advertisement
Abstract #69855 Published in IGR 18-2
Assessment of the Incorporation of Patient-Centric Outcomes in Studies of Minimally Invasive Glaucoma Surgical Devices
Le JT; Viswanathan S; Tarver ME; Eydelman M; Li TJAMA ophthalmology 2016; 134: 1054-1056
IMPORTANCE: Minimally invasive glaucoma surgical (MIGS) devices are one option for lowering intraocular pressure in patients with glaucoma. OBJECTIVE: To examine how often existing clinical studies of MIGS devices registered on ClinicalTrials.gov measure patient-centric outcomes that patients value directly. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: We searched ClinicalTrials.gov, a registry of publicly and privately supported clinical studies, on February 20, 2015, for records of MIGS device studies involving patients with glaucoma. Two investigators independently abstracted study design and outcome details from eligible records. We classified outcomes as patient-centric or not patient-centric using a prespecified definition. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Proportion of patient-centric and nonpatient-centric outcomes registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. RESULTS: We identified 51 eligible studies specifying 127 outcomes. Reduction in intraocular pressure was the most frequent outcome specified (78/127; 61%) and a primary outcome in 41 studies. Patient-centric outcomes-such as adverse events (n = 19; 15%), topical medication use (n = 16; 13%), visual acuity (n = 4; 3%), and health-related quality of life (n = 1; 1%)-were less frequently specified (n = 40; 32%) and a primary outcome in only 12 studies. CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Patient-centric outcomes that provide insight into the relative desirability and acceptability of the benefits and risks of MIGS devices are not well represented in current clinical studies.
Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland.
Full articleClassification:
15 Miscellaneous
12.8.2 With tube implant or other drainage devices (Part of: 12 Surgical treatment > 12.8 Filtering surgery)
