临床试验中患者报告的慢性咳嗽评估:辅助终点还是主要终点?

IF 2.1 3区 医学 Q3 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM
Journal of thoracic disease Pub Date : 2024-10-31 Epub Date: 2024-10-30 DOI:10.21037/jtd-24-705
Ewan Christopher Mackay, Richard Douglas Turner, Peter Siu Pan Cho, Surinder S Birring
{"title":"临床试验中患者报告的慢性咳嗽评估:辅助终点还是主要终点?","authors":"Ewan Christopher Mackay, Richard Douglas Turner, Peter Siu Pan Cho, Surinder S Birring","doi":"10.21037/jtd-24-705","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Chronic cough is a complex disorder that affects up to 5-10% of the general population. It can be challenging to manage as there are few effective treatments, although several novel antitussives are in clinical development. The endpoints used to assess their efficacy in clinical trials should be optimal; most large clinical trials currently use objective measures as the primary outcome, especially cough frequency. There are strengths in this approach, although taking the view that other measures of chronic cough are less important, including patient-rated cough severity, psychosocial impact and other associated symptoms. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) explore patients' personal experiences of health and disease, and the effects of particular conditions on their lives. Numerous validated PROMs exist for chronic cough, from simple visual analogue scales, to those that focus on cough hypersensitivity and cough-specific quality of life. Medicine regulators in the European Union (EU) and United States of America (USA) encourage the use of PROMs in clinical trials but have voiced concerns over their content validity, clinically meaningful thresholds for change, and discordance with objective measures. There are recent and ongoing studies to address these limitations. This review discusses currently available PROMs used to assess chronic cough and discusses their potential role as primary outcome measures in clinical trials.</p>","PeriodicalId":17542,"journal":{"name":"Journal of thoracic disease","volume":"16 10","pages":"7165-7181"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11565313/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patient-reported assessments of chronic cough in clinical trials: accessory or primary endpoints?\",\"authors\":\"Ewan Christopher Mackay, Richard Douglas Turner, Peter Siu Pan Cho, Surinder S Birring\",\"doi\":\"10.21037/jtd-24-705\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Chronic cough is a complex disorder that affects up to 5-10% of the general population. It can be challenging to manage as there are few effective treatments, although several novel antitussives are in clinical development. The endpoints used to assess their efficacy in clinical trials should be optimal; most large clinical trials currently use objective measures as the primary outcome, especially cough frequency. There are strengths in this approach, although taking the view that other measures of chronic cough are less important, including patient-rated cough severity, psychosocial impact and other associated symptoms. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) explore patients' personal experiences of health and disease, and the effects of particular conditions on their lives. Numerous validated PROMs exist for chronic cough, from simple visual analogue scales, to those that focus on cough hypersensitivity and cough-specific quality of life. Medicine regulators in the European Union (EU) and United States of America (USA) encourage the use of PROMs in clinical trials but have voiced concerns over their content validity, clinically meaningful thresholds for change, and discordance with objective measures. There are recent and ongoing studies to address these limitations. This review discusses currently available PROMs used to assess chronic cough and discusses their potential role as primary outcome measures in clinical trials.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":17542,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of thoracic disease\",\"volume\":\"16 10\",\"pages\":\"7165-7181\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11565313/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of thoracic disease\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd-24-705\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/10/30 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of thoracic disease","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21037/jtd-24-705","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/10/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"RESPIRATORY SYSTEM","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

慢性咳嗽是一种复杂的疾病,发病率高达总人口的 5-10%。虽然目前有几种新型抗咳药物正在临床开发中,但由于有效的治疗方法很少,因此治疗起来具有挑战性。目前,大多数大型临床试验都采用客观指标作为主要结果,尤其是咳嗽频率。这种方法有其长处,但认为慢性咳嗽的其他衡量标准并不那么重要,包括患者评定的咳嗽严重程度、社会心理影响和其他相关症状。患者报告结果测量法(PROMs)探索患者对健康和疾病的个人体验,以及特定病症对其生活的影响。针对慢性咳嗽有许多经过验证的 PROM,从简单的视觉类比量表到关注咳嗽过敏性和咳嗽生活质量的量表。欧盟(EU)和美国(USA)的医药监管机构鼓励在临床试验中使用 PROMs,但对其内容有效性、有临床意义的变化阈值以及与客观测量的不一致性表示担忧。针对这些局限性,最近有一些研究正在进行中。本综述讨论了目前用于评估慢性咳嗽的 PROMs,并讨论了它们作为临床试验主要结果测量指标的潜在作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Patient-reported assessments of chronic cough in clinical trials: accessory or primary endpoints?

Chronic cough is a complex disorder that affects up to 5-10% of the general population. It can be challenging to manage as there are few effective treatments, although several novel antitussives are in clinical development. The endpoints used to assess their efficacy in clinical trials should be optimal; most large clinical trials currently use objective measures as the primary outcome, especially cough frequency. There are strengths in this approach, although taking the view that other measures of chronic cough are less important, including patient-rated cough severity, psychosocial impact and other associated symptoms. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) explore patients' personal experiences of health and disease, and the effects of particular conditions on their lives. Numerous validated PROMs exist for chronic cough, from simple visual analogue scales, to those that focus on cough hypersensitivity and cough-specific quality of life. Medicine regulators in the European Union (EU) and United States of America (USA) encourage the use of PROMs in clinical trials but have voiced concerns over their content validity, clinically meaningful thresholds for change, and discordance with objective measures. There are recent and ongoing studies to address these limitations. This review discusses currently available PROMs used to assess chronic cough and discusses their potential role as primary outcome measures in clinical trials.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of thoracic disease
Journal of thoracic disease RESPIRATORY SYSTEM-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
4.00%
发文量
254
期刊介绍: The Journal of Thoracic Disease (JTD, J Thorac Dis, pISSN: 2072-1439; eISSN: 2077-6624) was founded in Dec 2009, and indexed in PubMed in Dec 2011 and Science Citation Index SCI in Feb 2013. It is published quarterly (Dec 2009- Dec 2011), bimonthly (Jan 2012 - Dec 2013), monthly (Jan. 2014-) and openly distributed worldwide. JTD received its impact factor of 2.365 for the year 2016. JTD publishes manuscripts that describe new findings and provide current, practical information on the diagnosis and treatment of conditions related to thoracic disease. All the submission and reviewing are conducted electronically so that rapid review is assured.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信