View in EDS

Impact of open-label versus blinded study design on patient-reported outcomes data in randomized clinical trials of immunotherapy in advanced or metastatic cancer patients: a systematic review.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Impact of open-label versus blinded study design on patient-reported outcomes data in randomized clinical trials of immunotherapy in advanced or metastatic cancer patients: a systematic review.
Authors: Anota, Amélie, Pozet, Astrid, Lemasson, Hervé, Cotté, Francois-Emery, Falcoz, Antoine, Eberst, Guillaume, Mouillet, Guillaume, Guerzider, Stéphane, Charton, Émilie, Westeel, Virginie
Source: Quality of Life Research; Mar2022, Vol. 31 Issue 3, p645-657, 13p, 1 Diagram, 6 Charts, 1 Graph
Subject Terms: THERAPEUTIC use of monoclonal antibodies, TUMOR classification, EXPERIMENTAL design, ONLINE information services, PATIENT aftercare, MEDICAL databases, INFORMATION storage & retrieval systems, MEDICAL information storage & retrieval systems, SYSTEMATIC reviews, HEALTH outcome assessment, CANCER patients, RANDOMIZED controlled trials, RESEARCH funding, TUMORS, MEDLINE, RESEARCH bias, DATA analysis software, IMMUNOTHERAPY, EVALUATION
Abstract: Aim: A systematic literature review of immuno-oncology trials was conducted to assess the potential impact of open-label vs double-blind trial design on patient-reported outcome (PRO) data. Methods: A systematic search of indexed literature published from January 2009 to May 2019 was conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE database. All randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of immuno-oncology therapies on advanced cancer patients reporting PRO data were identified. Descriptive analyses were performed to quantify differences at baseline and over time, by the type of study, regarding questionnaire completion rate and PRO scores. Results: In total, 23 studies were retained (15 open-label, 8 blinded). At baseline, no difference in completion rate was observed between arms irrespective of trial design (absolute mean difference of 2.8% and 2.2% for open label and blinded studies, respectively). No clinically significant difference in baseline PRO scores was observed between arms. Over time, impact on PRO scores could not be identified due to the limited number of studies, heterogeneity of questionnaires and tumor types. Conclusions: Trial design had no impact on PRO completion rate or baseline scores. Future research should involve analyses by specific cancer types and ideally compare individual data from two similar RCTs (blinded vs. open-label). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Quality of Life Research is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Complementary Index
Description
Abstract:Aim: A systematic literature review of immuno-oncology trials was conducted to assess the potential impact of open-label vs double-blind trial design on patient-reported outcome (PRO) data. Methods: A systematic search of indexed literature published from January 2009 to May 2019 was conducted using PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and EMBASE database. All randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of immuno-oncology therapies on advanced cancer patients reporting PRO data were identified. Descriptive analyses were performed to quantify differences at baseline and over time, by the type of study, regarding questionnaire completion rate and PRO scores. Results: In total, 23 studies were retained (15 open-label, 8 blinded). At baseline, no difference in completion rate was observed between arms irrespective of trial design (absolute mean difference of 2.8% and 2.2% for open label and blinded studies, respectively). No clinically significant difference in baseline PRO scores was observed between arms. Over time, impact on PRO scores could not be identified due to the limited number of studies, heterogeneity of questionnaires and tumor types. Conclusions: Trial design had no impact on PRO completion rate or baseline scores. Future research should involve analyses by specific cancer types and ideally compare individual data from two similar RCTs (blinded vs. open-label). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:09629343
DOI:10.1007/s11136-021-02945-8