Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29914528›Full record

Trial reportOrphanet journal of rare diseases2018

How to address the challenges of evaluating treatment benefits-risks in rare diseases? A convergent mixed methods approach applied within a Merkel cell carcinoma phase 2 clinical trial.

Murtuza Bharmal, Isabelle Guillemin, Alexia Marrel, Benoit Arnould, Jérémy Lambert, Meliessa Hennessy, Fatoumata Fofana

Registry-linked trialAbstract readClinical Trial, Phase II
In one paragraph

Trial report in Orphanet journal of rare diseases, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT02155647 (A Phase II, Open-Label, Multicenter Trial to Investigate the Clinical Activity and Safety of Avelumab), which is not on this map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT02155647 phase2completednot on this map

A Phase II, Open-Label, Multicenter Trial to Investigate the Clinical Activity and Safety of Avelumab (MSB0010718C) in Subjects With Merkel Cell Carcinoma

TypeinterventionalSponsorEMD Serono Research & Development Institute, Inc.Ran2014 to 2023Enrolled204ConditionsCarcinoma, Merkel CellArmsAvelumab
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Murtuza BharmalMerck KGaA, Frankfurter Str. 250, Postcode F135/301, 64293, Darmstadt, Germany. murtuza.bharmal@merckgroup.com.
Isabelle GuilleminMapi, Patient-Centered Outcomes, Lyon, France.
Alexia MarrelMapi, Patient-Centered Outcomes, Lyon, France.
Benoit ArnouldMapi, Patient-Centered Outcomes, Lyon, France.
Jérémy LambertMapi, Patient-Centered Outcomes, Lyon, France.
Meliessa HennessyEMD Serono, Immuno-Oncology, Billerica, MA, USA.
Fatoumata FofanaMapi, Patient-Centered Outcomes, Leiden, the Netherlands.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDemonstrating treatment benefits within clinical trials in the context of rare diseases is often methodologically and practically challenging. Mixed methods research offers an approach to overcome these challenges by combining quantitative and qualitative data, thus providing a better understanding of the research question. A convergent mixed methods design in the context of Merkel cell carcinoma, a rare skin cancer, was used during the JAVELIN Merkel 200 trial (NCT02155647).

methodsNine patients receiving avelumab in the JAVELIN Merkel 200 trial were interviewed at baseline prior to receiving study treatment, and at 13 weeks and 25 weeks after first avelumab administration. Key concepts of interest identified from the baseline interviews were physical functioning, fatigue/energy, and pain. Patient perceptions of the overall change in their cancer-related health status since starting study treatment were also recorded. During qualitative analysis, at each time-point, each concept of interest was assigned a category describing the trend in change (e.g. newly emerged, no change/stable, improved, worsened, ceased/disappeared). In parallel, patients' tumour status was determined by the clinical overall response status as per the clinical trial protocol.

resultsA high concordance between patient-reported qualitative data and assessed tumour response was observed. All eight patients who clinically improved had perceived a subjective improvement in their disease since the beginning of the study; the single patient whose disease worsened had a perceived deterioration. Patient perceived benefit in physical functioning, fatigue/energy and pain was subsequent to the measured change in clinical status as assessed by tumour response. This suggests that patient-reported assessment should be examined over the long term in order to optimally capture meaningful treatment effect.

conclusionEmbedding qualitative research in clinical trials to complement the quantitative data is an innovative approach to characterise meaningful treatment effect. This application of mixed methods research has the potential to overcome the hurdles associated with clinical outcomes assessment in rare diseases.

Indexed as

AgedAged, 80 and overAntibodies, MonoclonalAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedCarcinoma, Merkel CellFemaleHumansLongitudinal StudiesMaleMiddle AgedRare DiseasesRisk AssessmentSkin NeoplasmsAntibodies, MonoclonalAntibodies, Monoclonal, HumanizedavelumabMerkel cell carcinomaMixed methods researchQualitative outcomesQuantitative outcomesTreatment meaningfulness

Identifiers

PMID29914528
PMCPMC6006962

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.