Department of Internal Medicine, IRCCS San Martino di Genova University Hospital, Genoa.
Department of Biomedical Science, Personalized Medicine Clinic Asthma & Allergy, Humanitas Clinical and Research Center, Humanitas University, Rozzano, Milano, Italy.
Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2018 Jan;24(1):70-77. doi: 10.1097/MCP.0000000000000440.
The review provides an overview of the results of asthma clinical trials published in peer review journals in the last 18 months that evaluated patient-reported outcomes (PROs).
In the last 10 years, health care moved toward a patient-centered approach, which includes patients' perspectives reflecting the impact of a disease and its treatment.
Surprisingly, among the almost 300 clinical trials published in the last one and a half year, PRO evaluation was performed in only 20 studies, and none of them held in a real-life setting. The effort of applying the scientific methods of PRO investigations in asthma clinical trials following a rigorous and systematic approach needs to be highly improved to allow better understanding of patient reported factors. Some recommendations are drawn particularly about PRO assessment in personalized medicine research. The ability of an individual PRO to evaluate choice of treatment and its effectiveness remains to be achieved.
本文综述了过去 18 个月内在同行评议期刊上发表的评估患者报告结局（PRO）的哮喘临床试验结果。
在过去的 10 年中，医疗保健转向以患者为中心的方法，其中包括患者的观点反映了疾病及其治疗的影响。
令人惊讶的是，在过去一年半发表的近 300 项临床试验中，只有 20 项研究进行了 PRO 评估，而且没有一项是在真实环境中进行的。需要大力提高在哮喘临床试验中应用 PRO 调查科学方法的工作，以更好地了解患者报告的因素。特别是针对个性化医学研究中的 PRO 评估提出了一些建议。个体 PRO 评估治疗选择及其有效性的能力仍有待实现。
