Assessment of PRO label claims granted by the FDA as compared to the EMA (2006-2010)

Capturing Patient Voice to Improve Outcomes That Matter to Patients with Desmoid Tumor

Desmoid tumors (DT) are rare, intermediate-grade sarcomas characterized by locally aggressive growths that commonly occur intra-abdominally, in the abdominal wall, or in the extremities. Desmoid tumors are 2-3-fold more common in females than males, with most patients aged <40 years at diagnosis. Clinical course of DT is highly variable but rarely fatal, with median overall survival >80% at 20 years. However, patient morbidity and DT symptom burden can be high. DT significantly reduce patient quality of life, imposing substantial physical, emotional, and social burdens. Pain, fatigue, and insomnia are common symptoms; disfigurement, mobility restrictions, and, rarely, the need for amputation may also result. Despite its limited impact on survival, patients with DT may have anxiety and depression levels commensurate with those associated with malignant sarcomas. Thus, DT impose an array of significant, long-term morbidities on a young patient population. In order to evaluate the impact of these morbidities, patient-reported outcome (PRO) tools are used, which assess outcomes of importance to patients that extend beyond traditional oncology endpoints. General or oncology-related PROs can be used; although currently, the only DT-specific, validated PRO measure is the GOunder/Desmoid Tumor Research Foundation DEsmoid Symptom/Impact Scale (GODDESS©), consisting of an 11-item DT Symptom Scale (DTSS) and a 17-item DT Impact Scale (DTIS). DTSS and DTIS were secondary endpoints in DeFi, a randomized phase 3 trial of nirogacestat; blinded, pooled data from DeFi were used to validate GODDESS reliability and responsiveness as a PRO measure in DT. Another DT-specific PRO measure, the Desmoid-Type Fibromatosis Quality of Life (DTF-QoL) questionnaire, has been developed but not validated. As novel DT therapies continue to be developed, incorporating DT-specific PRO measures into clinical trials will be key to capturing patient voice, improving outcomes of importance to this unique patient population, and assisting patients and providers in selecting optimal treatment.

Defining curative endpoints for sickle cell disease in the era of gene therapy and gene editing

A growing number of gene therapy- and gene editing-based treatments for patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) are entering clinical trials. These treatments, designed to target the underlying cause of SCD, have the potential to provide functional cures, which until now were possible only through allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplant. However, as these novel approaches advance from early- to late-stage clinical trials, it is essential to identify physiologically and clinically relevant endpoints that can demonstrate the achievement of a functional cure for SCD. Here, we present an overview of the pathophysiology of SCD and current treatment options, review ongoing SCD clinical trials using gene therapy or gene editing approaches, and identify the most relevant endpoints for demonstrating the attainment of a functional cure for SCD.

Patient-reported, observer-reported and performance outcomes in qualification procedures at the European Medicines Agency 2013-2018

AIMS

To describe characteristics of applicant, tool, outcomes, regulatory responses and general learnings from European Medicines Agency (EMA) Qualification Procedures on patient-reported outcomes (PROs), observer-reported outcomes (ObsROs) and performance outcomes (PerfOs) finalized between January 2013 and December 2018.

METHODS

Descriptive analysis, and qualitative review of the regulatory outcomes of the study procedures.

RESULTS

Seventeen qualification programmes for PROs, 6 for ObsRO tools and 11 for PerfO tools were submitted by consortia, large and small/medium companies. Gastroenterology and neurology were the most frequent therapeutic areas. There was a high level of regulators' partial agreement (above 70%) with applicant's approaches with constructive input; EMA published Letters of Support for PRO (6), ObsRO (2) and PerfO (4) tools, and Qualification Opinions on PROs (2) and PerfOs (1). General issues related to Qualification Procedures on PROs raised by EU regulatorsincluded: population, appropriate studies to demonstrate ability to detect change, tool validation in interventional trials, anchoring, identification of the minimally important difference, item selection, weighting, and multiple domains. In addition, specific issues for ObsROs and PerfO tools validation are identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Regulators discussed principles and challenges of validation tailored to specific setting in tool development, providing constructive feedback. Regulatory outputs supportive of further development were published in over one-third of programs. We encourage applicants intending to use or develop novel PRO, ObsRO and PerfO tools that will generate evidence for regulatory submissions on medicines to consider Qualification procedures for novel methods to seek feedback on the development and validation of these tools.

The challenge of clinical end points in sickle cell disease

As most patients with sickle cell disease (SCD) do not have access to curative therapies, the availability of drug therapies that can modify disease severity remains highly desirable. Despite an increased understanding of the pathophysiology of SCD, only 4 drugs are approved by the US Food and Drugs Administration. Most drug trials in SCD have involved the use of acute pain episodes as the primary clinical end point. These studies have typically been to prevent or shorten the duration of such episodes. To date, no drug has received regulatory approval for shortening the duration of acute vaso-occlusive complications, likely highlighting the complex pathophysiology of acute pain episodes. Trials to prevent acute pain episodes have largely evaluated those episodes requiring health care use as a surrogate end point. However, with differences in culture and health care practices among countries, health care use may not reliably predict clinically important effects on acute pain episodes. This article discusses issues related to the use of health care use as the primary end point for prevention trials of acute pain episodes and highlights the importance of evaluating patient-reported outcomes as well as other SCD-related complications as outcome measures.

Geographic atrophy - Signs, symptoms, and quality of life

Geographic atrophy (GA) is a prevalent cause of vision loss among elderly and is associated with a significant loss of function. We reviewed the current literature to assess the effect of GA on patients' daily lives and well-being. We record and organize the signs, symptoms, and impacts that are important in life with GA. Further, we examined the impact of GA on vision-related quality of life. The main complaint among patients was difficulties regarding daily tasks, especially reading and other near activities. However, a large proportion of patients also reported fear, frustration, and anxiety as salient symptoms with large impact. Many patients do not have adequate information about their condition as well as the prognosis. The most commonly used measure of patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) is the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (VFQ), that reflects the severity of impact on 12 subscales, from where near activities, general vision, mental health, and role difficulties had the lowest scores. Longitudinal studies of GA and the impact of low-vision rehabilitation efforts on health-related quality of life are sparse but suggest a significant improvement on several items. PROM is included in clinical trials, and so far, no drug has shown to improve the functional outcome in terms of PROM.

The Assessment of Patient-Reported Outcomes for the Authorisation of Medicines in Europe: A Review of European Public Assessment Reports from 2017 to 2022

OBJECTIVES

Health regulators have progressively increased their attention and focus on patient-reported outcomes (PROs), driven by the diffusion of a patient-centred approach to the drug development process. This study investigates the consideration of PROs and their measures (PROMs) in the authorisation of medicines in Europe.

METHODS

All medicines for human use authorised or refused by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in the period 2017-2022 were identified, and corresponding European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) were downloaded for review. Medicine and PROs/PROM characteristics were systematically recorded. A multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify variables associated with the use of patient-reported evidence in EPARs.

RESULTS

Overall, 497 EPARs of authorised medicines and 19 EPARs of refused medicines were analysed; of these, 240 (48.3%) and 10 (52.6%), respectively, reported any use of PROs/PROMs (p = 0.710). For authorised medicines, the likelihood of using PROs/PROMs was negatively affected by generic (OR = 0.01, p < 0.001) and biosimilar status (OR = 0.46, p = 0.013) and positively affected by orphan status (OR = 1.41, p = 0.177). The use of PROMs (50.6% in 2017 vs 47.9% in 2022) did not show a clear pattern over the 6-year period considered (p = 0.758) and was particularly uncommon in some therapeutic areas (e.g., 15.2% in infectious diseases). A total of 816 dyads of PROs/PROMs were identified. On average each EPAR considered 1.6 (range: 0-14) instruments. Patient-reported outcomes were typically secondary (53.3%) and exploratory endpoints (18.8%); in one-third of cases (32.5%), they assessed generic quality of life. Among the PROMs, 227 (27.8%) targeted general population; EQ-5D (11.0%), SF-36/SF-12 (5.9%) and EORTC QLQ-C30 (5.6%) were the instruments most frequently used.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests PROs/PROMs are considered in less than half of total medicine assessments and even more rarely in some disease areas. The adoption of PROs is key in EMA strategy to 2025 and would be facilitated by consensus development on their measures and optimisation of data collection.

Patient-reported outcomes validated in phase 3 clinical trials: a targeted literature review

BACKGROUND

Regulatory guidance advises validation of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments prior to use in pivotal clinical studies, which may then be used to generate critical patient-centered evidence and support labelling claims. This targeted literature review aimed to determine if PRO instruments psychometrically validated in a phase 3 trial setting could support label claims from the same phase 3 study (i.e. PRO data were generated as an endpoint).

METHODS

A targeted search of published studies (1 January 2006-3 June 2021) using the MEDLINE database identified PRO instruments validated during phase 3 trials. The search included instrument terms (e.g. patient-reported outcome measures, questionnaire, survey) and validation terms (e.g. reproducibility, minimal important difference), without filtering for therapeutic indications. Results were limited to phase 3 clinical trials or validation studies. The PROLABELS database was used to identify PROs validated in phase 3 trials and accepted in labelling claims.

RESULTS

Of 355 references identified, 68 studies with PRO psychometric validation in phase 3 studies were selected, covering 78 instruments. Of these, 20 were novel PRO instruments and 58 were existing instruments being validated for a new therapeutic indication/population. The psychometric properties most frequently validated were internal consistency reliability, known-group validity, responsiveness, minimal important difference, and concurrent validity. Five novel instruments obtained ten labelling claims for seven drugs/products.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that quantitative validation of novel PRO instruments, and existing PROs for new indications, can occur within the context of phase 3 trials, and these PROs can also support label claims.

Treatment with delgocitinib cream improves itch, pain and other signs and symptoms of chronic hand eczema: Results from the Hand Eczema Symptom Diary in a phase IIb randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Measuring patient-reported outcomes is crucial to fully capture the burden of chronic hand eczema (CHE).

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of delgocitinib cream on itch, pain and nine additional key signs and symptoms reported by patients with CHE using the Hand Eczema Symptom Diary (HESD).

METHODS

In a double-blind, phase IIb dose-ranging trial (NCT03683719), 258 adults with mild to severe CHE were randomized to delgocitinib cream 1, 3, 8 or 20 mg/g or cream vehicle twice daily for 16 weeks. Patients assessed 11 signs and symptoms of CHE daily through the HESD using an 11-point numeric rating scale; this was an exploratory endpoint.

RESULTS

Delgocitinib cream 20 mg/g was associated with an early and sustained reduction in itch and pain, along with clinically relevant reductions of ≥4 points from baseline to Week 16 in 48.4% and 63.6% of patients, respectively (17.9% and 5.9% with cream vehicle). There were improvements versus cream vehicle in all assessed CHE signs and symptoms (20 mg/g, p < 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Delgocitinib cream reduced itch, pain and other signs and symptoms in patients with CHE. This data correlated with clinician-reported outcomes, indicating that the HESD may be a useful assessment tool for CHE management.

Content Validity and Cognitive Debriefing of a Patient-Reported Outcome Instrument Evaluating Symptoms and Disease Impact in Patients with Geographic Atrophy

INTRODUCTION

Geographic atrophy (GA) occurs in the later stages of dry age-related macular degeneration (AMD) and impairs visual acuity, eventually causing permanent blindness in some patients and impacting patient quality of life. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures that assess the experience of patients with visual impairment do not sufficiently capture all concepts salient to patients with GA. In this study the experience of patients with GA secondary to dry AMD was evaluated, and items from the novel 10-item Visual Impairment Symptom Severity Assessment (VISSA-10) PRO instrument were mapped to salient symptoms to assess its content validity, ease of use, and relevance.

METHODS

Concept elicitation interviews were conducted with patients with GA to determine salient symptoms and impacts of GA, and a conceptual model was developed to reflect these. The items in the VISSA-10 instrument were then mapped onto the salient symptoms included in this conceptual model. Cognitive debriefing interviews were also conducted with the same cohort to determine the comprehensiveness and comprehensibility of the instrument, and to qualitatively assess levels of change considered meaningful by patients.

RESULTS

In total, 25 symptoms and 36 impacts were reported by 19 patients with GA, with seven symptoms and 11 impacts identified as salient. Of these, 12 symptoms and 15 impacts reported were not included in a previously published conceptual model for patients with dry AMD. Overall, eight of the ten items from the VISSA-10 instrument mapped to salient symptoms reported by patients with GA. All patients reported that the instrument was clear and easy to understand.

CONCLUSIONS

The VISSA-10 instrument was shown to be content valid, clear, and comprehensible, with sufficient concept coverage to measure the experience of patients with GA. Although further quantitative validation is required, this instrument has demonstrated potential for implementation in future clinical trials to evaluate the efficacy of new treatments for GA.

A review of patient-reported outcomes used for regulatory approval of oncology medicinal products in the European Union between 2017 and 2020

Introduction

Cancer and corresponding available treatments are associated with substantial symptoms and functional limitations. In this context, collection of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in clinical trials gained special interest and is recommended by regulatory authorities. Within clinical trials framework, PRO may provide evidence to support medicines approval, labeling and marketing claims. This study aims to analyze the existing evidence based on PRO as part of new oncology indications receiving positive opinions issued by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) between 2017 and 2020 and to identify PRO related label claims granted.

Methodology

Oncology medicinal products and indications approved by the European Commission following a positive opinion from the EMA between 2017 and 2020 were identified. European Public Assessment Report (EPAR) and Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) were reviewed for each medicinal product to identify use of PRO and PRO label claims.

Results

A total of 128 oncology indications, corresponding to 76 medicines, were approved; of those, 100 (78.1%) included PRO in the confirmatory clinical trials. Thirty-seven indications were supported by double-blind randomized trials and the remainder 63 by open-label trials. Out of the 104 confirmatory trials analyzed, PRO were defined as a secondary endpoint in 60 studies (57.7%), exploratory in 31 (29.8%) and as both in 13 (12.5%). In total, 54 different PRO measures (PROM) were used, of those 41 (75.9%) were disease-specific measures. Nevertheless, PROM selected relied on the EORTC (41.3%), FACIT (17.1%) and EQ-5D (29.2%) measures. A total of 76 indications (59.4%) had PRO reviewers comments included in the EPAR, however only 22 indications (17.8%) included label claims in the SmPC. The reasons identified in the EMA assessment supporting the exclusion of PRO claims were described for 34 indications (44.7%).

Conclusions

Despite growing recognition of the value of PRO data for the development of improved cancer therapies, PRO implementation remains challenging. The main reasons identified in our study are related with study design, missing data, study conduct and PROM selection.

Venetoclax combinations delay the time to deterioration of HRQoL in unfit patients with acute myeloid leukemia

Phase 3 trials Viale-A and Viale-C evaluated health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with AML unfit for intensive chemotherapy who received venetoclax (VEN) + (AZA) (Viale-A) or low-dose cytarabine (LDAC) (Viale-C) or placebo (PBO) + AZA or LDAC. Patient-reported outcomes included: EORTC QLQ-C30 global health status (GHS/QoL) and physical functioning (PF), PROMIS Cancer Fatigue Short Form 7a (Fatigue), and EQ-5D-5L health status visual analog scale (HS-VAS). Time to deterioration (TTD), defined as worsening from baseline in meaningful change thresholds (MCT) of ≥10, 5, or 7 points for GHS/QoL or PF, fatigue, and HS-VAS, respectively, was assessed; differences between groups were analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and unadjusted log-rank analyses. VEN + AZA vs PBO + AZA patients had longer TTD in GHS/QoL (P = 0.066) and fatigue (P = 0.189), and significantly longer TTD in PF (P = 0.028) and HS-VAS (P < 0.001). VEN + LDAC vs PBO + LDAC patients had significantly longer TTD in GHS/QoL (P = 0.011), PF (P = 0.020), and fatigue (P = 0.004), and a trend in HS-VAS (P = 0.057). Approximately 43%, 35%, 32%, and 18% of patients treated with VEN + AZA, AZA + PBO, VEN + LDAC, or LDAC + PBO, respectively, saw improvements >MCT in GHS/QoL. Overall, VEN may positively impact HRQoL in patients with AML ineligible for intensive chemotherapy, leading to longer preservation of functioning and overall health status.

A systematic comparison of hepatobiliary adverse drug reactions in FDA and EMA drug labeling reveals discrepancies

Drug labeling informs physicians and patients on the safe and effective use of medication. However, recent studies suggested discrepancies in labeling of the same drug between different regulatory agencies. Here, we evaluated the hepatic safety information in labeling for 549 medications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Limited discrepancies were found regarding risk for hepatic adverse drug reactions (ADRs) (8.7% in hepatic ADR warnings and 21.3% in contraindication for liver disease), while caution should be exercised over drugs with inconsistencies in contraindications for liver disease and evidence for hepatotoxicity (4.9%). Most discrepancies were attributable to less-severe hepatic events and low-frequency hepatic ADR reports and had limited implication on clinical outcomes.

Core Set of Patient-Reported Outcomes for Myelodysplastic Syndromes - EUMDS Delphi Study in Patients and Hematologists

Systematically developed set of core PROs in MDS, involving patients and hematologists in a 2-round Delphi survey.

Core PROs will support unified outcome measurement and facilitate inclusion of reliable patient information in MDS disease care.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are relevant and valuable end points in the care of patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS). However, a consensus-based selection of PROs for MDS, derived by both patients and hematologists, is lacking. We aimed to develop a core set of PROs for patients with MDS as part of the prospective European LeukemiaNet MDS (EUMDS) Registry. According to international guidelines, candidate PROs were identified from a comprehensive literature search of MDS studies. Overall, 40 PROs were selected and evaluated in a two-round Delphi survey by 40 patients with MDS and 38 hematologists in the first round and 38 patients and 32 hematologists in the second round. Based on an agreement scale and predefined inclusion criteria, both patients and hematologists selected “general quality of life” as a core PRO. Hematologists also selected “transfusion-dependency burden” and “ability to work/activities of daily living” as core PROs. The second Delphi round increased PRO rating agreements. Statistically significant rating differences between patients and hematologists were observed for 28 PROs (Mann-Whitney U test; P < .05) in the first round and for 19 PROs in the second round, with “disease knowledge” and “confidence in health care services” rated notably higher by patients. The overall mean PRO ratings correlation between the 2 groups was moderate (Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient = 0.5; P < .05). This first consensus on a core set of PROs jointly developed by patients and hematologists forms the basis for patient-centered care in daily practice and clinical research.

Impact of Post-Stroke Recanalization on General and Upper Limb Functioning: A Prospective, Observational Study

The objective of this study is to assess the impact of recanalization (spontaneous and therapeutic) on upper limb functioning and general patient functioning after stroke. This is a prospective, observational study of patients hospitalized due to acute ischemic stroke in the territory of the middle cerebral artery (n = 98). Patients completed a comprehensive rehabilitation program and were followed-up for 24 weeks. The impact of recanalization on patient functioning was evaluated using the modified Rankin Scale (mRS) and Stroke Upper Limb Capacity Scale (SULCS). General and upper limb functioning improved markedly in the first three weeks after stroke. Age, gender, and National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale (NIHSS) score at admission were associated with general and upper limb functioning at 12 weeks. Successful recanalization was associated with better functioning. Among patients who underwent therapeutic recanalization, NIHSS scores ≥16.5 indicate lower general functioning at 12 weeks (sensibility = 72.4%; specificity = 78.6%) and NIHSS scores ≥13.5 indicate no hand functioning at 12 weeks (sensibility = 83.8%; specificity = 76.5%). Recanalization, either spontaneous or therapeutic, has a positive impact on patient functioning after acute ischemic stroke. Functional recovery occurs mostly within the first 12 weeks after stroke, with greater functional gains among patients with successful recanalization. Higher NIHSS scores at admission are associated with worse functional recovery.

Health-Related Quality of Life Data in Cancer Clinical Trials for Drug Registration: The Value Beyond Reimbursement

PURPOSE

A review of the literature was performed to evaluate how quality of life measures are collected, analyzed, and reported in cancer clinical trials intended to support drug registration.Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data points are one of the patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessments used in clinical trials to evaluate the effects of treatments from the patient perspective. The use of PROs has gained focus in cancer clinical trials as more options become available for greater longevity of patients on treatment. Standardization of PRO data is evolving and involves unique challenges when used for assessing biologic and chemotherapeutic agents for the treatment of cancer.

METHODS

In this study, a review of literature published between 2009 and 2019 was conducted using PubMed, COCHRANE Library, and Medline. The research focus was on the current guidance, implementation, and reporting as well as highlighting the issues, and recommendations for the inclusion of HRQoL end points in cancer clinical trials intended for use in drug registration.

RESULTS

Although there exist many levels of guidance for HRQoL measures in cancer drug trials, challenges to operational implementation, the current inconsistent adherence to reporting standards, and the lack of consensus and understanding of analyses limit the value and potential of the resulting data collected.

CONCLUSION

The results of HRQoL data collected from cancer clinical trials can be difficult to interpret and apply to inform clinical decision making. Increased reporting and access to these data can provide opportunities for potential applications to improve translatability of HRQoL data collected in clinical trials into practice.

Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension-Symptoms and Impact Questionnaire: feasibility of utilizing one-day versus seven-day symptom reporting

Patient-reported outcomes are important measures to include in pulmonary arterial hypertension clinical trials but are not widely utilized in clinical practice. Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension—Symptoms and Impact Questionnaire (PAH-SYMPACT) is the only pulmonary arterial hypertension-specific patient-reported outcomes instrument developed and validated in accordance with the US Food and Drug Administration guidance on patient-reported outcomes development. The PAH-SYMPACT tool measures pulmonary arterial hypertension-related symptoms and impact of pulmonary arterial hypertension on daily life. Symptoms are reported each day for seven consecutive days, and the impact of pulmonary arterial hypertension over one week is recalled and reported on day 7; however, daily symptom reporting may overburden patients and healthcare resources, limiting the practicality of PAH-SYMPACT outside of clinical trials. To determine the practicability of an abridged version of PAH-SYMPACT for which all reporting is completed on one day, symptom data from the SYMPHONY trial (NCT01841762; PAH-SYMPACT validation study) were retrospectively analyzed to assess whether symptoms reported on each day correlated with the weekly average and whether one-day symptom scores were sensitive to disease severity. Correlation coefficients comparing the weekly average and individual day symptom scores were mostly high or very high regardless of the day they were measured. Findings were similar when using either Spearman's rank correlation or weighted kappa method. One-day symptom scores differentiated well between World Health Organization functional classes II and III/IV pulmonary arterial hypertension and were sensitive to change in disease severity as measured by the Patient Global Assessment of Disease Severity. These data suggest that the one-day PAH-SYMPACT is feasible and appropriate for routine implementation in clinical practice.

Development of the neurotrophic keratopathy questionnaire: qualitative research

BACKGROUND

Neurotrophic keratopathy/keratitis (NK) is a rare disease of the cornea that can lead to anatomical loss of the eye. Little is known about the NK experience from the patients' perspective. The objectives of this study were to examine the symptomatic experience and impacts of NK on patients and assess the overall comprehension, relevance, and content validity of a new questionnaire.

METHODS

This was a cross-sectional, qualitative study conducted with NK patients with varying levels of disease severity, recruited from one clinical site. One-on-one interviews using concept elicitation and cognitive interviewing techniques were conducted.

RESULTS

Fourteen NK patients participated; 64.3% were female (n = 9), mean age was 65.7 ± 13.3, and 14.3% (n = 2), 21.4% (n = 3), and 64.3% (n = 9) were classified as Mackie stage I, stage II, or stage III, respectively. Participants reported 24 concepts, including: redness (n = 12, 86%), sensitivity to light (n = 11, 79%), general discomfort (n = 9, 64%), dry eye (n = 9, 64%), reduced visual acuity (n = 9, 64%), blurred vision (n = 8, 57%), and eye fatigue (n = 8, 57%). No new concepts were reported after the 13th interview. The most frequently reported impacts included frustration (n = 10, 71%), driving impairment (n = 8, 57%), reading impairment (n = 7, 50%), difficulty watching television (n = 7, 50%), and concern with potentially losing their eyesight due to NK (n = 6, 43%). Participants provided positive feedback on the draft NK Questionnaire (NKQ) and felt that it was comprehensive and relevant to their experience with NK. Additionally, the recall period, instructions, item concepts, and response options were well-understood by participants. Minor revisions were made to the tool for consistency (i.e., the timeframe "in the past 7 days" was added to items 12-14); item 14 was modified to include "how often"; examples were added to item 9.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of the concept elicitation portion of the qualitative study support the content validity of the draft NKQ. The clinically significant concepts identified in the literature and raised during concept elicitation are included as items in the questionnaire. Further assessment of the psychometric properties should be conducted in support of this new tool to measure the effect of new treatments on symptoms and impacts associated with NK.

Differences in Patient-Reported Outcomes That Are Most Frequently Detected in Randomized Controlled Trials in Patients With Solid Tumors: A Pooled Analysis of 229 Trials

OBJECTIVES

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measurements used in cancer research can assess a number of health domains. Our primary objective was to investigate which broad types of PRO domains (namely, functional health, symptoms, and global quality of life [QoL]) most frequently yielded significant differences between treatments in randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

A total of 229 RCTs published between January 2004 and February 2019, conducted on patients diagnosed with the most common solid malignancies and assessed using the European Organization for the Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Questionnaire (QLQ)-C30, were considered. Studies were identified systematically using literature searches in key electronic databases. Unlike other PRO measurements typically used in RCTs, the scoring algorithm of the multidimensional EORTC QLQ-C30 allowed us to clearly distinguish the 3 broad types of PRO domains.

RESULTS

In total, 134 RCTs (58.5%) reported statistically significant differences between treatment arms for at least 1 of the QLQ-C30 domains. Most frequently, differences were reported for 2 or all 3 broad types of PRO domains (78 of 134 trials; 58.2%). In particular, 35 trials (26.1%) found significant differences for symptoms, functional health, and global QoL, 24 trials (17.9%) for symptoms and functional health, 11 trials (8.2%) for functional health and global QoL, and 8 trials (6.0%) for symptoms and global QoL. The likelihood of finding a statistically significant difference between treatment arms was not associated with key study characteristics, such as study design (ie, open-label vs blinded trials) and industry support.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings emphasize the importance of a multidimensional PRO assessment to most comprehensively capture the overall burden of therapy from the patients' standpoint.

Integration of Patient Reported Outcomes in Drug Development in Genitourinary Cancers

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Patient reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly utilized in cancer drug development, and are of particular importance in genitourinary cancers due to symptom burden, multiple treatment options with similar efficacy, and often prolonged duration of disease. Here we review current data and perspectives related to use of PROs in drug development for genitourinary cancers, including insights on the regulatory process for drug approval.

RECENT FINDINGS

The FDA is committed to incorporating PRO data into the regulatory process for development and approval of new cancer drugs, but challenges exist due to lack of standardization of PRO instrument choice and analytic approach, missing data, and difficulty isolating treatment effect from disease-related effects. We review guidance for standardization of PRO methodology that is nonetheless tailored to disease state and anticipated effects of treatment. PRO and efficacy data should be simultaneously analyzed and reported for best clinical practice. Multiple disease-specific PRO instruments exist for genitourinary cancers. While clinicians, researchers, and regulatory bodies alike recognize the importance of PROs in cancer drug development, challenges remain regarding implementation of best practices.

Exploring and Leveraging Known Resources to Support Pediatric Clinical Outcomes Assessment (COA) Development

BACKGROUND

Best practices for pediatric clinical outcomes assessment (COA) development rely on guidelines that have been developed for adult populations. While some useful resources are available to support pediatric COA development, this information has primarily come from within the measurement development field. To our knowledge, no research has explored the experiences of professionals from other disciplines who interact with children on a routine basis.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES

The goal of this research was to explore the experiences of professionals from outside of the measurement science field, who work closely with children every day, in settings relevant to the context of concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing interviews for pediatric COA development. The objectives were to 1) learn new ways to engage children in conversations regarding their health state; 2) understand how methods used in other disciplines can be used to improve the amount and quality of data emerging from pediatric qualitative interviews; and 3) generate a list of references to support pediatric COA development.

METHODS

Individual, one-to-one expert advice meetings were conducted over the phone or in person and lasted approximately 60 minutes in duration. One child life specialist, one speech/language pathologist, and three reading specialists were consulted, given their role in evaluating children's comprehensive abilities as well as their daily interactions with children. Two experienced COA researchers conducted the expert advice meetings using a semi-structured interview guide to provide a framework for discussion.

RESULTS

These experts reported that factors such as interview setting, time taken to build rapport with the child, the child's comfort level, presence or absence of caregiver during the interview, the child's communication style, disease-related factors, and the child's developmental age may influence the amount and type of information that is possible to elicit during qualitative interviews. Several of these factors are also important for cognitive debriefing interviews. In addition, experts provided input that may improve the debriefing procedure, such as having the child read the text aloud in small increments, re-read text, and highlight text that they do not understand. Best practice tips from the experts were consolidated into a set of references for use by those conducting pediatric COA development research.

CONCLUSION

Incorporating interdisciplinary perspectives into pediatric COA development may improve both the methods used to elicit information from children and the quality of the resulting questionnaires.

Development of the pyruvate kinase deficiency diary and pyruvate kinase deficiency impact assessment: Disease-specific assessments

Introduction

Currently recommended patient‐reported outcome (PRO) measures for patients with pyruvate kinase (PK) deficiency are non‐disease‐specific. The PK Deficiency Diary (PKDD) and PK Deficiency Impact Assessment (PKDIA) were developed to be more targeted measures for capturing the symptoms and impacts of interest to this patient population.

Methods

The instruments were developed based on concept elicitation interviews with 21 adults and modified based on 20 cognitive interviews. The domain structure and item concepts of the PKDD and PKDIA were compared with currently recommended measures, the EORTC QLQ‐C30 and the SF‐36v2®.

Results

The PKDD is a seven‐item measure of the core signs and symptoms of PK deficiency. The PKDIA is a 14‐item measure of the impacts of PK deficiency on patients’ health‐related quality of life (HRQoL). Minimal similarities were found between the new measures and the EORTC QLQ‐C30 (eg, 43% of concepts were similar to the PKDD; 42% were similar to the PKDIA) and SF‐36v2® (57% of concepts were similar to the PKDD; 17% were similar to the PKDIA).

Conclusions

The PKDD and PKDIA fill a gap in the existing outcomes measurement strategy for PK deficiency. Future work includes psychometric evaluation of these newly developed measures.

Comparison between electronic and paper versions of patient-reported outcome measures in subjects with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: an observational study with a cross-over administration

OBJECTIVES

A wide range of electronic devices can be used for data collection of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in subjects with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Although comparisons between electronic and paper-based PRO measures have been undertaken in asthmatics, it is currently uncertain whether electronic questionnaires work equally as well as paper versions in elderly subjects with COPD. The aim of this study was to compare the responses to paper and electronic versions of the Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD (E-RS) and the COPD Assessment Test (CAT).

DESIGN

A randomised cross-over design was used to compare the responses to paper and electronic versions of the two tools. The interval between the two administrations was 1 week.

SETTING

Electronic versions were self-administered under supervision using a tablet computer at our outpatient clinic (secondary care hospital in Japan) while paper questionnaires completed at home were requested to be returned by mail. It was intended that half of the patients completed the electronic versions of both questionnaires first, followed by the paper versions while the other half completed the paper versions first.

PARTICIPANTS

Eighty-one subjects with stable COPD were included.

RESULTS

The E-RS total scores (possible range 0-40) were 6.8±7.4 and 5.0±6.6 in the paper-based and electronic versions, respectively, and the CAT scores (possible range 0-40) were 10.0±7.4 and 8.6±7.8. In both questionnaires, higher scores indicate worse status. The relationship between electronic and paper versions showed significant reliability for both the E-RS total score and CAT score (intraclass correlation coefficient=0.82 and 0.89, respectively; both p<0.001). However, both the E-RS total and CAT scores were significantly higher in the paper versions (p<0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

In both cases, the two versions of the same questionnaire cannot be used interchangeably even though they have both been validated.

Patient Reported Outcomes Have Arrived: A Practical Overview for Clinicians in Using Patient Reported Outcomes in Oncology

Ensuring that the patient's voice is routinely incorporated in all aspects of health care in oncology is essential to provide quality care. Patient reported outcomes (PROs) are standardized measures that are used to obtain the patient's perspective and are increasingly used in all aspects of health care to ensure optimal delivery of patient-centered care. The US Food and Drug Administration encourages that PROs be used in studies for label indications. There are no uniform standardized methods to use PROs nor is there consensus on which PROs are best for regulatory approval, comparative effectiveness research, toxicity assessment, health-related quality of life, or symptom monitoring. For this review, we conducted a literature search using PubMed and Google Scholar, and herein summarize the evidence related to the use of PROs in clinic care and research. Using valid, reliable, and easily interpretable PROs developed in comparable populations will provide the most useful results. Various ways that PROs can be used successfully in oncology have been exemplified in this overview to provide clinicians and researchers practical guidance.

Health-Related Quality of Life in Advanced Non-small Cell Lung Cancer: A Methodological Appraisal Based on a Systematic Literature Review

Background: The majority of lung cancer patients are diagnosed with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), the bulk of which receive palliative systemic treatment with the goal to provide effective symptom palliation and safeguard health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Advanced NSCLC trials with HRQoL endpoints face methodological constraints limiting interpretability.

Objectives: We provide a comprehensive overview of recent clinical trials evaluating the impact of systemic therapies on HRQoL in advanced NSCLC, focusing on the methodological quality, with the ultimate goal to improve interpretation, comparison and reporting of HRQoL data.

Methods: A systematic literature review was performed. Prospective studies published over the last decade evaluating the impact of systemic treatments on HRQoL in advanced NSCLC were included. Methodological quality of HRQoL reporting was assessed with the CONSORT-PRO extension.

Results: Hundred-twelve manuscripts describing 85 trials met all criteria. No formal conclusion can be drawn regarding the impact on HRQoL of different treatments. We report an important variety in methodological quality in terms of definitions of HRQoL, missing data points, lack of standardization of analyzing and presenting HRQoL and no standard follow-up time. The quality of HRQoL data reporting varies substantially between studies but improves over time.

Conclusion: This review shows that in the heterogeneous landscape of trials addressing HRQoL in advanced stage NSCLC. Methodology reporting remains generally poor. Adequate reporting of HRQoL outcome data is equally important to support clinical decision-making as to correctly inform health policy regarding direct approval and reimbursement of the new drugs and combinations that will come online.

How different are COPD-specific patient reported outcomes, health status, dyspnoea and respiratory symptoms? An observational study in a working population

OBJECTIVES

We hypothesised that chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD)-specific health status measured by the COPD assessment test (CAT), respiratory symptoms by the evaluating respiratory symptoms in COPD (E-RS) and dyspnoea by Dyspnoea-12 (D-12) are independently based on specific conceptual frameworks and are not interchangeable. We aimed to discover whether health status, dyspnoea or respiratory symptoms could be related to smoking status and airflow limitation in a working population.

DESIGN

This is an observational, cross-sectional study.

PARTICIPANTS

1566 healthy industrial workers were analysed.

RESULTS

Relationships between D-12, CAT and E-RS total were statistically significant but weak (Spearman's correlation coefficient=0.274 to 0.446). In 646 healthy non-smoking subjects, as the reference scores for healthy non-smoking subjects, that is, upper threshold, the bootstrap 95th percentile values were 1.00 for D-12, 9.88 for CAT and 4.44 for E-RS. Of the 1566 workers, 85 (5.4%) were diagnosed with COPD using the fixed ratio of the forced expiratory volume in one second/forced vital capacity <0.7, and 34 (2.2%) using the lower limit of normal. The CAT and E-RS total were significantly worse in non-COPD smokers and subjects with COPD than non-COPD never smokers, although the D-12 was not as sensitive. There were no significant differences between non-COPD smokers and subjects with COPD on any of the measures.

CONCLUSIONS

Assessment of health status and respiratory symptoms would be preferable to dyspnoea in view of smoking status and airflow limitation in a working population. However, these patient-reported measures were inadequate in differentiating between smokers and subjects with COPD identified by spirometry.

The influence of ustekinumab on expression of STAT1, STAT3, STAT4, SOCS2, and IL17 in patients with psoriasis and in a control

The aim of this study was to assess changes in the expression of STAT1, STAT3, STAT4, SOCS2, and IL17 in psoriatic patients under ustekinumab treatment and in healthy volunteers. The study group consisted of 14 patients suffering from psoriasis vulgaris qualified for ustekinumab therapy (4 women, 10 men) The control group consisted of 14 healthy volunteers (7 women, 7 men), their whole blood was used as a material in this study. A quantitative reverse transcription polymerase chain assay was used to amplify analyzed genes. To indicate the differences in expression of selected genes in the test and control groups, the Kruskal-Wallis and the post hoc Dunn's test was carried out. After 40 weeks of observation of the effectiveness of ustekinumab in patients with psoriasis, the expression of STAT1, STAT3, STAT4, IL17, and SOCS2 was silenced. Statistic differences in expression were observed for STAT3 (40 vs. 0 weeks, p < .05; 0 week vs. C, p < .05) and SOCS2 (0 week vs. C, p < .05). Patients with psoriasis vulgaris have higher levels of STAT1, STAT3, STAT4, SOCS2, and IL17 expression compared to healthy individuals. On the other hand, the treatment of ustekinumab lasting 40 weeks caused a decrease in the transcriptional activity of the analyzed genes.

A pragmatic patient-reported outcome strategy for rare disease clinical trials: application of the EORTC item library to myelodysplastic syndromes, chronic myelomonocytic leukemia, and acute myeloid leukemia

Background

Novel, pragmatic, patient-centered strategies are needed to ensure fit-for-purpose patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments in clinical trial research for rare diseases such as myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML). The objective of the current study was to select supplemental items to add to the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life-Core 30 (QLQ-C30) to ensure content coverage of all important clinical concepts in patients with higher-risk (HR) MDS, low-blast count (LB) AML, and CMML, thus, improving the instrument’s ability to detect clinically meaningful treatment benefit for this context of use.

Methods

Our mixed methods approach comprised literature review, clinician consultation (n = 3), and qualitative and quantitative analysis of two stages of patient interview data (n = 14, n = 18) to select library bank items to supplement a generic cancer PRO, the EORTC QLQ-C30.

Results

Unique symptom (n = 54) and impact (n = 72) concepts were organized into conceptual frameworks of treatment benefit, compared with EORTC QLQ-C30 items and conceptual gaps identified. Supplemental items (n = 13) addressing those gaps were selected from the EORTC Item Library and tested with patients. Supplemental item endorsement frequencies met World Health Organization Quality of Life criteria, suggesting good targeting and relevance for this sample. However, three supplemental items were confirmed as problematic based upon cognitive debriefing results, and expert clinical consultations. Ultimately, 10 supplemental items (n = 7 symptom; n = 3 impact) were selected for the MDS/AML/CMML context.

Conclusion

Supplemental items were selected to enhance the conceptual coverage of the EORTC QLQ-C30 in the areas of fatigue, shortness of breath, and functioning.

Clostridium difficile Infection-Daily Symptoms (CDI-DaySyms™) questionnaire: psychometric characteristics and responder thresholds

Background

The purpose of the current study was to determine the final content validation, psychometric characteristics, clinically meaningful improvement, and responder thresholds of the Clostridium difficile infection (CDI)–Daily Symptoms (CDI-DaySyms™) patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaire.

Methods

This validation study was part of two phase III studies (NCT01987895 and NCT01983683) conducted in patients with mild-to-moderate or severe CDI who completed the CDI-DaySyms™ daily throughout the treatment period. The questionnaire was evaluated in three stages: final PRO item content validation (Stage I); psychometric evaluation of reliability and construct validity (Stage II); and determination of clinically meaningful improvement and responder thresholds using distribution-based methods (Stage III).

Results

The analysis included 168 patients. Most patients were female and Caucasian with mild-to-moderate CDI. The mean age was 57.1 years. Initial item analysis supported by confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated the relevance of 10 items grouped into three distinct domains (Diarrhea Symptoms, Abdominal Symptoms, and Systemic/Other Symptoms). Domain scores demonstrated acceptable internal consistency and test-retest reliability, were sensitive to change, and correlated in expected directions with other relevant symptom and disease-severity measures. Responder thresholds were defined as score changes of − 1.00, − 0.80, and − 0.70 in the Diarrhea Symptoms, Abdominal Symptoms, and Systemic/Other Symptoms domains, respectively.

Conclusions

The CDI-DaySyms™ is a valid measure of patient-reported CDI symptoms, with good measurement properties, which supports its utility as an endpoint in clinical studies. Further studies confirming responder thresholds based on anchor-based methods are required.

Trial registration

NCT01987895, registered November 20, 2013; NCT01983683, registered November 14, 2013.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12955-019-1142-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Incorporating the patient experience into regulatory decision making in the USA, Europe, and Canada

The clinical development of cancer therapeutics is a global undertaking, and incorporation of the patient experience into the clinical decision-making process is of increasing interest to the international regulatory and health policy community. Disease and treatment-related symptoms and their effect on patient function and health-related quality of life are important outcomes to consider. The identification of methods to scientifically assess, analyse, interpret, and present these clinical outcomes requires sustained international collaboration by multiple stakeholders including patients, clinicians, scientists, and policy makers. Several data sources can be considered to capture the patient experience, including patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures, performance measures, wearable devices, and biosensors, as well as the careful collection and analysis of clinical events and supportive care medications. In this Policy Review, we focus on PRO measures and present the perspectives of three international regulatory scientists to identify areas of common ground regarding opportunities to incorporate rigorous PRO data into the regulatory decision-making process.

[Evaluation of permanent disability levels in occupational pulmonary diseases]

Compensation for occupational pulmonary diseases requires the establishment of guidelines based on standardized and objective criteria, in order to provide compensation that is as fair as possible to patients who suffer from them. A review of the elements necessary for the examination of an individual file was carried out by a working group. It is accepted that respiratory functional exploration is the key element in assessing the level of permanent disability in all of these conditions, with the exception of thoracic malignancies. Guiding scales have been developed for the respiratory impairment of three types of conditions: occupational asthma, thoracic malignancy, and other respiratory diseases. Additional criteria for increasing the permanent disability level are also proposed in order to take into account professional prejudice, in particular the possibility or not of continuing the occupational activity, in the same job or after changing to another. For certain respiratory diseases, a periodic reassessment of the initially attributed permanent disability level is recommended as well as the initial one at the time of definitive cessation of occupational activity.

A Review of Patient-Reported Outcomes Labeling for Oncology Drugs Approved by the FDA and the EMA (2012-2016)

OBJECTIVES

To compare US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) labeling for evidence based on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of new oncology treatments approved by both agencies.

METHODS

Oncology drugs and indications approved between 2012 and 2016 by both the FDA and the EMA were identified. PRO-related language and analysis reported in US product labels and drug approval packages and EMA summaries of product characteristics were compared for each indication.

RESULTS

In total, 49 oncology drugs were approved for a total of 64 indications. Of the 64 indications, 45 (70.3%) included PRO data in either regulatory submission. No FDA PRO labeling was identified. PRO language was included in the summary of product characteristics for 21 (46.7%) of 45 indications. European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy measures were used frequently in submissions. FDA's comments suggest that aspects of study design (eg, open labels) or the validity of PRO measures was the primary reason for the lack of labeling based on PRO endpoints. Both agencies identified missing PRO data as problematic for interpretation.

CONCLUSIONS

During this time period, the FDA and the EMA used different evidentiary standards to assess PRO data from oncology studies, with the EMA more likely to accept data from open-label studies and broad concepts such as health-related quality of life. An understanding of the key differences between the agencies may guide sponsor PRO strategy when pursuing labeling. Patient-focused proximal concepts are more likely than distal concepts to receive positive reviews.

Patient-reported outcome claims in European and United States orphan drug approvals

Purpose: We aimed to evaluate the rate of usage and the kind of patient-reported outcome (PRO) claims in orphan drug approvals from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) dated between 1/1/2012 and 31/12/2016 and to compare them to those from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Methods: Orphan drug approval documentation was obtained from the EMA website. PRO-related language was extracted from the Summaries of Product Characteristics (SmPCs). Data were compared to a previously published analysis of the FDA approvals from the same time period. Results: Out of 60 approvals that met the inclusion criteria, 12 products approved by the EMA for 13 (21.7%) orphan indications contained PRO language in the Clinical Studies section of the SmPC. Twelve SmPCs contained PRO instruments based on symptoms, five of which also concerned patient functioning. Eight approvals included PRO claims related to quality of life (QoL) most commonly in cancer treatment. Conclusion: The rate of PRO claims was lower for orphan drugs specifically than for all drug approvals by the EMA. However, in accordance with previous findings, the EMA appeared more inclined to grant PRO claims including health-related QoL than the FDA.

Advances in new drug therapies for the management of sickle cell disease

Introduction

Sickle cell disease (SCD) is an orphan disease in the United States, but is highly prevalent worldwide. Only two drugs, hydroxyurea and L-glutamine, are approved for this disease. With an improved understanding of the pathophysiology of SCD as well as the success of several recently approved drugs for other orphan diseases, there is an increased interest in the development of drugs for SCD.

Areas covered

This review summarizes published studies of drug therapies and ongoing trials of novel agents.

Expert opinion

The development of drugs with different mechanisms of action offers opportunities for combination and individualized therapy in SCD. In addition to acute pain crisis, the evaluation of other SCD-related complications, exercise capacity, patient reported outcomes and validated surrogate endpoints are necessary to advance drug development. It is important to involve sites in sub-Saharan Africa and India, which have the highest burden of SCD, in trials of novel therapies.

The CDI-DaySyms: Content Development of a New Patient-Reported Outcome Questionnaire for Symptoms of Clostridium difficile Infection

OBJECTIVES

To develop a patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaire for symptoms of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) following the US Food and Drug Administration PRO guidelines.

METHODS

Patients' experiences of CDI symptoms were elicited in open-ended discussions with patients and nurses at five US sites (stage 1). A draft PRO measure was developed after demonstration of concept saturation. Two rounds of cognitive interviews were conducted with patients at three US sites (stage 2), with revision of the draft measure after each round. All patients were 18 years or older, with confirmed CDI. The study was conducted with input from a panel of five CDI experts in Europe and North America.

RESULTS

Stage 1 included interviews with 18 patients and supplementary interviews with 6 nurses; 16 additional patients were interviewed in stage 2. Patients were representative of the general CDI population and were diverse in age, sex, and disease severity. Concept saturation was reached in stage 1. Items were organized in a draft conceptual framework with five hypothesized domains: diarrhea, abdominal discomfort, tiredness, lightheadedness, and other symptoms. Stage 2 demonstrated initial content validity of the 13-item draft daily diary (CDI-DaySyms). Participants reported that the questions were clear, relevant, and comprehensive. They were able to use the instructions to complete the diary correctly and considered the 24-hour recall period appropriate.

CONCLUSIONS

The CDI-DaySyms captures symptoms relevant to patients undergoing CDI, demonstrating initial content validity. Final content and psychometric validity are being evaluated in a substudy comprising patients from two ongoing international clinical trials (ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers NCT01987895 and NCT01983683).

The Chorus of User Voices: Meeting the Challenge of Patient-Reported Outcomes From Medications

Prescription medication management by both healthcare providers and patients describe struggles not to inflict harm and encourage safe use in the context of culture and social relationships. Risk vs benefit assessments conducted in these contexts are essential for understanding how medication-taking decisions are made. Qualitatively-based Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) are critical to understanding how medication pathways are navigated by both healthcare providers and patients seeking relief from maladies. Qualitative PROs have the potential to improve understanding of social and cultural factors that impact patient decision making whether to take a drug at all and would also serve to support developing models of patient-centered care.

Patient-reported outcomes in hematology: is it time to focus more on them in clinical trials and hematology practice?

In less than 2 decades, major clinical advances have been made in various areas of hematologic malignancies. Clinicians and patients now frequently face challenging choices regarding various treatments that are often similar in regard to safety or clinical effectiveness; hence, medical decision making has grown in complexity. For example, several novel drugs have been developed as oral agents, introducing an additional challenge in patient management, such as ensuring an optimal adherence to therapy in order to maximize drug effectiveness. This rapidly changing scenario provides a rationale for a more systematic collection of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) in clinical research and routine care. In the former case, PRO may help to better understand overall treatment effectiveness of a new drug being tested. In the latter case, it may aid in making more informed, individualized treatment decisions in daily practice by obtaining more accurate information on the actual symptom burden experienced by the patient. In any case, evaluating PRO requires making several, and often challenging, decisions depending, for example, on the population being studied and the specific setting. Therefore, if PROs are to fulfill their potential of generating clinically meaningful data that robustly inform patient care, special attention should be given to methodological rigor. We outline the value of a more systematic and rigorous implementation of PRO assessment in the current hematology arena, by providing some real world examples of how PRO data have contributed in better understanding the value of new therapies. We also discuss practical considerations in PRO assessment in clinical research.

Bayesian Model Assessment in Joint Modeling of Longitudinal and Survival Data with Applications to Cancer Clinical Trials

Joint models for longitudinal and survival data are routinely used in clinical trials or other studies to assess a treatment effect while accounting for longitudinal measures such as patient-reported outcomes (PROs). In the Bayesian framework, the deviance information criterion (DIC) and the logarithm of the pseudo marginal likelihood (LPML) are two well-known Bayesian criteria for comparing joint models. However, these criteria do not provide separate assessments of each component of the joint model. In this paper, we develop a novel decomposition of DIC and LPML to assess the fit of the longitudinal and survival components of the joint model, separately. Based on this decomposition, we then propose new Bayesian model assessment criteria, namely, ΔDIC and ΔLPML, to determine the importance and contribution of the longitudinal (survival) data to the model fit of the survival (longitudinal) data. Moreover, we develop an efficient Monte Carlo method for computing the Conditional Predictive Ordinate (CPO) statistics in the joint modeling setting. A simulation study is conducted to examine the empirical performance of the proposed criteria and the proposed methodology is further applied to a case study in mesothelioma.

Natural History, Trial Readiness and Gene Discovery: Advances in Patient Registries for Neuromuscular Disease

Inherited neuromuscular diseases (NMDs) are genetic disorders that affect the skeletal muscles or the nerves controlling muscle function. With a new generation of diagnostic options and recent advances in translational research improving the opportunities for therapy development for these rare conditions, capturing patient information in databases collecting a range of clinical and genetic data together with contact details has assumed an increasingly important role in trial planning and recruitment as well as natural history data collection. Here we provide an overview of a decade of patient registration activities in the NMD field, with a particular focus on patient registries set up with trial readiness in mind. A summary is provided of databases collecting precise genetic information focused on confirming the causative mutation and their evolution into registries that combine genetic data with additional clinical information useful for trial feasibility and recruitment. Use of these systems for a range of purposes beyond trial recruitment, including natural history assessment, care standards monitoring, genotype-phenotype correlation and disease burden evaluation is also described within the context of research networks (TREAT-NMD) and European Reference Networks (ERN-EURO-NMD). New initiatives including registries using controlled vocabularies for computational accessibility that focus on phenotypic data capture for gene discovery are analysed, and examples of the lessons learned at every stage are provided in order to allow new patient registration initiatives to benefit from the extensive experience gained.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Chronic Heart Failure: Applicability for Regulatory Approval

OBJECTIVES

The study sought to review the characteristics of existing patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments used with chronic heart failure (HF) patients and evaluate their potential to support an approved U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) product label claim.

BACKGROUND

PROs, including symptoms and their associated functional limitations, contribute substantially to HF patient morbidity. PRO measurements capture the patient perspective and can be systematically assessed with structured questionnaires, however rigorous recommendations have been set by the FDA regarding the acceptability of PRO measures as a basis for product label claims.

METHODS

Extensive searches of databases and specialty guidelines identified PRO instruments used in patients with chronic HF. Information on critical properties recommended by the FDA guidance were systematically extracted and used to evaluate the selected PRO instruments.

RESULTS

Nineteen PRO instruments used with chronic HF patients were identified. The Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire and Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire were the most extensively evaluated and validated in studies of this population. However, judged by criteria listed in the FDA PRO guidance, no existing PRO measure met all of the criteria to support a product label claim in the United States.

CONCLUSIONS

Currently available chronic HF PRO measures do not fulfill all the recommendations provided in the FDA PRO guidance and therefore may not support an FDA-approved product label claim. Future investigations are merited to develop a PRO measure for use in patients with chronic HF in accordance with the FDA guidance.

Development of the Pulmonary Arterial Hypertension-Symptoms and Impact (PAH-SYMPACT®) questionnaire: a new patient-reported outcome instrument for PAH

Background

Regulators and clinical experts increasingly recognize the importance of incorporating patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical studies of therapies for pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). No PAH-specific instruments have been developed to date in accordance with the 2009 FDA guidance for the development of PROs as endpoints in clinical trials. A qualitative research study was conducted to develop a new instrument assessing PAH symptoms and their impacts following the FDA PRO guidance.

Methods

A cross-sectional study was conducted at 5 centers in the US in symptomatic PAH patients aged 18–80 years. Concept elicitation was based on 5 focus group discussions, after which saturation of emergent concepts was reached. A PRO instrument for PAH symptoms and their impacts was drafted. To assess the appropriateness of items, instructions, response options, and recall periods, 2 rounds of one-on-one cognitive interviews were conducted, with instrument revisions following each round. Additional interviews tested the usability of an electronic version (ePRO). PRO development considered input from an international Steering Committee, and translatability and lexibility assessments.

Results

Focus groups comprised 25 patients (5 per group); 20 additional patients participated in cognitive interviews (10 per round); and 10 participated in usability interviews. Participants had a mean ± SD age of 53.1 ± 15.8 years, were predominantly female (93 %), and were diverse in race/ethnicity, WHO functional class (FC I/II: 56 %, III/IV: 44 %), and PAH etiology (idiopathic: 56 %, familial: 2 %, associated: 42 %). The draft PRO instrument (PAH-SYMPACT®) was found to be clear, comprehensive, and relevant to PAH patients in cognitive interviews. Items were organized in a draft conceptual framework with 16 symptom items in 4 domains (respiratory symptoms, tiredness, cardiovascular symptoms, other symptoms) and 25 impact items in 5 domains (physical activities, daily activities, social impact, cognition, emotional impact). The recall period is the past 24 h for symptoms, and the past 7 days for impacts.

Conclusions

The PAH-SYMPACT® was shown to capture symptoms and their impacts relevant to PAH patients, demonstrating content saturation, concept validity, and ePRO usability. Final content and psychometric validation of the instrument will be based on the results of an ongoing Phase IIIb clinical trial in PAH patients.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12931-016-0388-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Patient-Reported Outcomes Labeling for Products Approved by the Office of Hematology and Oncology Products of the US Food and Drug Administration (2010-2014)

PURPOSE

To review the use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data in medical product labeling granted by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for new molecular entities and biologic license applications by the FDA Office of Hematology and Oncology Products (OHOP) between January 2010 and December 2014, to elucidate challenges faced by OHOP for approving PRO labeling, and to understand challenges faced by drug manufacturers to include PRO end points in oncology clinical trials.

METHODS

FDA Drug Approval Reports by Month were reviewed to obtain the number of new molecular entities and biologic license applications approved from 2010 to 2014. Drugs approved by the FDA OHOP during this period were selected for further review, focusing on brand and generic name; approval date; applicant; indication; PRO labeling describing treatment benefit, measures, end point status, and significant results; FDA reviewer feedback on PRO end points; and study design of registration trials. First in class, priority review, fast track, orphan drug, or accelerated approval status was retrieved for selected oncology drugs from 2011 to 2014. Descriptive analyses were performed by using Microsoft Excel 2010.

RESULTS

Of 160 drugs approved by the FDA (2010-2014), 40 were approved by OHOP. Three (7.5%) of the 40 received PRO-related labeling (abiraterone acetate, ruxolitinib phosphate, and crizotinib). Compared with nononcology drugs (2011-2014), oncology drugs were more likely to be orphan and first in class. The majority of oncology drug reviews by FDA were fast track, priority, or accelerated.

CONCLUSION

Although symptoms and functional decrements are common among patients with cancer, PRO labeling is rare in the United States, likely because of logistical hurdles and oncology study design. Recent developments within the FDA OHOP to capture PROs in oncology studies for the purpose of product labeling are encouraging.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Eosinophilic Esophagitis and Achalasia

OPINION STATEMENT

The activity of a particular esophageal disease, such as eosinophilic esophagitis (EoE) or achalasia, can be evaluated using clinician-reported outcome (ClinRO) measures assessing various endoscopic, histologic, functional, and laboratory findings, and patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. The patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are those that are designed to be self-reported by patients. Commonly used PRO instruments include those that assess symptom severity, health-related quality of life, "general" quality of life, or health status. Regulatory authorities increasingly rely on PRO measures to support labeling claims for drug development. Validated PRO measures for various esophageal diseases are needed in order to unify and standardize the way disease activity is assessed, define clinically meaningful endpoints for use in interventional and observational studies, compare the efficacy/effectiveness of various therapies, and optimize therapeutic algorithms for management of these diseases. This article reviews commonly used PRO instruments designed to assess symptom severity and quality of life in adult patients with EoE and achalasia.

Assessing quality-of-life outcomes in cardiovascular clinical research

The field of quality-of-life (QOL) measurement grew out of attempts in the 1960s and 1970s to connect the ever-increasing levels of public expenditure on technology-based health care for chronic diseases with evidence of the benefits and harms to patients. Most of the concepts, methods, and standards for measuring QOL were derived from psychometrics, but the degree to which current tools adhere to these methods varies greatly. Despite the importance of QOL, patient-reported outcomes are not measured in most cardiovascular clinical trials. Lack of familiarity with QOL measures and their interpretation, and unrealistic expectations about the information these measures can provide, are obstacles to their use. Large clinical trials of revascularization therapy for coronary artery disease and medical treatments for heart failure show small-to-moderate QOL effects, primarily detected with disease-specific instruments. Larger treatment effects, seen in trials of device therapy for heart failure and ablation therapy for atrial fibrillation, have been detected with both generic and disease-specific instruments. A large gap remains between the parameters currently being measured in clinical research and the data needed to incorporate the 'patient's voice' into therapeutic decision-making.