A Comparative Study on PRO Symptom Monitoring Approaches
By Staff Writer
August 27, 2024
Introduction
Patients with lung cancer often face a grim prognosis, with nearly half being diagnosed at an advanced stage. The 5-year survival rate for lung cancer varies significantly, ranging from 9% to 64% depending on the cancer stage. For years, lung cancer has remained the leading cause of cancer-related deaths. Recent studies, including the SYMPRO-Lung trial, have explored the use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) symptom monitoring to improve health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in these patients.
Understanding PRO Symptom Monitoring
PRO symptom monitoring involves patients reporting their symptoms, which are then used to guide clinical care. The SYMPRO-Lung trial was the first to demonstrate that a patient-initiated (reactive) approach to PRO symptom monitoring was as effective as a physician-initiated (active) response in improving HRQOL 15 weeks after treatment initiation. This was a pragmatic cluster randomised trial. This patient-centred approach could potentially reduce the workload for healthcare practitioners (HCPs) while maintaining clinical efficacy.
Long-Term Effects of PRO Symptom Monitoring
The study extended the observation period to one year to assess the long-term effects of weekly online PRO symptom monitoring. The trial involved 515 lung cancer patients across 14 hospitals. Results indicated that both reactive and active approaches significantly improved long-term HRQOL. Notably, the reactive approach, which involved sending alerts directly to patients, was less labour-intensive for HCPs.
Survival Benefits and Challenges
Previous studies have shown survival benefits with active PRO symptom monitoring. However, these studies often required additional resources, such as funded nursing staff. The SYMPRO-Lung trial did not find significant differences in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) between the intervention and control groups. The lack of statistical significance could be attributed to the study’s limited power and the flexibility given to patients in the reactive group to decide whether to contact their HCPs.
Figure 1. Progression-Free Survival Results of Patient-Initiated (Reactive) vs Physician-Initiated (Active) Response to Patient-Reported Symptom Monitoring vs Care as Usual (Control)Figure 2. Overall Survival Results of Patient-Initiated (Reactive) vs Physician-Initiated (Active) Response to Patient-Reported Symptom Monitoring vs Care as Usual (Control)
Strengths and Limitations
One of the strengths of this study is its pragmatic design, which allowed for the adaptation of the intervention to the specific workflows of each participating hospital. This broad-scale, multicenter approach enhances the generalisability of the findings. However, the study also had limitations, such as differences in patient characteristics between groups and potential selection bias due to the online nature of the intervention. Future research should focus on addressing these limitations and improving algorithm accuracy to minimise false-positive alerts.
Conclusion
The SYMPRO-Lung trial demonstrates that PRO symptom monitoring can improve long-term HRQOL in lung cancer patients. The reactive approach, where patients initiate contact with their HCPs, proved to be as effective as the active approach and less labour-intensive. While no significant survival benefit was observed, the findings justify further research into the implementation of symptom monitoring in routine lung cancer care. Both reactive and active approaches offer flexibility for HCPs and patients, potentially leading to more sustainable and cost-effective care models.
🔍 Are we creating a healthcare system that truly works for everyone?
Recent findings from EFPIA shed light on alarming inequities in access to medicines across Europe, showing that only 46% of approved drugs are available to patients this year. With significant delays affecting smaller markets and critical cancer treatments, this article explores the systemic barriers at play and innovative solutions proposed to ensure fair access.
Dive into the full article to uncover how we can collectively shape a more equitable healthcare landscape.
💡 Are the UK’s medicine payment rates stifling innovation in life sciences?
Recent analysis reveals that the staggering 23.5% payment rate for pharmaceuticals is not just limiting NHS spending but also curtailing R&D investments, delaying new drug launches, and threatening workforce stability. If we can lower these rates to below 10%, we could unleash significant growth and restore the UK’s competitive edge in the global life sciences landscape.
Discover the critical insights and recommendations that could reshape the future of healthcare in the UK.
🚀 How does a groundbreaking therapy change the landscape of acute lymphoblastic leukemia treatment?
The recent benefit assessment of Blinatumomab by the German Federal Joint Committee reveals critical insights into its potential as a consolidation therapy for adults with Philadelphia chromosome-negative B-cell precursor ALL. With its orphan drug status promising automatic benefits, the article explores the implications of its high cost and economic impacts, shedding light on the balance needed between innovation and sustainability in healthcare.
Jump into the full analysis to understand how this could impact clinical practice and health economics.
#SyenzaNews #HealthEconomics #MarketAccess
When you partner with Syenza, it’s like a Nuclear Fusion.
Our expertise are combined with yours, and we contribute clinical expertise and advanced degrees in
health policy, health economics, systems analysis, public finance, business, and project management.
You’ll also feel our high-impact global and local perspectives with cultural intelligence.
