Bridging the Gap Between RCTs and RWE Through Endpoint Selection.

This commentary is authored by several industry real-world evidence (RWE) experts, with support from IQVIA, as part of the 'RWE Leadership Forum': a group of Industry Leaders who have come together as non-competitive partners to understand and respond to RWD/E challenges and opportunities with a single expert voice. Here, the forum discusses the value in bridging the industry disconnect between RTCs and RWE, with a view to promoting the use of RWE in the RCT environment. RCT endpoints are explored along several axes including their clinical relevance and their measure of direct patient benefit, and then compared with their real-world counterparts to identify suitable paths, or gaps, for assimilating RWE endpoints into the RCT environment.

Burden of cardio-renal-metabolic conditions in adults with type 2 diabetes within the Diabetes Collaborative Registry.

We examined the prevalence of cardio-renal-metabolic (CaReMe) conditions and their combinations among 530 747 adults with type 2 diabetes in a USA-based outpatient registry of 271 primary care, cardiology and endocrinology offices. We evaluated the following CaReMe conditions: hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, coronary artery disease (CAD), chronic kidney disease (CKD), cerebrovascular disease, peripheral artery disease, atrial fibrillation, heart failure, and gout or hyperuricaemia; prevalence estimates were adjusted based on the distribution of diabetes by age in the US population in 2015. We found that it was uncommon for patients to have isolated type 2 diabetes without other CaReMe conditions, with only 6.4% having no other CaReMe conditions and 51% having ≥3 other CaReMe conditions. The most prevalent individual conditions were hypertension (83%), hyperlipidemia (81%), CAD (32%) and CKD (20%), and the most common combinations included various groupings of hypertension, hyperlipidaemia, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and CKD. Older age, male sex and tobacco use were each associated with increased numbers of CaReMe conditions. These findings highlight the clinical need for novel treatment strategies for diabetes that address both glycaemia and coexisting disease states.

Laxative utilization over time in chronic pain patients with opioid-induced constipation.

AIM: To determine laxative utilization over time among chronic noncancer pain patients with opioid-induced constipation (OIC). SETTING: A prospective longitudinal study conducted in the USA, Canada, Germany and UK. METHODS: Patients on daily opioid therapy for treatment of chronic noncancer pain with OIC were recruited from clinics to complete a survey at Baseline and weeks 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 20 and 24. RESULTS: 489 patients completed baseline with 452 completing one or more follow-up visits. 128 (28%) were nonlaxative users, 112 (25%) were insufficient laxative users and 212 (47%) were sufficient laxative users. The consistent sufficient laxative users reported the most bowel movements per week. CONCLUSION: The majority of OIC patients do not take or only intermittently take laxatives.

Opioid-Induced Constipation among a Convenience Sample of Patients with Cancer Pain.

BACKGROUND: Little is known regarding the burden of opioid-induced constipation (OIC) among patients who suffer from cancer-related pain. METHODS: A prospective longitudinal study was conducted among cancer patients in the United Kingdom (UK), Canada, and Germany, which included medical record data abstraction, Internet-based patient surveys, and physician surveys. Patients on daily opioid therapy (≥30 mg for ≥4 weeks) for treatment of cancer pain with self-reported OIC were recruited. Response to laxatives was defined by classifying participants into categories of laxative use and evaluating the prevalence of inadequate response. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate outcomes, including the patient assessment of constipation-symptom (PAC-SYM), patient assessment of constipation-quality of life, EuroQOL-5 dimensions, and global assessment of treatment benefit, satisfaction, and willingness to continue. RESULTS: Recruitment was difficult for this study with only 31 participants completing the baseline survey and meeting criteria for opioid use and OIC (26 UK, 1 Canada, and 4 Germany). Fifty-two percent (n = 16) of participants were male, and all were White. Breast (23%, n = 7), pancreatic (13%, n = 4), and multiple myeloma (13%, n = 4) were the most common cancers. Mean duration of chronic pain and opioid use were 2.3 and 1.3 years, respectively. Participants reported having a mean of 4.4 bowel movements/week in the 2 weeks prior to baseline, of which a mean of 0.9 were spontaneous. Most participants (90%, n = 28) were using at least 1 lifestyle approach to manage their constipation; 65% (n = 20) were taking ≥1 over-the-counter laxative; 19% (n = 6) were taking ≥1 prescription laxative; 23% (n = 7) reported no laxative use in the prior 2 weeks. Moderate-to-severe constipation symptoms on the PAC-SYM were common, and mean scores on health-related quality of life outcomes were comparable to chronic pain populations. CONCLUSION: In this primarily UK sample, there appears to be considerable unmet OIC treatment needs among cancer patients.

The Burden of Opioid-Induced Constipation: Discordance Between Patient and Health Care Provider Reports.

BACKGROUND: Opioid-induced constipation (OIC), a common side effect of opioid treatment for chronic pain, affects patient health-related quality of life (HRQL) and may prompt some patients to lower the dose or alter adherence to their opioid medication, compromising pain relief. Although health care providers (HCPs) are aware of the potential for OIC, patients may not inform their HCPs of their OIC symptoms, and HCPs may not initiate conversation regarding OIC if their patients' pain is controlled. Patients often try to address OIC symptoms on their own by using natural approaches or over-the-counter options. When OIC is discussed in an office visit, HCPs typically recommend conventional laxatives to relieve symptoms, but the efficacy of this approach is unproven and often suboptimal. In many areas of medicine, HCP perceptions of the impact of adverse effects of treatment on a patient's HRQL do not align with the patient's experience. OBJECTIVES: To (a) describe HCP-reported understanding of his or her patients' experiences with OIC and (b) evaluate the level of agreement or discordance in perception between patients and their HCPs of OIC's impact on clinical outcomes. METHODS: This was a prospective, longitudinal, observational cohort study conducted in the United States, Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom (NCT01928953) in patients aged 18 to 85 years who had been receiving daily opioid therapy for ≥ 4 weeks for chronic noncancer pain with presence of OIC in the past 2 weeks. Data were collected from retrospective chart reviews, HCP questionnaires, and web-based patient surveys. Eligible patients enrolled online and completed the Patient Assessment of Constipation-Symptoms, the Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire-Specific Health Problem, the EuroQOL 5 Dimensions, and the Global Assessment of Treatment Benefit, Satisfaction, and Willingness to Continue standardized questionnaires. The patient-reported component included 1 baseline survey and 8 follow-up surveys over 24 weeks. HCPs completed a web-based survey at baseline and at week 24 to assess their perceptions of OIC burden, treatment patterns, laxative use, and overall treatment satisfaction. The correspondence of patient- and HCP-reported data was evaluated for all similar outcomes from these 2 databases. RESULTS: Patients (N = 489) reported a mean (SD) number of bowel movements (BMs) per week and spontaneous BMs per week of 3.7 (2.9) and 1.4 (2.3), respectively, at baseline. Most (87%) reported chronic pain of ≥ 2 years duration; 65% had used opioids for ≥ 2 years; and the mean pain score at baseline was 6.3, consistent with a moderate-to-severe pain population. Most (97%) patients at baseline reported any gastrointestinal-related symptom of at least moderate intensity, with 82% reporting the same intensity of any symptom at week 24. Of the 405 patients who had seen their HCPs in the past month, 63% reported that they had spoken to their HCPs about constipation, and 62% reported that their HCPs had asked them if they had constipation in the past month. The proportion of agreement between HCPs and their patients on the presence of constipation at baseline was 61%. Similar average pain ratings between HCPs and patients (5.9 vs. 6.0) at week 24 suggested clear communication regarding the level of pain experienced by the patient; however, OIC symptoms, laxative use and effectiveness, and impact of OIC on pain management and HRQL were not fully appreciated by HCPs. CONCLUSIONS: The importance and severity of OIC are perceived differently by patients and their HCPs, a discordance that complicates pain management and demonstrates a need for greater communication. These disparate perceptions indicate a need for clinical education and coordination of care by HCPs to improve understanding and proactively manage OIC in patients with chronic noncancer pain.

Satisfaction with Therapy Among Patients with Chronic Noncancer Pain with Opioid-Induced Constipation.

BACKGROUND: Greater satisfaction with medication is associated with better adherence; however, specific to opioid-induced constipation (OIC), data on the relationship between medication satisfaction and efficacy are lacking. OBJECTIVE: To understand satisfaction with therapy among patients with chronic noncancer pain and OIC. METHODS: A prospective longitudinal study was conducted in the United States, Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom using web-based patient surveys. Patients on daily opioid therapy for ≥ 74 weeks for the treatment of chronic noncancer pain with OIC were recruited from physician offices and completed a web-based survey at baseline and weeks 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24. When completing each survey, patients selected the remedies used in the previous 2 weeks to relieve constipation; options included natural/behavioral therapies, over-the-counter (OTC) therapies, and prescription laxatives. Patients selected the amount of relief and satisfaction with each selected therapy. Descriptive statistics were calculated; Spearman's correlations were calculated for symptom relief and satisfaction. RESULTS: Mean age of the 489 patients who met the criteria for OIC and completed the baseline survey was 52.6 ± 11.6 years; 62% were female; 85% were white. Increasing levels of relief from constipation were associated with increasing levels of satisfaction for all agents; correlations were > 0.55 and statistically significant (P < 0.001). Among the patients who had used OTC therapies in the 2 weeks prior to baseline, 54% to 73% reported that they were somewhat or very satisfied with the therapy. Yet, of these satisfied patients, 28% to 63% experienced no or only slight relief from the therapy. Twenty percent to 79% of the patients who had used prescription laxatives in the 2 weeks prior to baseline reported being at least somewhat satisfied with the therapy. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that there is a high rate of inadequate response to laxatives for patients with OIC that persisted for the 6 months of this study. While increased relief from constipation was associated with increased satisfaction for all therapies, there remains a substantial number of patients who report satisfaction despite having only inadequate relief from OIC that merits further investigation.

Treatment patterns, healthcare utilization, and costs of chronic opioid treatment for non-cancer pain in the United States.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate treatment patterns, healthcare resource utilization, and costs among patients within a large managed care population chronically using opioids for non-cancer pain. STUDY DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. METHODS: Patients aged ≥18 years with ≥1 prescription initiating opioids between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2011, who also had 12 months of continuous pre-index health plan enrollment, were identified. Patients with pre-index opioid use or cancer diagnosis were excluded. Opioid exposure was stratified by treatment duration-short-term (30-182 days) versus chronic (≥183 days)-and by index opioid type (weak vs strong). RESULTS: A total of 2.9 million patients initiating opioids were identified, of which 257,602 had at least 30 days of continuous use and were included in the study. The mean age was 51 years and 52% were female. Overall, 239,998 (93%) patients had short-term opioid use, and 17,604 (7%) had chronic use; 215,424 (84%) initiated treatment with a weak opioid, and 44,712 (17%) with a strong opioid. The specialty most associated with the use of less potent opioids was general/family practice (28%), and for more potent opioids it was surgery (22%). Large increases in health-care utilization were reported between the pre-index and first 6-month post initiation periods for chronic users. Utilization rates decreased after the first 6 months but never reverted to baseline levels. Costs mirrored utilization trends, more than doubling between baseline and the first 6 months of treatment for pharmacy ($2029 vs $4331) and all-cause medical ($11,430 vs $27,365). Costs declined after the first 6 months of opioid use but remained above pre-index levels. CONCLUSIONS: These results demonstrated that healthcare resource utilization and costs increased during the first 6 months following clinical scenarios that necessitated opioid initiation and subsequently declined, suggesting the need to monitor patients beyond the acute care period.

Opioid-Induced Constipation Among Patients with Chronic Noncancer Pain in the United States, Canada, Germany, and the United Kingdom: Laxative Use, Response, and Symptom Burden Over Time.

PURPOSE: Estimate rate of laxative inadequate response (LIR) over time among patients with chronic noncancer pain with opioid-induced constipation (OIC). METHODS: A prospective longitudinal study was conducted in United States, Canada, Germany, and United Kingdom. Patients on opioid therapy for ≥4 weeks for chronic noncancer pain and OIC completed an Internet-based survey at Baseline and Weeks 2, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24. 1xLIR was defined as sufficient laxative use (≥1 laxative ≥ 4 times in past 2 weeks) and inadequate response (<3 bowel movements or ≥ 1 constipation symptom rated Moderate or greater). 2xLIR was sufficient laxative use of ≥2 laxatives from different drug classes and inadequate response. Descriptive statistics and logistic regressions were performed. RESULTS: 489 patients (62% female; 85% white) completed Baseline; 27% reported no laxative use; 25% had insufficient laxative use; 48% had sufficient laxative use. During follow-up, 21-28% of patients had no or insufficient laxative use. Prevalence of 1xLIR was 93% at Baseline and ranged from 59-81% across follow-up; 26% met criteria for 2xLIR (follow-up range: 11-20%). CONCLUSIONS: OIC among noncancer pain patients is a persistent and significant condition with varying utilization and response to laxatives thus increasing the ongoing burden of chronic pain. © 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Opioid-induced constipation in patients with chronic noncancer pain in the USA, Canada, Germany, and the UK: descriptive analysis of baseline patient-reported outcomes and retrospective chart review.

BACKGROUND: The characteristics of patients who suffer from noncancer pain and opioid-induced constipation are not well understood. METHODS: Cross-sectional patient survey and chart review data from the baseline assessment of an ongoing longitudinal study in the USA, Canada, Germany, and the UK were evaluated via descriptive statistics. Participants had confirmation of daily opioid therapy ≥30 mg for ≥4 weeks and self-reported opioid-induced constipation. Response to laxatives was defined by classifying participants into categories of laxative use and evaluating the prevalence of inadequate response to one laxative agent and two or more agents from at least two different laxative classes. Outcomes included the Patient Assessment of Constipation-Symptoms, Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire-Specific Health Problem, EuroQOL 5 Dimensions, and Global Assessment of Treatment Benefit, Satisfaction, and Willingness to Continue. RESULTS: Patients reported a mean of 1.4 bowel movements not preceded by laxatives and 3.7 bowel movements with laxative use per week; 83% wanted at least one bowel movement per day. Most commonly reported on Patient Assessment of Constipation-Symptoms were straining/squeezing to pass bowel movements (83%), bowel movements too hard (75%), flatulence (69%), and bloating (69%). Eighty-four percent were taking natural or behavioral therapies; 60% were taking at least one over-the-counter laxative; and 19% were taking at least one prescription laxative. Prevalence of inadequate response to one laxative agent was 94%; inadequate response to two or more agents from at least two different laxative classes was 27%. Mean Work Productivity and Activity Impairment Questionnaire-Specific Health Problem values for percent work time missed, percent impairment while working, and percent activity impairment were 9%, 32% (equivalent of 14 hours of lost productivity per week), and 38%. Mean EuroQOL 5 Dimensions index and visual analog scale scores were 0.49 and 50.6, respectively. Forty-four percent reported being satisfied with their treatment for constipation. CONCLUSION: Patients treated with opioids for noncancer pain commonly endure constipation symptoms that limit their work productivity and overall health-related quality of life while adhering to treatments that provide little relief. Further research is needed to identify more efficacious constipation therapies for this patient population.

Variable selection for propensity score models when estimating treatment effects on multiple outcomes: a simulation study.

PURPOSE: It is often preferable to simplify the estimation of treatment effects on multiple outcomes by using a single propensity score (PS) model. Variable selection in PS models impacts the efficiency and validity of treatment effects. However, the impact of different variable selection strategies on the estimated treatment effects in settings involving multiple outcomes is not well understood. The authors use simulations to evaluate the impact of different variable selection strategies on the bias and precision of effect estimates to provide insight into the performance of various PS models in settings with multiple outcomes. METHODS: Simulated studies consisted of dichotomous treatment, two Poisson outcomes, and eight standard-normal covariates. Covariates were selected for the PS models based on their effects on treatment, a specific outcome, or both outcomes. The PSs were implemented using stratification, matching, and weighting (inverse probability treatment weighting). RESULTS: PS models including only covariates affecting a specific outcome (outcome-specific models) resulted in the most efficient effect estimates. The PS model that only included covariates affecting either outcome (generic-outcome model) performed best among the models that simultaneously controlled measured confounding for both outcomes. Similar patterns were observed over the range of parameter values assessed and all PS implementation methods. CONCLUSIONS: A single, generic-outcome model performed well compared with separate outcome-specific models in most scenarios considered. The results emphasize the benefit of using prior knowledge to identify covariates that affect the outcome when constructing PS models and support the potential to use a single, generic-outcome PS model when multiple outcomes are being examined.