Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Background The evaluation of electronic patient-reported outcomes (ePROs) is increasingly being used in clinical studies of patients with cancer and enables structured and standardized data collection in patients’ everyday lives. So far, few studies or analyses have focused on the medical benefit of ePROs for patients. Objective The current exploratory analysis aimed to obtain an initial indication of whether the use of the Consilium Care app (recently renamed medidux; mobile Health AG) for structured and regular self-assessment of side effects by ePROs had a recognizable effect on incidences of unplanned consultations and hospitalizations of patients with cancer compared to a control group in a real-world care setting without app use. To analyze this, the incidences of unplanned consultations and hospitalizations of patients with cancer using the Consilium Care app that were recorded by the treating physicians as part of the patient reported outcome (PRO) study were compared retrospectively to corresponding data from a comparable population of patients with cancer collected at 2 Swiss oncology centers during standard-of-care treatment. Methods Patients with cancer in the PRO study (178 included in this analysis) receiving systemic therapy in a neoadjuvant or noncurative setting performed a self-assessment of side effects via the Consilium Care app over an observational period of 90 days. In this period, unplanned (emergency) consultations and hospitalizations were documented by the participating physicians. The incidence of these events was compared with retrospective data obtained from 2 Swiss tumor centers for a matched cohort of patients with cancer. Results Both patient groups were comparable in terms of age and gender ratio, as well as the distribution of cancer entities and Joint Committee on Cancer stages. In total, 139 patients from each group were treated with chemotherapy and 39 with other therapies. Looking at all patients, no significant difference in events per patient was found between the Consilium group and the control group (odds ratio 0.742, 90% CI 0.455-1.206). However, a multivariate regression model revealed that the interaction term between the Consilium group and the factor “chemotherapy” was significant at the 5% level (P=.048). This motivated a corresponding subgroup analysis that indicated a relevant reduction of the risk for the intervention group in the subgroup of patients who underwent chemotherapy. The corresponding odds ratio of 0.53, 90% CI 0.288-0.957 is equivalent to a halving of the risk for patients in the Consilium group and suggests a clinically relevant effect that is significant at a 2-sided 10% level (P=.08, Fisher exact test). Conclusions A comparison of unplanned consultations and hospitalizations from the PRO study with retrospective data from a comparable cohort of patients with cancer suggests a positive effect of regular app-based ePROs for patients receiving chemotherapy. These data are to be verified in the ongoing randomized PRO2 study (registered on ClinicalTrials.gov; NCT05425550). Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03578731; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03578731 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) RR2-10.2196/29271
Trojan et al. (Thu,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: