95% CI = -7.03 to 4.16), physical functioning (least-squares mean difference = -1.05, 95% CI = -6.59 to 4.50), or EuroQol 5-Dimension questionnaire visual analog scale (least-squares mean difference = 0.18, 95% CI = -5.04 to 5.39) and no between-group difference in time to deterioration in QLQ-C30 global health status/QOL, emotional functioning, or physical functioning.
CONCLUSIONS: Together with the efficacy and safety findings, patient-reported outcome results from KEYNOTE-355 support pembrolizumab plus chemotherapy as a standard of care for patients with advanced triple-negative breast cancer with tumor PD-L1 expression (combined positive score ≥10).
METHODS: Patients aged 18 years old or above and who were scheduled for gynecology surgery were selected. Three different models with a combination of latent factors were based on a priori hypotheses from previous studies. The root-mean-squared error of approximation, comparative fit index, Tucker-Lewis Index, Chi-squared test, and change in Chi-squared statistic given a change in degrees of freedom between models were used to assess the model fit to the present data.
RESULTS: A total of 302 patients completed the questionnaire. The five-factor model which was based on Gordon's study has an acceptable fit for the data and was superior when compared to the one-factor baseline model. Although the four-factor model, which originated from Botti's study, also demonstrates a good model fit, the "perception of care" construct was excluded in this model. The "perception of care" construct is conceptually important as patient-centered care has become the focus of quality improvement of pain service.
CONCLUSIONS: The APS-POQ-R is easy to administer and is useful for quality evaluation in postoperative pain management. The present study demonstrates that a five-factor structure of the APS-POQ-R is the best fitting model in our patient sample. The results of this study provide further evidence to support the use of APS-POQ-R as a measurement tool for pain management evaluation in acute postoperative patients with a multi-cultural background.
METHODS: A questionnaire survey was sent by e-mail to members of AOSpine to evaluate their familiarity and use of PROMs instruments and to assess the barriers to their use in spine care practice in LA, EU, AP, NA, and ME.
RESULTS: A total of 1634 AOSpine members from LA, EU, AP, NA, and ME answered the electronic questionnaire. The percentage of spine surgeons who were familiar with the generic health-related quality of life questionnaire was 71.7%. In addition, 31.9% of respondents did not use any PROMs routinely. The main barriers to implementing PROMs were lack of time to administer the questionnaires (57%) followed by lack of staff to assist in data collection (55%), and the long time to fill out the questionnaires (46%). The routine use of questionnaires was more frequent in NA and EU and less common in LA and ME (P < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: We found that 31.9% of spine surgeons do not use the PROMs questionnaire routinely. This appears to occur because of lack of knowledge regarding their importance, absence of reimbursement for this extra work, minimal financial support for clinical research, the cost of implementation, and lack of concern among physicians.
METHODS: Cross-sectional study of all CWE aged 8-18years old with at least 6months' duration of epilepsy, minimum reading level of primary school education Year 1, and attending mainstream education. Quality of life was measured using the parent-proxy and child self-report of Quality of Life Measurement for Children with Epilepsy (CHEQOL-25) questionnaire. Total and subscale CHEQOL-25 scores were obtained. The levels of parent-child agreement were determined using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC). Family functioning was assessed using the General functioning subscale (GF-12).
RESULTS: A total of 115 CWE and their parents participated in the study. In general, Malaysian parents rated children's total CHEQOL-25 scores poorer than the children themselves [mean total parent score: 68.56 (SD: 10.86); mean total child score: 71.82 (SD: 9.55)]. Agreement between child and parent on the CHEQOL-25 was poor to moderate (ICC ranged from 0.31-0.54), with greatest discordance in the epilepsy secrecy domain (ICC=0.31, p=0.026). Parent and child were more likely to agree on more external domains: intrapersonal/social (ICC=0.54, p<0.001) and interpersonal/emotional (ICC=0.50, p<0.001). Malay ethnicity, focal seizure and high seizure frequency (≥1 seizure per month) were associated with lower CHEQOL-25 scores. There was a significant but weak correlation between GF-12 and parent-proxy CHEQOL-25 Total Scores (r=-0.186, p=0.046).
CONCLUSION: Our results emphasize the importance to have the child's perspective of their QOL as the level of agreement between the parent and child reported scores were poor to moderate. Malaysian CWE of Malay ethnicity, those with focal seizures or high seizure frequency are at risk of poorer QOL.
OBJECTIVE: We report end-of-trial efficacy and safety of N8-GP from pathfinder2.
METHODS: pathfinder2 main phase and extension phase part 1 results have been previously reported. During extension phase part 2, patients could switch from N8-GP prophylaxis 50 IU/kg every fourth day (Q4D) or 75 IU/kg once weekly (Q7D), depending on bleeding status. Extension phase part 2 collected long-term safety and efficacy data for all regimens until trial end (first patient in main phase, 30 January 2012; trial end, 10 December 2018).
RESULTS: Overall, 186 patients were exposed to N8-GP for up to 6.6 years (median 5.4 years). The estimated annualized bleeding rate (ABR) was 2.14 (median 0.84) for the Q4D prophylaxis arm and 1.31 (median 1.67) for the Q7D prophylaxis arm. Nearly 30% of patients experienced zero bleeds throughout the entire duration of the trial, the hemostatic response was 83.2% across all treatment arms, and patient-reported outcomes were maintained or slightly improved. No safety concerns were detected.
CONCLUSION: Data from the completed pathfinder2 trial, one of the largest and longest-running clinical trials to investigate treatment of severe hemophilia A, demonstrate the efficacy and safety of N8-GP in previously treated adolescent and adult patients.
METHODS: The study encompassed a comprehensive three-stage approach to the development and validation of the PROM. Initially, during the preliminary design stage, the necessity for a new PROM was recognized, an expert panel was formed, and semi-structured qualitative interviews were carried out with GSM patients. In the second stage, the study used the five-step pre-validation methodology established by Prior et al. to generate and refine the PROM items. The third and final stage encompassed the determination of scale and item content validity indexes to ensure validity. Additionally, the reliability of each construct was evaluated using Cronbach's α.
RESULTS: The resulting PROM was named GSM-SVTAQ (GSM-symptoms and vaginal treatments acceptability questionnaire). It demonstrated excellent validity in assessing symptoms burden, health-related and sexual quality of life, and vaginal treatment acceptability, with high content validity indices and strong internal consistency. The scale content validity indices and Cronbach's α coefficients for the three domains were (0.926, 0.939), (0.875, 0.947), and (0.824, 0.855), respectively.
CONCLUSION: The GSM-SVTAQ stands as the first GSM-specific, valid, and reliable PROM capable of comprehensively measuring the three components of GSM and the acceptability of vaginal treatments. Its implementation has the potential to significantly enhance patient care and outcomes in GSM management.
METHODS: This prospective observational study comprised 34 newly diagnosed unilateral vocal fold paralysis patients undergoing surgical interventions: injection laryngoplasty or medialisation thyroplasty. Voice assessments, including maximum vocal intensity and other acoustic parameters, were performed at baseline and at one and three months post-intervention. Maximum vocal intensity was also repeated within two weeks before any surgical interventions were performed. The results were compared between different time points and between the two intervention groups.
RESULTS: Maximum vocal intensity showed high internal consistency. Statistically significant improvements were seen in maximum vocal intensity, Voice Handicap Index-10 and other acoustic analyses at one and three months post-intervention. A significant moderate negative correlation was demonstrated between maximum vocal intensity and Voice Handicap Index-10, shimmer and jitter. There were no significant differences in voice outcomes between injection laryngoplasty and medialisation thyroplasty patients at any time point.
CONCLUSION: Maximum vocal intensity can be applied as a treatment outcome measure in unilateral vocal fold paralysis patients; it can demonstrate the effectiveness of treatment and moderately correlates with self-reported outcome measures.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty-four patients (mean age 60.70 ± 8.7 years) received telescopic crown or locator attachments for ISOD and completed OHIP-14 (Malaysian version) and DS questionnaires, at baseline (T0 ) with new conventional complete dentures (CCD) and 3 months (T1 ) and 3 years (T2 ) after ISOD conversion. Mandibular bone volume was calculated from cone beam computed tomography (CBCT) datasets using Mimics software. Mean changes (MC) in OHIP-14 and DS at intervals were analyzed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test and effect size (ES). The association of bone volume, implant attachment type, and other patient variables with the change in OHIP-14 and DS were determined using multivariate linear regression analysis.
RESULTS: The MC in OHIP-14 and DS scores from T0 to T1 and T2 showed significant improvement with moderate and large ES, respectively. Regression analyses for the change in OHIP-14 score from T0 to T2 showed significant association with implant attachment type (P = 0.043), bone volume (P = 0.004), and baseline OHIP-14 (P = 0.001), while for DS, the association was only significant with baseline DS score (P = 0.001).
CONCLUSION: Improvement in patients' OHRQoL and satisfaction with ISOD was associated with their baseline ratings. Mandibular bone volume had a stronger association for improvement in OHRQoL compared to type of attachment.
OBJECTIVES: We determined the proportion of PIOs in neonatal RCTs included in Cochrane Neonatal reviews.
METHODS: We extracted up to 5 outcomes from each RCT included in Cochrane Neonatal reviews published until January 2018, with independent determination of PIOs among authors followed by a discussion leading to a consensus. We defined PIOs as outcomes that matter to patient care, such as clinical events or physiological or laboratory parameters that are widely used to guide management.
RESULTS: Among 6,832 outcomes extracted from 1,874 RCTs included in 276 reviews, 5,349 (78.3%) were considered PIOs; 461 studies (24.5%) included 5 or more PIOs, 1,278 (68.2%) included 1-4 PIOs, while 135 (7.2%) had no PIO included. PIOs were observed more often among dichotomous than among continuous outcomes (94.9 vs. 61.5%; RR: 1.54; 95% CI: 1.50-1.58), and more among subjective than among objective outcomes (95.9 vs. 76.8%; RR: 1.25; 95% CI: 1.22-1.28). Newer studies were more likely to have a greater number of PIOs (adjusted OR: 1.033 [95% CI: 1.025-1.041] with each publication year).
CONCLUSIONS: The large and increasing representation of PIOs over the years suggests an improving awareness by neonatal trialists of the need to incorporate important outcomes in order to justify the utilization of resources. Further research should explore the reasons for non-inclusion or non-reporting of PIOs in a small proportion of RCTs.
Materials and Methods: We reviewed prospectively collected data in our tertiary hospital arthroplasty registry and identified patients who underwent revision THA between 2001 and 2014, with a minimum of two years follow-up. The study group (two-stage revision THA for PJI) consists of 23 patients and the control group (one-stage revision THA for aseptic reasons) consists of 231 patients. Patient demographics, Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC), Oxford Hip Score (OHS), Short Form-36 (SF-36) scores and patient reported satisfaction were evaluated. Student's t-test was used to compare continuous variables between the two groups. Statistical significance was defined as p <0.05.
Results: The pre-operative demographics and clinical scores were relatively similar between the two groups of patients. At two years, patients who underwent revision THA for PJI reported a better WOMAC Pain Score and OHS as compared to aseptic revision THA. A similar proportion of patients were satisfied with their results of surgery in both groups (p=0.093).
Conclusions: Although patients who underwent revision THA for PJI had poorer pre-operative functional scores (WOMAC function and SF-36 PF), at two years follow-up, these two groups of patients have comparable post-operative outcomes. Interestingly, patients who had revision THA for PJI reported a better clinical outcome in terms of OHS and WOMAC Pain score as compared to the aseptic group. We conclude that the revision THA for PJI is not inferior to aseptic revision THA in terms of patient satisfaction and clinical outcomes.
MATERIALS AND METHODS: We identified RCTs for SUI interventions published between January 2015 and July 2017. We listed the objective and subjective outcome measures used in eligible trials in the literature search. Using data from our RCT conducted from 2013 to 2016 evaluating pulsed magnetic stimulation for SUI, we analysed the correlation between all measures.
RESULTS: A total of 45 RCTs were included; 28 (62%) involved surgical interventions. The most frequently used objective and subjective measures were the cough stress test and International Consultation on Incontinence Questionnaire-Urinary Incontinence Short Form (ICIQ-UI SF), respectively. In all, 24 different validated questionnaires were administered in the 42 studies that used subjective outcome measure. Analyses of measures used in our trial showed that all measures were significantly correlated with each other except for pelvic floor muscle function. The ICIQ-UI SF showed the highest correlation coefficients (0.587-0.733) with all outcome measures.
CONCLUSION: The outcome measures used in recent trials were inconsistent. The ICIQ-UI SF had the highest correlation with all measures in our trial; however, further studies evaluating correlation of measures in other patient cohorts are needed to corroborate our present results. We propose the use of ICIQ-UI SF, as the most relevant outcome measure, in future trials evaluating efficacy of SUI interventions.
OBJECTIVE: To establish consensus on a core set of clinician- and patient-reported outcome measures recommended for use in clinical practice and to establish the appropriate interval within which these measures should be applied.
EVIDENCE REVIEW: Clinician- and patient-reported HS measures and studies describing their psychometric properties were identified through literature reviews. Identified measures comprised an item reduction survey and subsequent electronic Delphi (e-Delphi) consensus rounds. In each consensus round, a summary of outcome measure components and scoring methods was provided to participants. Experts were provided with feasibility characteristics of clinician measures to aid selection. Consensus was achieved if at least 67% of respondents agreed with use of a measure in clinical practice.
FINDINGS: Among HS experts, response rates for item reduction, e-Delphi round 1, and e-Delphi round 2 surveys were 76.4% (42 of 55), 90.5% (38 of 42), and 92.9% (39 of 42), respectively; among patient research partners (PRPs), response rates were 70.8% (17 of 24), 100% (17 of 17), and 82.4% (14 of 17), respectively. The majority of experts across rounds were practicing dermatologists with 18 to 19 years of clinical experience. In the final e-Delphi round, most PRPs were female (12 [85.7%] vs 2 males [11.8%]) and aged 30 to 49 years. In the final e-Delphi round, HS experts and PRPs agreed with the use of the HS Investigator Global Assessment (28 [71.8%]) and HS Quality of Life score (13 [92.9%]), respectively. The most expert-preferred assessment interval in which to apply these measures was 3 months (27 [69.2%]).
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: An international group of HS experts and PRPs achieved consensus on a core set of HS measures suitable for use in clinical practice. Consistent use of these measures may lead to more accurate assessments of HS disease activity and life outcomes, facilitating shared treatment decision-making in the practice setting.
METHODS: An interdisciplinary and international Working Group was assembled. Existing literature and current measurement initiatives were reviewed. Serial guided discussions and validation surveys provided consumer input. A series of nine teleconferences, incorporating a modified Delphi process, were held to reach consensus on the proposed Standard Set.
RESULTS: The Working Group selected 24 outcome measures to evaluate care during pregnancy and up to 6 months postpartum. These include clinical outcomes such as maternal and neonatal mortality and morbidity, stillbirth, preterm birth, birth injury and patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) that assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL), mental health, mother-infant bonding, confidence and success with breastfeeding, incontinence, and satisfaction with care and birth experience. To support analysis of these outcome measures, pertinent baseline characteristics and risk factor metrics were also defined.
CONCLUSIONS: We propose a set of outcome measures for evaluating the care that women and infants receive during pregnancy and the postpartum period. While validation and refinement via pilot implementation projects are needed, we view this as an important initial step towards value-based improvements in care.
METHODS: Breast cancer patients were recruited from three Malaysian hospitals between June and November 2017. We compared the proportion of patients who rated PROs as very important (scored 7-9 on a 9-point Likert scale) between Malaysian patients and data collected from patients in HICs via the ICHOM questionnaire development process, using logistic regression. A two-step cluster analysis explored differences in PROs among Malaysian patients.
RESULTS: The most important PROs for both cohorts were survival, overall well-being, and physical functioning. Compared with HIC patients (n = 1177), Malaysian patients (n = 969) were less likely to rate emotional (78% vs 90%), cognitive (76% vs 84%), social (72% vs 81%), and sexual (30% vs 56%) functioning as very important outcomes (P patient expectation of services and refine the assessment of cancer care outcomes.