How to address the challenges of evaluating treatment benefits-risks in rare diseases? A convergent mixed methods approach applied within a Merkel cell carcinoma phase 2 clinical trial

Qualitative In-trial Interviews: Methods, Challenges, and Best Practice

Qualitative in-trial interviews with clinical trial participants are a means of providing rich, in-depth patient experience data to supplement and complement data captured by clinical outcome assessments and other clinical trial efficacy endpoints. Such in-trial interview data can be used to build understanding of disease and treatment experiences, evaluate content validity of clinical outcome assessments, aid interpretation of scores and meaningful changes, inform trial design feasibility and operational considerations, and provide supportive evidence regarding safety, efficacy, and effectiveness. Despite the rapid growth of in-trial interviews as part of clinical development programs in the pharmaceutical industry in recent years, published guidelines regarding the methods, conduct, and implementation of in-trial interviews are scarce. Drawing on published examples and the authors' experiences of conducting in-trial interview studies, this article provides an overview of best practice methods for implementing this methodology (including considerations for study design, sample size, interview conduct, and analysis) and the value of in-trial interview data to answer specific research questions. Operational and logistical considerations are outlined, including recommendations for country selection, site selection, training and communication, adverse event safety reporting, and data management and handling. Well-designed and carefully implemented in-trial interviews can lead to generation of insightful patient experience data that are truly of value to inform regulators, health technology agencies, clinicians, patients, and caregivers about product attributes and the impact of diseases and treatments on patients' lives.

Development and Content Validation of the Patient's Qualitative Assessment of Treatment - Real-World (PQAT-RW): An Instrument to Evaluate Benefits and Disadvantages of Treatments in Real-World Settings

Purpose

Quantifying patient-perceived benefits and disadvantages of treatments in a real-world setting is increasingly important in healthcare decision-making. The Patient's Qualitative Assessment of Treatment (PQAT) assesses patient-perceived benefits and disadvantages of treatment, and associated trade-offs potentially influencing patients' willingness to continue treatment. It has then been modified to capture patients' perceived magnitude of benefits and disadvantages of treatment quantitatively, as well as qualitatively (PQATv2). However, the PQAT and the PQATv2 were designed for use and validated in a clinical trial setting. The objective of this study was to adapt and test the content validity of a version of the PQATv2 for use in real-world settings (PQAT-RW).

Patients and Methods

The PQATv2 was adapted for use in real-world settings (PQAT-RW), and its content was validated in 16 patients with varied chronic medical conditions and medication regimens via semi-structured qualitative interviews.

Results

All participants reported that the PQAT-RW was "easy to understand". The majority (n = 11/16) reported that the items covered all important aspects of their treatment experience, and that no items needed to be removed or added to the instrument. Analysis of free-text responses identified eight global concepts considered by participants when evaluating the benefits and disadvantages of treatment: treatment effectiveness, side effects and method of administration were most frequently considered (as both benefits and disadvantages), followed by frequency of administration, financial considerations, storage, packaging and drug preparation.

Conclusion

The results of this study support the content validity of the PQAT-RW. They also demonstrate that using qualitative responses to contextualize quantitative responses provides unique insight into diverse and individualized patient-perceived benefits and disadvantages, and their relative importance, in real-world settings.

A patient-centred and multi-stakeholder co-designed observational prospective study protocol: Example of the adolescent experience of treatment for X-linked hypophosphataemia (XLH)

The importance of patient centricity and keeping the patient at the heart of research design is now well recognised within the healthcare community. The involvement of patient, caregiver and clinician representatives in the study design process may help researchers to achieve this goal and to ensure robust and meaningful data generation. Real-world data collection allows for a more flexible and patient-centred research approach for gaining important insights into the experience of disease and treatments, which is acutely relevant for rare diseases where knowledge about the disease is more likely to be limited. Here, we describe a practical example of a patient-centric, multi-stakeholder approach that led to the co-design of a prospective observational study investigating the lived experience of adolescents with the rare disease, X-linked hypophosphataemia. Specifically, we describe how the knowledge and expertise of a diverse research team, which included expert physicians, research and technology specialists, patients and caregivers, were applied in order to identify the relevant research questions and to ensure the robustness of the study design and its appropriateness to the population of interest within the context of the current clinical landscape. We also demonstrate how a structured patient engagement exercise was key to informing the selection of appropriate outcome measures, data sources, timing of data collection, and to assessing the feasibility and acceptability of the proposed data collection approach.

Experience of patients considering or using checkpoint inhibitors in cancer treatment: a systematic review of qualitative research

Increasing numbers of patients with cancer are considering or undergoing immunotherapy, however, little is known about patients' perspectives on this treatment. We undertook a systematic review for use by clinicians and researchers, consolidating published qualitative research studies on patient experience of checkpoint inhibitor therapy. A search of Medline, Embase, and PsycINFO was carried out for publications in English to 30 June 2022. Publications were selected if they reported a qualitative study of patient experience with checkpoint inhibitor therapy for cancer, either by patients or their families or carers. Quality was appraised using the Johanna Briggs Institute quality assessment tool for qualitative studies. A thematic synthesis was conducted. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses standard was followed. We identified 17 eligible studies published between 2017 and 2022, 9 using mixed methods, and 8 solely using qualitative methods. Most studies reported on the experiences of patients with advanced stage melanoma and were using the earliest approved checkpoint inhibitors for cancer therapy. Studies met most formal quality criteria but varied in the extent of their qualitative explorations of data; some mixed methods studies had limited reporting of qualitative results. Through thematic synthesis, we categorized study findings into four domains: (1) treatment decision-making; (2) success with immunotherapy; (3) treatment-related adverse events (AEs); and (4) quality of life on immunotherapy. Our review identified several areas with potential for improving the care system. These include, for example: routinely linking patients to peers who have experienced this therapy; improving the capacity of patients and carers to identify and report AEs faster; and supporting patients and carers to live with changed circumstances after successful treatment. Most studies focused on patients who had successful treatment, effectively excluding those who do not respond or who discontinue due to serious side effects; future research targets are suggested.

Burosumab Improves Patient-Reported Outcomes in Adults With Tumor-Induced Osteomalacia: Mixed-Methods Analysis

Tumor-induced osteomalacia (TIO) is an ultra-rare disease caused by tumors that secrete fibroblast growth factor 23, leading to chronic hypophosphatemia, poor skeletal health, and impaired physical function. In a phase 2 trial (UX023T-CL201; NCT02304367; n = 14), 48 weeks of burosumab treatment restored phosphate homeostasis, with improvements in skeletal health, functional mobility, and patient-reported pain, fatigue, and health-related quality of life (HRQL) (SF-36 v2). Here, we report an exploratory mixed-methods analysis of change from baseline after 144 weeks of burosumab treatment alongside qualitative data from exit interviews with 8 of 14 trial participants to evaluate meaningful treatment effects from a patient perspective. The interview subset (n = 8) reported pain and fatigue and compromised HRQL at baseline. In the interviews, participants reported that compromised HRQL and pain were the most important aspects of the disease to treat; both were considered more bothersome than fatigue and compromised physical function and activities of daily living. Improvements in pain and fatigue after treatment were reported, some of which achieved statistically and/or clinically meaningful thresholds. Furthermore, improvements in SF-36 v2 scores were most pronounced in the Physical Component Score and its Physical Function and Bodily Pain domains. Overall, the interview subset provided descriptions of symptomatic improvement and its clinical meaningfulness, including physical function, participation in activities of daily living, and mental well-being. Thus, this exploratory mixed-methods analysis provides deeper understanding of patients' perception of clinical meaningfulness beyond that articulated in validated patient-reported outcome instruments. © 2023 The Authors. Journal of Bone and Mineral Research published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Bone and Mineral Research (ASBMR).

Integrating qualitative interviews in drug development and the use of qualitative evidence in product labelling and health technology assessments: a review

Objective

Including qualitative research in clinical trial design is an innovative approach to understanding patients' perspective and incorporate the patient's voice in all stages of drug development and evaluation. This review aims to explore current practices, lessons learned from the literature, as well as how qualitative interviews are considered by health authorities for marketing authorization and reimbursement.

Methods

A targeted literature review of Medline and Embase databases was conducted in February 2022 to identify publications on qualitative methods embedded in clinical trial of pharmaceutical products. An additional search of guidelines and labeling claims of approved products regarding qualitative research was performed in various sources of grey literature.

Results

From the 24 publications and nine documents reviewed, we identified the research questions addressed with qualitative methods during clinical trials (e.g., change in quality of life, symptoms assessment, treatment benefit), preferred data collection methods (e.g., interviews), and data collection points (e.g., baseline and exit interviews). Moreover, the data from labels and HTAs demonstrate that qualitative data can play an important role in approval processes.

Conclusion

The use of in-trial interviews is still emerging and is not yet common practice. Although the industry, scientific community, regulatory agencies and HTAs are showing an increasing interest in the use of evidence generated via in-trial interviews, guidance from regulators and HTAs would be helpful. Developing new methods and technologies to address the common challenges for such interviews is key to progress.

Clinical Impact of Implementing a Nurse-Led Adverse Drug Reaction Profile in Older Adults Prescribed Multiple Medicines in UK Primary Care: A Study Protocol for a Cluster-Randomised Controlled Trial

(1) Aims: Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) particularly affect older people prescribed multiple medicines. The professional bodies of nursing, medicine and pharmacy have issued guidelines on identification and management of ADRs; however, ADRs continue to account for ~10% unplanned hospital admissions in the UK. Current methods of ADR identification and management could be improved by multidisciplinary collaboration involving nurses. The aim of this study is to examine the impact of implementing the nurse-led Adverse Drug Reaction (ADRe) Profile in UK primary care. (2) Design: A pragmatic cluster-randomised controlled trial (RCT) followed by qualitative interviews in a sequential mixed-methods study. (3) Methods: For the cluster RCT, 60 patients aged ≥65 prescribed ≥5 regular medicines for long-term conditions will be recruited, 10 in each of 6 general practices. The intervention arm (n = 30) will complete the ADRe Profile, whilst the control participants (n = 30) continue to receive usual, standard care. Primary outcomes will include clinical impact on patients, benefit and prescription changes. On completion of the RCT, participants will be invited to semi-structured qualitative interviews, to evaluate the impact of the ADRe Profile from stakeholders’ perspectives, and to describe the contextual factors relevant to ADRe implementation. (4) Results: The findings of this study will evaluate the effectiveness of the ADRe Profile in identifying and resolving potential ADRs in primary care. Trial registration: This study was registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, registration number NCT04663360, date of registration—29 November 2021 (date of initial registration: 26 November 2020), protocol version 2, dated 8 January 2021.

Understanding disease symptoms and impacts and producing qualitatively-derived severity stages for MPS IIIA: a mixed methods approach

Background

MPS IIIA is a rare, degenerative pediatric genetic disease characterized by symptoms impacting cognition, mobility and behavior; the mean age of death is around 15 years of age. Currently, there are no approved therapies for MPS IIIA.

Methods

A two-year, multi-center, prospective, descriptive cohort study was conducted to document the natural history course of MPS IIIA. In the context of this study, semi-structured interviews were performed with parents of children at study entry and one year later. Interview transcripts were analyzed using thematic analysis methods to identity concepts of interest to children and parents, identify what factors impacted parents’ burden the most, and develop qualitatively-derived disease severity stages. Children were sorted into these stages according to the symptoms their parents described at the entry interview. This sorting was compared quantitatively to the sorting of children at baseline according to the child’s calendar age and their BSID development quotient (DQ).

Results

22 parents in France, Germany, the Netherlands and the UK were interviewed. Children ranged in age from 28 to 105 months (mean 61.4 months). The conceptual models for children’s symptoms and impacts and parents’ impacts provided a detailed and comprehensive picture of what it is like for children of various ages and their parents to live with MPS IIIA. Four factors were identified as mediating the burden perceived by parents: state support, family support, time since diagnosis, and parent coping strategy. Four disease stages were developed, accounting for both the presence and the severity of MPS IIIA symptoms. The comparison of children’s sorting into these stages with the BSID DQ and the child’s calendar age showed strong statistical associations.

Conclusions

The findings of this qualitative research embedded in a natural history study add to the current understanding of MPS IIIA as a complex disease that impacts every aspect of the lives of children and their families. This study demonstrates the unique potential of mixed methods research in rare diseases to address some of the current limitations of more traditional quantitative approaches by providing an individualized, detailed understanding of the patient experience.

Interviews with experts in rare diseases for the development of clinical decision support system software - a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Patients with rare diseases (RDs) are often diagnosed too late or not at all. Clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) could support the diagnosis in RDs. The MIRACUM (Medical Informatics in Research and Medicine) consortium, which is one of four funded consortia in the German Medical Informatics Initiative, will develop a CDSS for RDs based on distributed clinical data from ten university hospitals. This qualitative study aims to investigate (1) the relevant organizational conditions for the operation of a CDSS for RDs when diagnose patients (e.g. the diagnosis workflow), (2) which data is necessary for decision support, and (3) the appropriate user group for such a CDSS.

METHODS

Interviews were carried out with RDs experts. Participants were recruited from staff physicians at the Rare Disease Centers (RDCs) at the MIRACUM locations, which offer diagnosis and treatment of RDs. An interview guide was developed with a category-guided deductive approach. The interviews were recorded on an audio device and then transcribed into written form. We continued data collection until all interviews were completed. Afterwards, data analysis was performed using Mayring's qualitative content analysis approach.

RESULTS

A total of seven experts were included in the study. The results show that medical center guides and physicians from RDC B-centers (with a focus on different RDs) are involved in the diagnostic process. Furthermore, interdisciplinary case discussions between physicians are conducted. The experts explained that RDs exist which cannot be fully differentiated, but rather described only by their overall symptoms or findings: diagnosis is dependent on the disease or disease group. At the end of the diagnostic process, most centers prepare a summary of the patient case. Furthermore, the experts considered both physicians and experts from the B-centers to be potential users of a CDSS. The experts also have different experiences with CDSS for RDs.

CONCLUSIONS

This qualitative study is a first step towards establishing the requirements for the development of a CDSS for RDs. Further research is necessary to create solutions by also including the experts on RDs.

Patient Experiences with Avelumab in Treatment-Naïve Metastatic Merkel Cell Carcinoma: Longitudinal Qualitative Interview Findings from JAVELIN Merkel 200, a Registrational Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Avelumab is approved for the treatment of metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma, a rare aggressive skin cancer with a poor prognosis. The aim of this qualitative study embedded in a clinical trial was to explore patient experiences while receiving avelumab.

METHODS

All treatment-naïve patients with metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma entering part B of the phase II, open-label, international, JAVELIN Merkel 200 trial (NCT02155647) were invited to participate in optional semi-structured phone interviews before avelumab administration (baseline) and at weeks 13 and 25. Interviews were conducted by trained professionals, audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed. Key concepts identified at baseline were assessed during follow-up interviews.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine patients completed the baseline interview; 19 had at least one follow-up interview. Baseline interviews described the patients' challenging journeys before being correctly diagnosed with Merkel cell carcinoma, the negative psychological burden of living with a symptomless disease and the hope for avelumab to be a successful therapy. During the trial, most patients reported an increased or continued sense of hope and willingness to fight metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma. Patients who self-reported disease improvement (n = 12) also reported stability or improvement in physical well-being and ability to do daily activities, having more energy, worrying less and being optimistic. Six patients who reported their condition as stable (n = 4) or worsened (n = 3) reported a worsening of physical well-being. Nine patients reported fatigue/tiredness on the day of and after receiving avelumab. Baseline and longitudinal experiences were similar across countries.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that patients experience perceptible benefits in physical and psychological well-being following treatment success with first-line avelumab in metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma.

Applying a mixed methods design to test saturation for qualitative data in health outcomes research

Saturation, a core concept in qualitative research, suggests when data collection might end. It is reached when no new relevant information emerges with additional interviews. The aim of this research was to explore whether a mixed methods design could contribute to the demonstration of saturation. Firstly, saturation was conceptualized mathematically using set theory. Secondly, a conversion mixed design was conducted: a set of codes derived from qualitative interviews were quantitized and analyzed using partial least squares (PLS) regression to document whether saturation was reached. A qualitative study conducted by other researchers prior to this work (i.e. none of the present authors was involved in this study) was used to test saturation using PLS regression. This illustrative qualitative study aimed to investigate the impact of Clostridium difficile infection (CDI) on nurses' work in the hospital and the results were published elsewhere (Guillemin et al. 2015). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 12 nurses. Saturation was characterized by the cumulative percentage of variability accounted for by PLS factors. After 12 interviews, this percentage was 51% which suggests that saturation was achieved at least on main themes. Two main themes identifying similarities in the experience of nurses caring for patients with CDI were identified: Organization/Coordination of the working day and Time-consuming work. Although dependent on the coding of qualitative data, PLS regression of quantitized data from qualitative interviews generated useful information for the determination of saturation.

Comparing Physician and Patient Perspectives on Prophylactic Treatment with BAY 94-9027 for Severe Haemophilia A: A Post Hoc Analysis

Introduction

BAY 94-9027 is a newly developed extended half-life product to treat haemophilia, allowing for fewer injections than with standard products. This post hoc analysis aimed to compare physicians’ and patients’ opinions on BAY 94-9027 prophylaxis, and explore how qualitative interview data is aligned with the data from the Haemophilia-specific Quality of Life questionnaire for Adults (Haemo-QoL-A).

Methods

Exploratory qualitative interviews were conducted with physicians and patients by phone upon the exit of patients from the PROTECT VIII extension phase following a semi-directed guide. In this post hoc analysis, all transcripts were reviewed and reported concepts were compared to assess the level of concordance between physicians and patients. These qualitative data were compared with the Haemo-QoL-A mean global and subscale scores at baseline and end of main phase (36 weeks later).

Results

Ten physicians and 16 patients (mean age 47 years) from Israel, the Netherlands and the USA were interviewed. Significant improvements were reported by all physicians from baseline [e.g. lower frequency of bleeds (80%), improvement in emotional functioning (90%)], which is in concordance with patients’ reports. The improved confidence reported by physicians cascaded to greater participation in various activities, resulting in a better perceived emotional state and a significant improvement on the Haemo-QoL-A emotional impact subscale score (p = 0.04) between baseline and end of main phase. Most physicians (80%) reported improvement in bleed frequency, as patients did (88%). Improvement in physical functioning or mobility was not consistently reported in this 8-month study.

Conclusion

Interviewed physicians and patients generally agreed on the beneficial impact of BAY 94-9027, specifically regarding the increased level of self-confidence in patients and its subsequent positive impact on patients’ lives. These findings supported the observed improvement on the Haemo-QoL-A emotional impact subscale. Overall, this study highlights the concordance between physician and patient perspective on the positive experience with BAY 94-9027.

Avelumab as an Emerging Therapy for Eyelid and Periocular Merkel Cell Carcinoma

Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC) is a highly aggressive cutaneous malignancy, with a high metastasis rate and a significant proportion of cases affecting the eyelid or periocular region. Current treatments for periocular MCC include wide local excision (WLE) with or without adjuvant radiotherapy and can result in profound morbidity and visual deficit. Metastatic disease has been traditionally treated with chemotherapy, though durable responses are typically poor and toxicity is high. Avelumab (Bavencio®, Merck KgaA, Darmstadt, Germany and Pfizer Inc., New York, NY, USA), the first FDA-approved human anti-programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) antibody for the treatment of metastatic MCC (mMCC), has demonstrated safety and efficacy as first-line treatment and in chemotherapy-refractory cases. This review summarizes pivotal clinical trial data for avelumab in the treatment of mMCC, including efficacy, safety and tolerability, and describes the efficacy of two other immune checkpoint inhibitors, pembrolizumab (Keytruda®, Merck & Co., Inc., Kenilworth, NJ, USA) and nivolumab (Opdivo®, Bristol‐Myers Squibb, New York, NY, USA and Ono Pharmaceuticals, Trenton, NJ, USA) for the treatment of advanced MCC. Our purpose is to provide the rationale to further investigate avelumab as a potential therapy for advanced or metastatic eyelid and periocular MCC.

The Case for the Use of Patient and Caregiver Perception of Change Assessments in Rare Disease Clinical Trials: A Methodologic Overview

INTRODUCTION

The traditional model of evaluating treatments based primarily on primary outcome measures has stumbled in its application to rare disease. Rare disease clinical trials face the methodological challenges of small, heterogeneous patient populations and relatively few validated, disease-specific outcome measures. Incorporating qualitative research into rare disease clinical trials may help sponsors, regulators, payers, and prescribers to better understand the real-world and patient-specific impact of a potential therapy. This paper provides a methodologic overview of the use of Patient and Caregiver Perception of Change (PPC and CPC) Assessments utilizing patient and caregiver video interviews to complement the data captured by traditional endpoints in rare disease clinical trials.

METHODS

Incorporating qualitative patient and caregiver video interviews into clinical trials allows for the rigorous capture of patient experiences and caregiver observations. Interview guides informed by input from key stakeholders provide the opportunity to solicit structured feedback on experiences before, during, and after the clinical trial. Patients and caregivers can complete their video interviews in a study mobile application, and interview transcripts are analyzed by independent coders. Themes are summarized by the treatment group and individual patient, which adds context to the clinical outcome measures of how patients feel and function, as well as elucidates the degree of change that is meaningful to patients and caregivers. The qualitative results can be compared to the data captured in clinical trials to assess data concordance.

CONCLUSION

Capturing patient experience data with sufficient rigor allows it to contribute to the body of evidence utilized in regulatory, payer, and prescriber decision-making. Adding PPC and CPC Assessments to rare disease clinical trials offers an innovative and powerful way to tap into the unique insights of patients and their families to develop a fuller picture of the patient experience in the clinical trial.

FUNDING

Stealth BioTherapeutics Inc.