OBJECTIVES: Patients with multiple myeloma (MM) often have pronounced symptoms and substantially reduced quality of life. The aims of treatment are to control disease, maximise quality of life and prolong survival. Hence, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) should be an important end-point in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in addition to traditional endpoints. We wanted to evaluate whether trials reporting HRQOL outcomes have influenced clinical decision making and whether HRQOL was assessed robustly according to predefined criteria. METHODS: A systematic review identified RCTs in MM with HRQOL assessment as a study end-point. The methodological quality of these studies was assessed according to a checklist developed for evaluating HRQOL outcomes in clinical trials. The impact of the HRQOL results on clinical decision making was assessed, using published clinical guidelines as a reference. RESULTS: Fifteen publications presenting RCTs with HRQOL as a study end-point were identified. In 13 trials, the author stated that HRQOL results should influence clinical decision making. We found, however, that the HRQOL data only had a limited impact on published treatment guidelines for bisphosphonates, high-dose treatment, interferon, erythropoiesis-stimulating agents and novel agents. CONCLUSION: The present review indicates that the there are still few RCTs in MM including HRQOL as a study end-point. Systematic incorporation of HRQOL measures into clinical trials allows for a comparison of treatment arms that includes the patients' perspective. Before the full impact on clinical decisions can be realised, the quality and methodology of collecting HRQOL data must be further improved and the results rendered more comprehensible to clinicians.
OBJECTIVES:Patients with multiple myeloma (MM) often have pronounced symptoms and substantially reduced quality of life. The aims of treatment are to control disease, maximise quality of life and prolong survival. Hence, health-related quality of life (HRQOL) should be an important end-point in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in addition to traditional endpoints. We wanted to evaluate whether trials reporting HRQOL outcomes have influenced clinical decision making and whether HRQOL was assessed robustly according to predefined criteria. METHODS: A systematic review identified RCTs in MM with HRQOL assessment as a study end-point. The methodological quality of these studies was assessed according to a checklist developed for evaluating HRQOL outcomes in clinical trials. The impact of the HRQOL results on clinical decision making was assessed, using published clinical guidelines as a reference. RESULTS: Fifteen publications presenting RCTs with HRQOL as a study end-point were identified. In 13 trials, the author stated that HRQOL results should influence clinical decision making. We found, however, that the HRQOL data only had a limited impact on published treatment guidelines for bisphosphonates, high-dose treatment, interferon, erythropoiesis-stimulating agents and novel agents. CONCLUSION: The present review indicates that the there are still few RCTs in MM including HRQOL as a study end-point. Systematic incorporation of HRQOL measures into clinical trials allows for a comparison of treatment arms that includes the patients' perspective. Before the full impact on clinical decisions can be realised, the quality and methodology of collecting HRQOL data must be further improved and the results rendered more comprehensible to clinicians.
Authors: A Keith Stewart; Suzanne Trudel; Nizar J Bahlis; Darrell White; Waleed Sabry; Andrew Belch; Tony Reiman; Jean Roy; Chaim Shustik; Michael J Kovacs; Morel Rubinger; Guy Cantin; Kevin Song; Kirsty A Tompkins; Deb C Marcellus; Martha Q Lacy; Jonathan Sussman; Donna Reece; Michael Brundage; Erica L Harnett; Lois Shepherd; Judy-Anne W Chapman; Ralph M Meyer Journal: Blood Date: 2013-01-07 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Francesco Sparano; Michele Cavo; Pasquale Niscola; Tommaso Caravita; Fabio Efficace Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2018-03-20 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Brian L Burnette; Angela Dispenzieri; Shaji Kumar; Ann M Harris; Jeff A Sloan; Jon C Tilburt; Robert A Kyle; S Vincent Rajkumar Journal: Cancer Date: 2013-09-19 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Fabio Efficace; Michael Feuerstein; Peter Fayers; Valentina Cafaro; James Eastham; Andrea Pusic; Jane Blazeby Journal: Eur Urol Date: 2013-10-30 Impact factor: 20.096
Authors: Mona Kamal; Xin Shelley Wang; Qiuling Shi; Teresa M Zyczynski; Catherine Davis; Loretta A Williams; Hui-Kai Lin; Araceli Garcia-Gonzalez; Charles S Cleeland; Robert Orlowski Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2020-05-11 Impact factor: 3.603