Kalsoum Raneem, Minns Lowe Catherine J, Gilbert Sophie, McCaskie Andrew W, Snow Martyn, Wright Karina, Bruce Geoff, Mason Deborah J, Watt Fiona E
Department of Immunology & Inflammation, Imperial College London, London, UK.
Musculoskeletal Research Unit, School of Health and Social Work, University of Hertfordshire, Hatfield, UK.
Bone Joint Res. 2024 Sep 19;13(9):513-524. doi: 10.1302/2046-3758.139.BJR-2024-0109.
To explore key stakeholder views around feasibility and acceptability of trials seeking to prevent post-traumatic osteoarthritis (PTOA) following knee injury, and provide guidance for next steps in PTOA trial design.
Healthcare professionals, clinicians, and/or researchers (HCP/Rs) were surveyed, and the data were presented at a congress workshop. A second and related survey was then developed for people with joint damage caused by knee injury and/or osteoarthritis (PJDs), who were approached by a UK Charity newsletter or Oxford involvement registry. Anonymized data were collected and analyzed in Qualtrics.
Survey responses (n = 19 HCP/Rs, 39 PJDs) supported studies testing pharmacological agents preventing PTOA. All HCP/Rs and 30/31 (97%) PJDs supported the development of new treatments that improved or delayed knee symptoms and damage to knee structure. PJDs thought that improving structural knee damage was more important than knee symptoms. Both groups found studies more acceptable as expected future benefit and risk of PTOA increased. All drug delivery routes were acceptable. Workshop participants (around n = 60) reflected survey views. Discussions suggested that stratifying using molecular testing for likely drug response appeared to be more acceptable than using characteristics such as sex, age, and BMI.
Our findings supported PTOA drug intervention studies, including situations where there is low risk of disease, no expected benefit of treatment, and frequent treatment administration. PJDs appeared less risk-averse than HCP/Rs. This work reinforces the benefits of consensus and involvement work in the co-creation of PTOA drug trial design. Involvement of key stakeholders, such as PJDs with different risks of OA and regulatory representatives, are critical for trial design success.
探讨关键利益相关者对于旨在预防膝关节损伤后创伤性骨关节炎(PTOA)的试验的可行性和可接受性的看法,并为PTOA试验设计的下一步提供指导。
对医疗保健专业人员、临床医生和/或研究人员(HCP/Rs)进行了调查,并在一次大会研讨会上展示了数据。然后针对因膝关节损伤和/或骨关节炎导致关节损伤的患者(PJD)开展了第二项相关调查,这些患者通过英国慈善机构时事通讯或牛津参与登记处联系。在Qualtrics中收集并分析了匿名数据。
调查回复(n = 19名HCP/Rs,39名PJD)支持测试预防PTOA的药物制剂的研究。所有HCP/Rs和30/31(97%)的PJD支持开发能够改善或延缓膝关节症状以及膝关节结构损伤的新疗法。PJD认为改善膝关节结构损伤比改善膝关节症状更重要。随着PTOA预期未来益处和风险的增加,两组都认为研究更可接受。所有给药途径都是可接受的。研讨会参与者(约n = 60)反映了调查观点。讨论表明,使用分子检测来分层可能的药物反应似乎比使用性别、年龄和BMI等特征更可接受。
我们的研究结果支持PTOA药物干预研究,包括疾病风险低、治疗无预期益处以及频繁给药的情况。PJD似乎比HCP/Rs对风险的厌恶程度更低。这项工作强化了在共同创建PTOA药物试验设计中达成共识和参与工作的益处。关键利益相关者的参与,如具有不同OA风险的PJD和监管代表,对于试验设计的成功至关重要。