Importance of patient reported outcomes in cardiovascular clinical trials

June 5, 2014

Patient reported outcomes (PROs) should be comprehensively included in cardiovascular clinical trials using the best available tools, according to leading cardiologists and industry representatives in the Cardiovascular Round Table (CRT). All ESC guideline committees will now systematically consider PROs when making recommendations.

The CRT is an independent forum established by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and comprised of cardiologists and representatives of the pharmaceutical, device and equipment industries. The group's views are published today in European Heart Journal.

Professor Stefan D. Anker, lead author, said: "PROs inform about important (non-survival) aspects of life that are important to patients. They are needed for health technology assessments and reimbursement decisions. But until now PROs have not been routinely evaluated in cardiovascular ."

He added: "Our paper outlines the value of including PROs in clinical trials and how to make their assessment scientifically rigorous. The ESC Board has now committed to ensuring that PROs are considered by all ESC guideline task forces."

PROs include symptoms, health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and adherence to therapy. PRO data can be used to inform routine clinical care, particularly when weighing up the risks and benefits of alternative therapies; support a label claim that a therapy improves symptoms, functional ability or HRQoL; and to support reimbursement decisions, which may consider the effect of a therapy on well-being, functional status or productivity, in addition to the primary clinical endpoint.

The authors argue that "integrating PRO data into comprehensive efficacy evaluations will ultimately improve the quality of care for patients across the spectrum of ". PRO measures should be assessed in "at least a subset of patients enrolled in cardiovascular mega-trials", they state.

Trialists who use PROs must ensure that they apply the same scientific rigour as they do with other endpoints. The PRO hypothesis should be stated in the protocol, along with a clear statement of the key PRO that will be analysed. PRO data should be recorded by the patient whenever possible. Statistical power should be allocated to the PRO endpoint if it is a primary, co-primary, or key secondary endpoint.

Professor Anker said: "PROs are subject to patient and physician bias and therefore designing studies so that they are bias free is important. Double-blind studies are the key to achieving this."

Study procedures should be in place to minimise missing data and reasons for missing data should be captured. As the authors point out, "a treatment that prolongs life may perform worse on PRO outcomes than a treatment without a survival benefit because the patients survive to report PROs but still experience disease progression that results in recurrent events or multiple hospitalisations".

Interpretation of PRO data in cardiovascular clinical trials remains challenging because there is no consensus in many cases on what constitutes a clinically meaningful change. "Further research efforts are needed to resolve this major issue," state the authors. They add: "Until a common approach to such analyses has been adopted, we suggest that the analysis plan for PROs should be discussed with regulatory agencies and with stakeholders (patients, PRO experts) early in the trial planning process."

The paper outlines actions the ESC will take to increase the prominence of PROs in cardiovascular research and the translation of findings to clinical practice. Some of these are: establishing PROs as a factor to be considered by all ESC guideline task forces; including well-designed studies with PRO assessments in prominent sessions of international congresses; encouraging the incorporation of appropriate PRO measures in all pivotal cardiovascular trials and registries; increasing funding opportunities for PRO methodologic research; and emphasising the publication of research on PRO instruments and PRO endpoints.

Professor Anker concluded: "The valid assessment of PROs in cardiovascular clinical trials should become usual practice and we look forward to the inclusion of PRO data in all ESC guideline discussions. These changes will undoubtedly help to improve the quality of care for patients with cardiovascular disease."

Explore further: New guidance urges improved reporting of important outcomes for patients in trials publications

More information: Anker SD, Agewall S, Borggrefe M, Calvert M, Caro JJ, Cowie MR, Ford I, Paty JA, Riley JP, Swedberg K, Tavazzi L, Wiklund I, Kirchhof P. The importance of patient reported outcomes: a call for their comprehensive integration in cardiovascular clinical trials. European Heart Journal. 2014; DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehu

Related Stories

Palliation is rarely a topic in studies on advanced cancer

April 24, 2014

End-of-life aspects, the corresponding terminology, and the relevance of palliation in advanced cancer are often not considered in publications on randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This is the result of an analysis by ...

Recommended for you

Female smokers face greatest risk for brain bleeds

July 21, 2016

Bleeding inside the lining of the brain (subarachnoid hemorrhage) is significantly more common among smokers, especially female smokers, than among people who do not smoke, according to new research in the American Heart ...

Global study shows stroke largely preventable

July 15, 2016

Ten risk factors that can be modified are responsible for nine of 10 strokes worldwide, but the ranking of those factors vary regionally, says a study led by researchers of the Population Health Research Institute (PHRI) ...


Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.