A Review of Patient-Reported Outcome Labeling in the United States (2011-2015)

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.

Comparison of Predictive Properties between Tools of Patient-Reported Outcomes: Risk Prediction for Three Future Events in Subjects with COPD

BACKGROUND

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures must be evaluated for their discriminatory, evaluative, and predictive properties. However, the predictive capability remains unclear. We aimed to examine the predictive properties of several PRO measures of all-cause mortality, acute exacerbation of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), and associated hospitalization.

METHODS

A total of 122 outpatients with stable COPD were prospectively recruited and completed six self-administered paper questionnaires: the COPD Assessment Test (CAT), St. George's Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ), Baseline Dyspnea Index (BDI), Dyspnoea-12, Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD and Hyland Scale at baseline. Cox proportional hazards analyses were conducted to examine the relationships with future outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 66 patients experienced exacerbation, 41 were hospitalized, and 18 died. BDI, SGRQ Total and Activity, and CAT and Hyland Scale scores were significantly related to mortality (hazard ratio = 0.777, 1.027, 1.027, 1.077, and 0.951, respectively). The Hyland Scale score had the best predictive ability for PRO measures, but the C index did not reach the level of the most commonly used FEV₁. Almost all clinical, physiological, and PRO measurements obtained at baseline were significant predictors of the first exacerbation and the first hospitalization due to it, with a few exceptions.

CONCLUSIONS

Measurement of health status and the global scale of quality of life as well as some tools to assess breathlessness, were significant predictors of all-cause mortality, but their predictive capacity did not reach that of FEV₁. In contrast, almost all baseline measurements were unexpectedly related to exacerbation and associated hospitalization.

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.

Use of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Acne Vulgaris and Rosacea Clinical Trials From 2011 to 2021: A Systematic Review

Importance

Acne and rosacea have substantial implications for quality of life, and it is therefore important to ensure the patient's voice is being captured in pivotal randomized clinical trials (RCTs). Although patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are a valuable tool to capture the patient perspective, little is known about use of PROMs in RCTs on acne and rosacea.

Objective

To characterize the use of PROMs in RCTs on acne and rosacea.

Evidence Review

A systematic literature search was conducted using the search terms acne vulgaris and rosacea in the following databases: MEDLINE through PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. A modified search hedge for RCTs from the McGill Library was applied. All phase 2, 3, and 4 RCTs published between December 31, 2011, through December 31, 2021, that evaluated the efficacy and safety of therapies for acne and rosacea vs any comparator were eligible for inclusion.

Findings

A total of 2461 publications describing RCTs were identified, of which 206 RCTs met the inclusion criteria (163 trials [79%] on acne and 43 [21%] on rosacea). At least 1 PROM was used in 53% of trials (110) included; PROM use was more common in rosacea RCTs (67% [n = 29]) compared with acne RCTs (50% [n = 81]). At least 1 dermatology-specific (13% [n = 27]) or disease-specific (14% [n = 28]) PROM was included in the RCTs analyzed. Only 7% of trials (14) included a PROM as a primary outcome measure. There was no statistically significant increase in PROM inclusion over the study period (11 of 21 trials in 2011 vs 5 of 12 trials in 2021).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this systematic review, PROMs were included in approximately one-half of acne and rosacea RCTs performed over the study period. In addition, PROMs were rarely used as a primary outcome measure, and inclusion of PROMs has not increased substantially over the past 10 years. Increasing use of PROMs in RCTs can ensure that the patient's perspective is captured during the development of new treatments for acne and rosacea.

Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) in HIV Infection: Points to Consider and Challenges

INTRODUCTION

The aim of this study was to reach consensus on the use of PROs (patient-reported outcome measures) in people living with HIV (PLHIV).

METHODS

A scientific committee of professionals with experience in PROMs methodology issued recommendations and defined the points to support by evidence. A systematic review of the literature identified the coverage, utility, and psychometric properties of PROMs used in PLHIV. A Delphi survey was launched to measure the degree of agreement with the recommendations of a group of practicing clinicians and a group of patient representatives.

RESULTS

Four principles and ten recommendations were issued; however, the results of the Delphi showed significant differences in the opinion between health professionals and PLHIV, and polarization within collectives, hampering consensus.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite a wealth of evidence on the benefit of PROMs, there are clear barriers to their use by healthcare professionals in HIV care. Intervention on these barriers is paramount to allow truly patient-centered care.

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.

Application of Patient-Reported Outcome Measurements in Clinical Trials in China

IMPORTANCE

Regulatory authorities, industry peers, and international health policies have emphasized the value of assessing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical studies. Despite the increase in the number of clinical studies in the last decade in China, little is known about the extent of the use of PROs.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the application and characteristics of PRO instruments as primary and secondary outcomes in randomized clinical trials in China.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A cross-sectional study of interventional clinical trials conducted in China from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2020, was performed. Data obtained from the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were evaluated.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Trials were categorized according to those that (1) precisely listed PRO tools as outcomes, (2) mentioned patient subjective feelings in outcomes but did not clarify which tools were used for assessment, and (3) did not mention any PRO measurements. Data on study phase, setting, participant age, and sex were extracted from trials that considered patient feelings, along with the target diseases and names of the PRO tools.

RESULTS

Among a total of 34 033 trials, 6915 (20.3%) listed the explicit PRO instruments used and 3178 (9.3%) included PRO in their outcomes but did not include the names of the assessment tools. From more than 32 million people included in the registered trials, data on 1.5 million (4.7%) patients were scientifically collected by PRO instruments, and subjective feelings were assessed for 693 867 (2.1%) participants. Pain (16.8%), cancer (15.6%), and musculoskeletal symptoms (13.3%) were the most common conditions for which PROs were precisely collected by tools. The most common tools for PRO measurements were the visual analog scale, Short-Form 36, and Hamilton Depression Scale.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this cross-sectional study, the use of PROs increased during the study period in clinical trials conducted in China. However, patient opinion appears to still be rarely measured. The application of PRO is geographically unevenly distributed. Development of PRO instruments, especially those suitable for the Chinese population, may be useful. Further expansion of PROs with respect to the scope of diseases is needed to avoid missing important data.

A Review of Patient-Reported Outcome Labeling of FDA-Approved New Drugs (2016-2020): Counts, Categories, and Comprehensibility

OBJECTIVES

A review of new drug approvals (NDAs) by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for 2006 to 2015 showed that approximately 20% of new drugs had labeling based on patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The purpose of this study was to review labeling text based on PRO endpoints for NDAs from 2016 to 2020, with a special focus on the comprehensibility of such statements when included.

METHODS

We reviewed drug approval reports on the Drugs@FDA web page of the FDA website to determine the number of NDAs from 2016 to 2020. For all identified NDAs, drug approval package and product labels were reviewed. NDAs from 2016 to 2020 were grouped by disease category as per International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision. Data were summarized for diseases that traditionally rely on PROs for evaluating treatment benefit (PRO dependent) and for diseases that traditionally do not rely on PROs (non-PRO dependent). Results were compared with NDAs from 2006 to 2010.

RESULTS

NDAs amounting to 228 were identified from 2016 to 2020, 26.3% of which had labeling statements based on PRO endpoints. From 2006 to 2015 and from 2016 to 2020, PRO labeling statements were included in 46.5% (46 of 99) and 50.0% (47 of 94), respectively, of NDAs for PRO-dependent new molecular entities and in 6.0% (12 of 199) and 9.7% (13 of 199), respectively, of NDAs for non-PRO-dependent new molecular entities. Comprehensibility of labeling statements based on PRO endpoints was judged to be complex in 56.7% of product labels.

CONCLUSIONS

The increase in labeling text based on PRO endpoints in product labels is encouraging. However, there is room for improvement on the comprehensibility of labeling statements based on PRO endpoints.

Characterizing the relationships between patient reported outcomes and clinician assessments of alopecia areata in a phase 2a randomized trial of ritlecitinib and brepocitinib

Background

The phase 2a ALLEGRO trial (NCT02974868) investigated the safety and efficacy of ritlecitinib (PF‐06651600) and brepocitinib (PF‐06700841) in adults with alopecia areata. No randomized controlled trial for alopecia areata has evaluated correlations between clinician‐assessed hair loss and patient‐reported outcomes.

Objectives

Report scores from the Alopecia Areata Symptom Impact Scale (AASIS; a patient‐reported outcome tool) and explore the relationships of those scores with clinician‐assessed Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) scores at baseline and week 24 of the ALLEGRO trial.

Methods

Adults with alopecia areata were randomized to ritlecitinib (n = 48), brepocitinib (n = 47) or placebo (n = 47). After 24 weeks, the mixed‐effects model with repeated measures was used to calculate the active treatment groups' AASIS score least‐squares mean differences. Relationships between AASIS and SALT scores at baseline and week 24 were evaluated by Pearson's correlation coefficients using pooled data.

Results

Baseline AASIS and SALT scores were similar among treatment groups. Both active treatment groups reported significant improvements in AASIS scores at week 24 (least‐squares mean differences vs. placebo for ritlecitinib, −0.8 to −2.3; brepocitinib, −0.9 to −3.7; P < 0.05 for all). At week 24, the mean SALT scores (standard deviation) improved compared with baseline [ritlecitinib, 54.4 (40.3) vs. 89.4 (15.8); brepocitinib, 31.9 (35.7) vs. 86.4 (18.1)]. The correlation coefficients between AASIS global and subscale scores and SALT scores at week 24 ranged from 0.34 to 0.58; P < 0.05 for all.

Conclusions

Patients randomized to ritlecitinib or brepocitinib reported significantly improved AASIS and SALT scores at week 24 of the ALLEGRO trial compared to placebo. At week 24, medium‐to‐large correlations can be seen between AASIS global and subscale scores and SALT scores. Our experience with AASIS instrument highlighted several aspects that suggest new patient‐reported outcome tools are needed to accurately assess patients' relevant alopecia areata related signs, symptoms and daily functioning.

Linked Commentary: H.A. Ramírez‐Marín & A. Tosti J Eur Acad Dermatol Venereol 2022; 36: 494–495. https://doi.org/10.1111/jdv.17984.

Results on patient-reported outcomes are underreported in summaries of product characteristics for new drugs

BACKGROUND

Summaries of product characteristics (SmPCs) are regulatory documents published upon drug approval. They should report all relevant study data and advise how to use drugs safely and effectively. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in clinical trials to incorporate the patient perspective-SmPCs should thus adequately report PROs. In Germany, new drugs undergo mandatory early benefit assessment. Pharmaceutical companies submit dossiers containing all evidence; the subsequent dossier assessments focus on patient-relevant outcomes and comprehensively report PROs.

OBJECTIVE

The primary aim was to investigate to what extent PROs recorded as outcomes in clinical trials of new drugs are reported in SmPCs.

METHODS

We analysed dossier assessments with randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of new drugs entering the market between 01/2014 and 07/2018 and the corresponding SmPCs, and compared PRO reporting in both document types. For this purpose, we evaluated dossier assessment characteristics (e.g. drug name, indication, disease category) and study characteristics (e.g. evaluable PROs available?). PROs were divided into symptoms and health-related quality of life (HRQoL). SmPCs were screened to identify RCTs. We conducted 3 main evaluation steps: (1) Did the RCT included in the dossier assessment contain evaluable PROs? (2) If yes, was the RCT included in the SmPC? (3) If yes, were the PROs reported in the SmPC? Results are presented descriptively.

RESULTS

88 dossier assessments including 143 RCTs on 72 drugs were considered: 109 (76.2%) RCTs included evaluable PROs, of which 89 were included in SmPCs. 38 RCTs (42.7%) investigated oncologics, 18 (20.2%) anti-infectives, and 33 (37.1%) other drugs. The RCTs considered symptoms more often than HRQoL (82 vs. 66 RCTs). In SmPCs, PROs were reported for 41 RCTs (46.1%), with a slightly higher reporting rate for RCTs considering HRQoL (43.9%) than for RCTs considering symptoms (41.5%). In oncologic indications, PROs were reported for 36.7% of RCTs considering HRQoL and 33.3% of RCTs considering symptoms. In infectious diseases, the rates were 21.4% (symptoms) and 0% (HRQoL), and for other diseases about 60% (symptoms) to 70% (HRQoL).

CONCLUSION

Even though a large amount of PRO data on new drugs is available from clinical trials included in SmPCs, the corresponding results are underreported.

Does scrolling affect measurement equivalence of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROM)? Results of a quantitative equivalence study

BACKGROUND

Scrolling is a perceived barrier in the use of bring your own device (BYOD) to capture electronic patient reported outcomes (ePROs). This study explored the impact of scrolling on the measurement equivalence of electronic patient-reported outcome measures (ePROMs) in the presence and absence of scrolling.

METHODS

Adult participants with a chronic condition involving daily pain completed ePROMs on four devices with different scrolling properties: a large provisioned device not requiring scrolling; two provisioned devices requiring scrolling - one with a "smart-scrolling" feature that disabled the "next" button until all information was viewed, and a second without this feature; and BYOD with smart-scrolling. The ePROMs included were the SF-12, EQ-5D-5L, and three pain measures: a visual analogue scale, a numeric response scale and a Likert scale. Participants completed English or Spanish versions according to their first language. Associations between ePROM scores were assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs), with lower bound of 95% confidence interval (CI) > 0.7 indicating comparability.

RESULTS

One hundred fifteen English- or Spanish-speaking participants (21-75y) completed all four administrations. High associations between scrolling and non-scrolling were observed (ICCs: 0.71-0.96). The equivalence threshold was met for all but one SF-12 domain score (bodily pain; lower 95% CI: 0.65) and two EQ-5D-5L item scores (pain/discomfort, usual activities; lower 95% CI: 0.64/0.67). Age, language, and device size produced insignificant differences in scores.

CONCLUSIONS

The measurement properties of PROMs are preserved even in the presence of scrolling on a handheld device. Further studies that assess scrolling impact over long-term, repeated use are recommended.

Patient-reported outcomes in HIV clinical trials evaluating antiretroviral treatment: a systematic review

We aimed to assess patterns of patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments' utilization in HIV clinical trials in relation to antiretroviral therapy (ART). PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, and EMBASE were searched using the terms "Patient-Reported Outcomes" and "HIV/AIDS" or "Antiretroviral Treatment" or "ART" or "Antiretroviral Therapy" from 1 January 1990 until 1 December 2019. In total, 173 studies were identified and 26 were directly related to ART. Study population included treatment-naïve patients (n = 4), treatment-experienced (n = 20), or both (n = 2). Instruments were implemented to assess general experience with ART (n = 3), single-tablet regimens (STR) (n = 2), monotherapy (n = 4), regimen switch (n = 9), or regimen comparison (n = 8). The most commonly used instruments were Medical Outcomes Study-HIV Health Survey (MOS-HIV, n = 8), HIV Symptom Index (HIV-SI, n = 7) and unstructured self-reports (n = 5) followed by others. MOS-HIV was used mainly in comparative (n = 4) and monotherapy (n = 3) trials, HIV-SI in switch (n = 4) and STR (n = 2) trials, and self-reports in comparative trials (n = 3). Even though, the implementation of PRO tools is increasing with time, reporting of PRO in HIV clinical trials remains limited.

New Drug and Biologics Approvals in 2019: A Systematic Analysis of Patient Experience Data in FDA Drug Approval Packages and Product Labels

Background

The FDA Patient-Focused Drug Development Initiative was launched to ensure the incorporation of the patient voice into drug development and evaluation. Since 2017, the FDA must publish a statement outlining patient experience data (PED) considered in the approval of new drugs. This study investigated the presence and role of PED in drug approval and translation into product label claims.

Methods

PED reported in approval packages of the 48 drugs approved by FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research in 2019 was identified and categorized. PED in the form of clinical outcome assessments (COAs) was characterized by endpoint positioning and outcome. The product labels were analyzed for PED-related claims.

Results

PED was reported as relevant for 39 of 48 (81.3%) drugs approved in 2019. COAs were the predominant PED type; other PED was identified for only 9 (18.8%) drugs, and none included qualitative or patient preference studies. COAs were the only type of PED for which associated claims were identified in the product labels. 27 out of 48 (56.3%) labels contained one or more efficacy claims based on COAs; of these, patient-reported outcomes were the most prevalent with claims identified in 19 labels (39.6%).

Conclusion

There are ample opportunities for incorporating PED beyond COAs to inform drug development and facilitate availability of medicines tailored to patient needs. A higher level of transparency on the role of PED in regulatory decision-making and a clear path to PED-based label claims could incentivize sponsors and enable patient empowerment in treatment decisions.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s43441-020-00244-x) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Time to health-related quality of life improvement analysis was developed to enhance evaluation of modern anticancer therapies

OBJECTIVES

Major advances have recently been made in the treatments of cancer, which now also have the potential to improve patients' health-related quality of life (HRQOL). We propose the time to HRQOL improvement (TTI) and the time to sustained HRQOL improvement (TTSI) as potentially important cancer outcomes to be used in longitudinal HRQOL analyses.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

As proof of principle, we defined TTI and TTSI, using the Fine-Gray model to include competing risks in estimates, in a case study in real life of a cohort of newly diagnosed patients with cancer receiving a targeted therapy. HRQOL was evaluated before and during therapy with six assessments over a 24-month period, using the well-validated European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire-Core 30.

RESULTS

For each assessed HRQOL domain, we assessed TTI and TTSI and estimated the cumulative incidence of patients' clinically meaningful improvements, also accounting for the occurrence of competing events.

CONCLUSION

TTI and TTSI are potentially important outcomes in the era of modern anticancer therapies. The analysis of TTI and TTSI by competing risks approach will further add to the statistical methods that can be used to inform on the impact of cancer therapies on patients' HRQOL.

How Oncologists Perceive the Availability and Quality of Information Generated From Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs)

Background:

Despite increased incorporation of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures into clinical trials, information generated from PROs remains largely absent from drug labeling and electronic health records, giving rise to concerns that such information is not adequately informing clinical practice.

Objective:

To evaluate oncologists’ perceptions concerning the availability and quality of information generated from PRO measures. Additionally, to identify whether an association exists between perceptions of availability and attitudes concerning quality.

Method:

An online, 11-item questionnaire was developed to capture clinician perspectives on the availability and use of PRO data to inform practice. The survey also asked respondents to rate information on the basis of 4 quality metrics: “usefulness,” “interpretability,” “accessibility,” and “scientific rigor.”

Results:

Responses were received from 298 of 1301 invitations sent (22.9% response rate). Perceptions regarding the availability of PRO information differed widely among respondents and did not appear to be linked to practice setting. Ratings of PRO quality were generally consistent, with average ratings for the 4 quality metrics between “satisfactory” and “good.” A relationship was observed between ratings of PRO data quality and perceptions of the availability.

Conclusion:

Oncologists’ attitudes toward the quality of information generated from PRO measures are favorable but not enthusiastic. These attitudes may improve as the availability of PRO data increases, given the association we observed between oncologists’ ratings of the quality of PRO information and their perceptions of its availability.

Why Reinvent the Wheel? Use or Modification of Existing Clinical Outcome Assessment Tools in Medical Product Development

Assessment of clinical benefit in treatment trials can be made through report by a clinician, a patient, or a nonclinician observer (eg, caregiver) or through a performance-based assessment. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a final guidance for industry for one type of clinical outcome assessment (COA)-patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures-in 2009 that described how FDA reviews PRO measures for their adequacy to support medical product-labeling claims. Many of the principles described in the PRO Guidance could be applicable to the other types of COAs, including instruments completed by clinicians (ie, clinician-reported outcome assessments) and nonclinician observers (ie, observer-reported outcome assessments). FDA guidance describing the regulatory expectations for all COA types including performance outcome assessments, which are based on the patient's performance of a defined task or activity, is in progress to meet requirements described within the 21st Century Cures Act and PDUFA VI. This communication highlights potential ways in which existing instruments might be modified or used "as is" to conform to good measurement principles. An industry and a regulatory perspective are described.

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 outcome measures in the management of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a 1-year prospective study

Objective

To prospectively explore the following patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in the management of neovascular age-related macular degeneration (nAMD): (1) self-reported visual function, (2) symptom-state, (3) general-health and (4) satisfaction of treatment.

Methods and analysis

Corresponding to the four PROMs, participants responded to the following questionnaires: (1) National Eye Institute Visual-Functioning-Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ-25), (2) Patient-Acceptable-Symptom-Status (PASS 5), (3) EuroQol-Group-Questionnaire (EQ-5D-3L) and (4) Dimensions of Importance in Treatment of nAMD (DITAMD). Data were collected at baseline and after 3, 6 and 12 months of intravitreal antivascular endothelial growth factor treatment. Results were evaluated with t-tests and mixed linear regression analyses.

Results

The study included 197 patients. At baseline NEI-VFQ-25 (79.53±14.52) and EQ-5D (0.74±0.28) had relatively high scores, whereas PASS 5 was below 'acceptable' (3.30±0.80). At 12 months NEI-VFQ-25 and PASS 5 showed significant improvement, whereas EQ-5D and DITAMD remained unchanged. At baseline patients receiving treatment of the better-seeing eye (BSE) (n=52) reported significantly worse NEI-VFQ-25 and PASS 5 than patients for whom treatment only involved the worse-seeing eye (WSE), (n=145). In contrast to BSE patients, there was no improvement of NEI-VFQ-25 for WSE patients at 12 months, despite a significant improvement in best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA). Two independent variables, treatment including the BSE and BCVA for the treated eye, were found to predict both NEI-VFQ-25 and PASS 5.

Conclusion

After 12 months of nAMD treatment, there was a significant improvement in PASS 5 and NEI-VFQ-25, the latter depending on whether therapy included BSE. EQ-5D and DITAMD remained unaltered.

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.

Psychometric properties of the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ 25) in a Norwegian population of patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration compared to a control population

Background

Although visual acuity and optical coherence tomography (OCT) are most widely used as outcomes in treatment of neovascular age-related Macular Degeneration (nAMD), patient reported outcome measures are increasingly recognized. National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ 25) was developed to capture the perceived visual function. Yet, evidence of psychometric performance in the target population is required. The aim of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of NEI-VFQ 25 in a Norwegian cohort of newly diagnosed nAMD patients followed with a Treat and Extend (T/E) protocol.

Methods

Patients receiving intravitreal anti–vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) injection treatment according to a T/E protocol completed a Norwegian translation of NEI-VFQ 25, EuroQoL Health Questionnaire (EQ-5D), and Patient acceptable symptom state (PASS 5) at baseline, 3, 6 and 12 months. In addition, a control population completed the same questionnaires. Visual acuity was assessed with LogMar for best/treated eye. Validity testing comprised face validity by a 0–10 numeric rating scale about relevance of NEI-VFQ 25 as well as regression analyses and correlations between NEI-VFQ 25 and other relevant variables. Reliability was examined with Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC) and Cronbach’s alpha for internal consistency were performed. Responsiveness, discriminatory power and predictive value were also explored.

Results

Number of respondents at baseline, after 3, 6 and 12 months was 197, 186, 176 and 168, respectively. The control population comprised 26 individuals. Face validity of NEI-VFQ 25 had a mean (SD) of 7.8 (1.7) (n = 84). NEI-VFQ was significantly correlated to visual acuity and PASS 5 as well as EQ-5D at baseline. Reliability (ICC) of the overall and sub scores for the patients/controls ranged from 0.49–0.97/0.59–0.97. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.61–0.85. Discriminatory power was confirmed by significant differences of the overall score between controls and patients (P < 0.001). NEI-VFQ 25 indicates responsiveness showing overall score improved significantly (P ≤ 0.001) from baseline to 3 months. NEI-VFQ 25, general health and visual acuity at baseline were the strongest predictors for how patients reported vision after 6 months follow-up.

Conclusion

NEI-VFQ 25 showed acceptable psychometric performance, which supports that the Norwegian version can be used to monitor patients treated for nAMD.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Orphan Drug Labels Approved by the US Food and Drug Administration

OBJECTIVES

In recent years, there has been increasing recognition of the need to assess treatment benefit from the patient's perspective. The extent of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data included in labeling for rare disease treatment is largely unknown. The objective of this study was to review trends over time for PRO-based labeling granted by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for orphan drugs.

STUDY DESIGN

Review of FDA package inserts.

METHODS

Products included in this analysis were all new molecular entities (NMEs) and biologic license applications (BLAs) with orphan designations approved by the FDA from 2002 through 2017. For identified products, package inserts were reviewed to determine the number and type of PRO claim(s) granted, endpoint status, and PRO measure named. Two trends were analyzed: (1) over all years 2002 to 2017 and (2) 2002 to 2017 stratified into 3 periods (before draft FDA PRO guidance [2006], between draft and final guidance release, and after final guidance [2009] release.

RESULTS

A total of 156 NMEs and BLAs with orphan designations were approved between 2002 and 2017. Of these, 13 products (8.3%) had PRO-based labeling, and 7 of 13 were symptom-related. The percent of orphan drugs approved with PRO-based labeling between 2002 and 2005, 2006 and 2008, and 2009 and 2017 was 0, 10.5, and 9.9, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

In FDA-approved labeling for orphan therapies, PRO measures used as primary and secondary endpoints increased after draft FDA PRO guidance release but remained relatively low thereafter. It is important to understand barriers to PRO measure use to ensure that treatments capture perspectives of patients with rare diseases.

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.

Lower-dose prescriptions in the post-marketing situation and the influencing factors thereon

The dosage of pharmaceuticals is determined through the process of clinical development and approval review based on clinical trial results; however, the information obtained from clinical trials before approval is limited. Some pharmaceutical products are used at doses lower than those approved for post-marketing use. The aim of this study was to reveal the actual state of lower-dose prescriptions for post-marketing clinical use of pharmaceuticals. We investigated the factors related to the deviation based on therapeutic area, detailed statement of the approved dosage, clinical data package, and post-marketing requirement. Among the new molecular entities approved in Japan between January 2005 and December 2014, we identified products that are orally administered and have the same daily dose for different indications, if any. For these products, we collected information on the actual daily dose from the medical information databases of Medical Data Vision Co., LTD. and JammNet Co., LTD. Products whose dose was lower than the approved dose (maintenance dose excluding the initial dose) in ≥ 30% prescriptions in 2015 were defined here as “lower-dose prescription drugs.” We identified 27 lower-dose prescription drugs out of 113 products investigated. The results of the multivariate analysis revealed that factors related to the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical classification and the detailed statement of the approved dosage significantly influenced the occurrence of lower-dose prescription, whereas the factors related to clinical data package and post-marketing requirements did not. These results suggest the limitation in determining an optimal dosage for the actual clinical use of a drug based on the information obtained from clinical trials conducted before approval, emphasizing the importance of reexamining the optimal dosage that is applicable to a greater number of patients after marketing, if necessary. We believe that the utilization of real-world data could be of help in this regard.

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.

Item banking and computer-adaptive testing in clinical trials: Standing in sight of the PROMISed land

The use of patient-reported outcome instruments (PRO) in clinical trials in order to capture the impacts of treatment on patients is widespread. However, regulatory agencies have over the past decade highlighted the need for PROs that are fit for purpose and target relevant aspects of the patient's condition. Many legacy PROs were developed with little patient input, are lengthy, and may lack relevance having not been modified or adapted as medical treatments have advanced. Computer-adaptive test (CAT) systems provide the possibility of targeted approaches to capturing patient-centric data, while minimising patient burden. Coupled with greater patient input in the development of PROs, CAT offers the opportunity of overcoming the shortcomings of the previous generation of PROs. This paper describes the some of the issues facing legacy PROs, current regulatory guidance, and initiatives, such as the Patient-Reported Outcome Measurement Information System (PROMIS), as well as the early signs of use of CAT to capture PRO data in clinical trials.

The importance of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials and strategies for future optimization

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) can be included in clinical trials as primary or secondary endpoints and are increasingly recognized by regulators, clinicians, and patients as valuable tools to collect patient-centered data. PROs provide unique information on the impact of a medical condition and its treatment from the patient's perspective; therefore, PROs can be included in clinical trials to ensure the impact of a trial intervention is comprehensively assessed. This review first discusses examples of how PRO endpoints have added value to clinical trial interpretation. Second, it describes the problems with current practices in designing, implementing, and reporting PRO studies, and how these problems may be addressed by complying with guidance for protocol development, selecting appropriate PRO measures to match clinically motivated PRO hypotheses, minimizing the rates of avoidable missing PRO data, analyzing and interpreting PRO data, and transparently reporting PRO findings.

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.