ASCPRO Recommendations for the Assessment of Fatigue as an Outcome in Clinical Trials

详细信息    查看全文

• 作者：Andrea M. Barsevick ; Charles S. Cleel ; Donald C. Manning ; Ann M. O'Mara ; Bryce B. Reeve ; Jane A. Scott ; Jeff A. Sloan
• 关键词：Cancer-related fatigue ; self-report measures ; clinical trials ; patient-reported outcomes
• 刊名：Journal of Pain and Symptom Management
• 出版年：2010
• 出版时间：June 2010
• 年：2010
• 卷：39
• 期：6
• 页码：1086-1099
• 全文大小：202 K

文摘

Context

Development of pharmacological and behavioral interventions for cancer-related fatigue (CRF) requires adequate measures of this symptom. A guidance document from the Food and Drug Administration offers criteria for the formulation and evaluation of patient-reported outcome measures used in clinical trials to support drug or device labeling claims.

Methods

An independent working group, ASCPRO (Assessing Symptoms of Cancer Using Patient-Reported Outcomes), has begun developing recommendations for the measurement of symptoms in oncology clinical trials. The recommendations of the Fatigue Task Force for measurement of CRF are presented here.

Results

There was consensus that CRF could be measured effectively in clinical trials as the sensation of fatigue or tiredness, impact of fatigue/tiredness on usual functioning, or as both sensation and impact. The ASCPRO Fatigue Task Force constructed a definition and conceptual model to guide the measurement of CRF. ASCPRO recommendations do not endorse a specific fatigue measure but clarify how to evaluate and implement fatigue assessments in clinical studies. The selection of a CRF measure should be tailored to the goals of the research. Measurement issues related to various research environments were also discussed.

Conclusions

There exist in the literature good measures of CRF for clinical trials, with strong evidence of clarity and comprehensibility to patients, content and construct validity, reliability, and sensitivity to change in conditions in which one would expect them to change (assay sensitivity), and sufficient evidence to establish guides for interpreting changes in scores. Direction for future research is discussed.