Search

Letter to the Editor We are writing regarding the Innovations in Pharmacy commentary entitled, "Evidentiary Standards for Patient-Centered Core Impact Value Claims."(1) We thank Dr. Langley for commenting on the National Health Council's work on patient-centered core impact sets (PC-CIS), an initiative spearheaded by the nonprofit organization and its membership with multi-stakeholder representation and input.(2-4) While we have tried to be clear and transparent about the intent of PC-CIS, the commentary made it apparent to us we need to (and will) do more to be explicit about what a PC-CIS is and is not, and its possible downstream uses. We believe the PC-CIS concept was misrepresented in the commentary and want to provide clarification for readers so they can consider the merits of the initiative for themselves., (© Individual authors.)

The FDA conducts independent reviews of scientific data obtained with investigational drug products to ensure that they are safe and effective. As a result of this process, FDA-approved product labeling is generated that is considered one of the most trusted sources of information for use of an approved drug. But FDA approval is only the beginning of the life cycle of a new drug; the first oncology drugs now have more than 7 decades of clinical experience in the postmarketing setting. Due, in part, to lack of incentives, some companies may not seek inclusion of new data, other than new safety information, in FDA-approved product labeling. Ensuring that product labeling provides adequate directions for use is important for all drugs, including older therapies that may form the backbone of many standard combination regimens for pediatric and adult cancers. Project Renewal is an FDA Oncology Center of Excellence pilot program that leverages expertise from the clinical and scientific oncology communities to review published literature and generate a drug-specific product report summarizing data that may support updates to FDA-approved product labeling. This article provides a broad overview of Project Renewal's collaborative pilot process for identifying and assessing literature supporting potential labeling updates, while engaging the oncology community to increase awareness of FDA's evidentiary standards and deliberative processes used when considering the addition of new indications and dosing regimens to product labeling., (©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.)

Although certain risk factors can identify individuals who are most likely to develop chronic pain, few interventions to prevent chronic pain have been identified. To facilitate the identification of preventive interventions, an IMMPACT meeting was convened to discuss research design considerations for clinical trials investigating the prevention of chronic pain. We present general design considerations for prevention trials in populations that are at relatively high risk for developing chronic pain. Specific design considerations included subject identification, timing and duration of treatment, outcomes, timing of assessment, and adjusting for risk factors in the analyses. We provide a detailed examination of 4 models of chronic pain prevention (ie, chronic postsurgical pain, postherpetic neuralgia, chronic low back pain, and painful chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy). The issues discussed can, in many instances, be extrapolated to other chronic pain conditions. These examples were selected because they are representative models of primary and secondary prevention, reflect persistent pain resulting from multiple insults (ie, surgery, viral infection, injury, and toxic or noxious element exposure), and are chronically painful conditions that are treated with a range of interventions. Improvements in the design of chronic pain prevention trials could improve assay sensitivity and thus accelerate the identification of efficacious interventions. Such interventions would have the potential to reduce the prevalence of chronic pain in the population. Additionally, standardization of outcomes in prevention clinical trials will facilitate meta-analyses and systematic reviews and improve detection of preventive strategies emerging from clinical trials., Competing Interests: The views expressed in this article are those of the authors, none of whom have financial conflicts of interest specifically related to the issues discussed in this article. At the time of the meeting on which this article is based, several authors were employed by pharmaceutical companies, and others had received consulting fees or honoraria from one or more pharmaceutical or device companies. Authors of this article who were not employed by industry or government at the time of the meeting received travel stipends, hotel accommodations, and meals during the meeting from the University of Rochester Office of Continuing Professional Education with funds from unrestricted grants to support the activities of the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) provided by multiple pharmaceutical companies. Preparation of background literature reviews and draft manuscripts was supported by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) public-private partnership with the US FDA, which has received research contracts, grants, or other revenue from the FDA, multiple pharmaceutical and device companies, and other sources. No official endorsement by the FDA, US Department of Veterans Affairs, US National Institutes of Health, or the pharmaceutical and device companies that have provided unrestricted grants to support the activities of IMMPACT and ACTTION should be inferred.Sponsorships or competing interests that may be relevant to content are disclosed at the end of this article., (Copyright © 2021 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of the International Association for the Study of Pain.)

Interpreting randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is crucial to making decisions regarding the use of analgesic treatments in clinical practice. In this article, we report on an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) consensus meeting organized by the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks, the purpose of which was to recommend approaches that facilitate interpretation of analgesic RCTs. We review issues to consider when drawing conclusions from RCTs, as well as common methods for reporting RCT results and the limitations of each method. These issues include the type of trial, study design, statistical analysis methods, magnitude of the estimated beneficial and harmful effects and associated precision, availability of alternative treatments and their benefit-risk profile, clinical importance of the change from baseline both within and between groups, presentation of the outcome data, and the limitations of the approaches used.

Objective: A novel Oral Lichen Planus Symptom Severity Measure was developed as a clinical outcome assessment of the daily symptom experience of patients with oral lichen planus., Methods: A literature review and expert input were followed by open-ended concept elicitation interviews with 17 adults with oral lichen planus in the United States and Ireland. Item content was generated, and the interviews continued until input saturation was reached. The final electronic version of the measure was cognitively debriefed in 6 US patients and subsequently translated and linguistically validated in Germany and Denmark., Results: Concept elicitation interviews demonstrated content validity and saturation in identifying symptoms and daily activities that generate symptoms in patients with oral lichen planus. The content and electronic daily diary format demonstrated content validity during cognitive debriefing interviews. Linguistic validation of the 7-item Oral Lichen Planus Symptom Severity Measure in Germany and Denmark confirmed the content validity of the German and Danish versions., Conclusions: Qualitative research methods generated evidence that the 7-item Oral Lichen Planus Symptom Severity Measure version 1.0 is a well-defined assessment tool to characterize the severity, specificity and variations of symptoms in patients with oral lichen planus., (© 2019 John Wiley & Sons A/S. Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Identifying methods to improve assay sensitivity in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) may facilitate the discovery of efficacious pain treatments. RCTs evaluating pain treatments typically use average pain intensity (API) or worst pain intensity (WPI) as the primary efficacy outcome. However, little evidence is available comparing the assay sensitivity of these 2 measures. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we comprehensively reviewed all low back pain, osteoarthritis pain, fibromyalgia, diabetic peripheral neuropathy pain, and postherpetic neuralgia RCTs that used a parallel group design. Eligibility required: 1) primary RCT report published between 1980 and 2016, 2) comparing 1 or more active, efficacious pharmacologic pain treatment(s) with placebo, and 3) providing data on the standardized effect size (SES) for API as well as WPI for all treatment arms. Twenty-seven active versus placebo comparisons were identified in 23 eligible articles. Using a random-effects meta-analysis, API SES and WPI SES did not differ significantly (difference = -.021, 95% confidence interval = -.047 to .004, P = .12). The findings indicate that, depending on the objectives of the study, either API or WPI could be used as a primary outcome measure in clinical trials for the chronic pain conditions included in this analysis., Perspective: Understanding the comparative assay sensitivity of API and WPI may advance pain treatment research. A meta-analysis of trials of efficacious pharmacologic treatments in 5 pain conditions did not show a statistically significant difference between the assay sensitivity of API and WPI., (Copyright © 2018 The American Pain Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Accurate assessment of inappropriate medication use events (ie, misuse, abuse, and related events) occurring in clinical trials is an important component in evaluating a medication's abuse potential. A meeting was convened to review all instruments measuring such events in clinical trials according to previously published standardized terminology and definitions. Only 2 approaches have been reported that are specifically designed to identify and classify misuse, abuse, and related events occurring in clinical trials, rather than to measure an individual's risk of using a medication inappropriately: the Self-Reported Misuse, Abuse, and Diversion (SR-MAD) instrument and the Misuse, Abuse, and Diversion Drug Event Reporting System (MADDERS). The conceptual basis, strengths, and limitations of these methods are discussed. To our knowledge, MADDERS is the only system available to comprehensively evaluate inappropriate medication use events prospectively to determine the underlying intent. MADDERS can also be applied retrospectively to completed trial data. SR-MAD can be used prospectively; additional development may be required to standardize its implementation and fully appraise the intent of inappropriate use events. Additional research is needed to further demonstrate the validity and utility of MADDERS as well as SR-MAD., Perspective: Identifying a medication's abuse potential requires assessing inappropriate medication use events in clinical trials on the basis of a standardized event classification system. The strengths and limitations of the 2 published methods designed to evaluate inappropriate medication use events are reviewed, with recommended considerations for further development and current implementation., (Copyright © 2017 American Pain Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Valid and reliable biomarkers can play an important role in clinical trials as indicators of biological or pathogenic processes or as a signal of treatment response. Currently, there are no biomarkers for pain qualified by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration or the European Medicines Agency for use in clinical trials. This article summarizes an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials meeting in which 3 potential biomarkers were discussed for use in the development of analgesic treatments: 1) sensory testing, 2) skin punch biopsy, and 3) brain imaging. The empirical evidence supporting the use of these tests is described within the context of the 4 categories of biomarkers: 1) diagnostic, 2) prognostic, 3) predictive, and 4) pharmacodynamic. Although sensory testing, skin punch biopsy, and brain imaging are promising tools for pain in clinical trials, additional evidence is needed to further support and standardize these tests for use as biomarkers in pain clinical trials., Perspective: The applicability of sensory testing, skin biopsy, and brain imaging as diagnostic, prognostic, predictive, and pharmacodynamic biomarkers for use in analgesic treatment trials is considered. Evidence in support of their use and outlining problems is presented, as well as a call for further standardization and demonstrations of validity and reliability., (Copyright © 2017 American Pain Society. All rights reserved.)

Background: We developed the Nausea/Vomiting Symptom Assessment (NVSA © ) patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument to capture patients' experience with nausea and vomiting while on calcimimetic therapy to treat secondary hyperparathyroidism (SHPT) related to end-stage kidney disease. This report summarizes the content validity and psychometric validation of the NVSA © ., Methods: The two NVSA © items were drafted by two health outcomes researchers, one medical development lead, and one regulatory lead: it yields three scores: the number of days of vomiting or nausea per week, the number of vomiting episodes per week, and the mean severity of nausea. An eight-week prospective observational study was conducted at ten dialysis centers in the U.S. with 91 subjects. Criterion measures included in the study were the Functional Living Index-Emesis, Kidney Disease Quality of Life Instrument, EQ-5D-5 L, Static Patient Global Assessment, and Patient Global Rating of Change. Analyses included assessment of score distributions, convergent and known-groups validity, test-retest reliability, ability to detect change, and thresholds for meaningful change., Results: Qualitative interviews verified that the NVSA © captures relevant aspects of nausea and vomiting. Patients understood the NVSA © instructions, items, and response scales. Correlations between the NVSA © and related and unrelated measures indicated strong convergent and discriminant validity, respectively. Mean differences between externally-defined vomiting/nausea groups supported known-groups validity. The scores were stable in subjects who reported no change on the Patient Global Rating of Change indicating sufficient test-retest reliability. The no-change group had mean differences and effect sizes close to zero; mean differences were mostly positive for a worsening group and mostly negative for the improvement group with predominantly medium or large effect sizes. Preliminary thresholds for meaningful worsening were 0.90 days for number of days of vomiting or nausea per week, 1.20 for number of episodes of vomiting per week, and 0.40 for mean severity of nausea., Conclusions: The NVSA © instrument demonstrated content validity, convergent and known-groups validity, test-retest reliability, and the ability to detect change. Preliminary thresholds for minimally important change should be further refined with additional interventional research. The NVSA © may be used to support study endpoints in clinical trials comparing the nausea/vomiting profile of novel SHPT therapies., Competing Interests: Institutional Review Board (IRB) submission and approval from Quorum Review IRB for the study was secured by DaVita Clinical Research who maintained appropriate documentation and conducted management of the study in accordance with the ethical principles consistent with Good Clinical Practice and applicable regulatory requirements. Written informed consent from patients was obtained.Not applicable. No individual-patient data reported.Drs. Mark E. Bensink and Vasily Belozeroff are employed by, and stockholders in, Amgen Inc.Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

A clinician-reported outcome (ClinRO) assessment is a type of clinical outcome assessment (COA). ClinRO assessments, like all COAs (patient-reported, observer-reported, or performance outcome assessments), are used to 1) measure patients' health status and 2) define end points that can be interpreted as treatment benefits of medical interventions on how patients feel, function, or survive in clinical trials. Like other COAs, ClinRO assessments can be influenced by human choices, judgment, or motivation. A ClinRO assessment is conducted and reported by a trained health care professional and requires specialized professional training to evaluate the patient's health status. This is the second of two reports by the ISPOR Clinical Outcomes Assessment-Emerging Good Practices for Outcomes Research Task Force. The first report provided an overview of COAs including definitions important for an understanding of COA measurement practices. This report focuses specifically on issues related to ClinRO assessments. In this report, we define three types of ClinRO assessments (readings, ratings, and clinician global assessments) and describe emerging good measurement practices in their development and evaluation. The good measurement practices include 1) defining the context of use; 2) identifying the concept of interest measured; 3) defining the intended treatment benefit on how patients feel, function, or survive reflected by the ClinRO assessment and evaluating the relationship between that intended treatment benefit and the concept of interest; 4) documenting content validity; 5) evaluating other measurement properties once content validity is established (including intra- and inter-rater reliability); 6) defining study objectives and end point(s) objectives, and defining study end points and placing study end points within the hierarchy of end points; 7) establishing interpretability in trial results; and 8) evaluating operational considerations for the implementation of ClinRO assessments used as end points in clinical trials. Applying good measurement practices to ClinRO assessment development and evaluation will lead to more efficient and accurate measurement of treatment effects. This is important beyond regulatory approval in that it provides evidence for the uptake of new interventions into clinical practice and provides justification to payers for reimbursement on the basis of the clearly demonstrated added value of the new intervention., (Copyright © 2017 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Although pain reduction is commonly the primary outcome in chronic pain clinical trials, physical functioning is also important. A challenge in designing chronic pain trials to determine efficacy and effectiveness of therapies is obtaining appropriate information about the impact of an intervention on physical function. The Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) and Outcome Measures in Rheumatology (OMERACT) convened a meeting to consider assessment of physical functioning and participation in research on chronic pain. The primary purpose of this article is to synthesize evidence on the scope of physical functioning to inform work on refining physical function outcome measurement. We address issues in assessing this broad construct and provide examples of frequently used measures of relevant concepts. Investigators can assess physical functioning using patient-reported outcome (PRO), performance-based, and objective measures of activity. This article aims to provide support for the use of these measures, covering broad aspects of functioning, including work participation, social participation, and caregiver burden, which researchers should consider when designing chronic pain clinical trials. Investigators should consider the inclusion of both PROs and performance-based measures as they provide different but also important complementary information. The development and use of reliable and valid PROs and performance-based measures of physical functioning may expedite development of treatments, and standardization of these measures has the potential to facilitate comparison across studies. We provide recommendations regarding important domains to stimulate research to develop tools that are more robust, address consistency and standardization, and engage patients early in tool development.

There is tremendous interpatient variability in the response to analgesic therapy (even for efficacious treatments), which can be the source of great frustration in clinical practice. This has led to calls for "precision medicine" or personalized pain therapeutics (ie, empirically based algorithms that determine the optimal treatments, or treatment combinations, for individual patients) that would presumably improve both the clinical care of patients with pain and the success rates for putative analgesic drugs in phase 2 and 3 clinical trials. However, before implementing this approach, the characteristics of individual patients or subgroups of patients that increase or decrease the response to a specific treatment need to be identified. The challenge is to identify the measurable phenotypic characteristics of patients that are most predictive of individual variation in analgesic treatment outcomes, and the measurement tools that are best suited to evaluate these characteristics. In this article, we present evidence on the most promising of these phenotypic characteristics for use in future research, including psychosocial factors, symptom characteristics, sleep patterns, responses to noxious stimulation, endogenous pain-modulatory processes, and response to pharmacologic challenge. We provide evidence-based recommendations for core phenotyping domains and recommend measures of each domain.

Clinical trial participants often require additional instruction to prevent idiosyncratic interpretations regarding completion of patient-reported outcomes. The Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) public-private partnership developed a training system with specific, standardized guidance regarding daily average pain intensity ratings. A 3-week exploratory study among participants with low-back pain, osteoarthritis of the knee or hip, and painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy was conducted, randomly assigning participants to 1 of 3 groups: training with human pain assessment (T+); training with automated pain assessment (T); or no training with automated pain assessment (C). Although most measures of validity and reliability did not reveal significant differences between groups, some benefit was observed in discriminant validity, amount of missing data, and ranking order of least, worst, and average pain intensity ratings for participants in Group T+ compared with the other groups. Prediction of greater reliability in average pain intensity ratings in Group T+ compared with the other groups was not supported, which might indicate that training produces ratings that reflect the reality of temporal pain fluctuations. Results of this novel study suggest the need to test the training system in a prospective analgesic treatment trial.

This article summarizes the results of a meeting convened by the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) on key considerations and best practices governing the design of acute pain clinical trials. We discuss the role of early phase clinical trials, including pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) trials, and the value of including both placebo and active standards of comparison in acute pain trials. This article focuses on single-dose and short-duration trials with emphasis on the perioperative and study design factors that influence assay sensitivity. Recommendations are presented on assessment measures, study designs, and operational factors. Although most of the methodological advances have come from studies of postoperative pain after dental impaction, bunionectomy, and other surgeries, the design considerations discussed are applicable to many other acute pain studies conducted in different settings.

Objectives: To determine whether patients with neurogenic claudication associated with lumbar spinal stenosis would prefer a treatment that makes it possible for them to walk farther or walk with less pain; to examine associations between this treatment preference and patient-reported and in-clinic treadmill testing measures of walking ability and walking-associated pain., Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 269 patients with neurogenic claudication were asked to report their pain intensity when walking, complete the Swiss Spinal Stenosis Questionnaire, rank their outcome preferences for treatment, and undergo standardized treadmill testing, including measures of final pain rating and time to first pain of moderate intensity (Tfirst). Descriptive statistics were used to characterize patient preferences for treatment outcome. Associations between self-report questionnaires and standardized treadmill testing outcomes were evaluated using Spearman correlations., Results: Seventy-nine percent of patients expressed a preference for treatment that allowed them to walk with less pain. Preference for reduced pain was associated with higher pain during daily walking, along with a shorter Tfirst and higher final pain severity on treadmill testing. In contrast, patient preference for treatment outcome was not associated with self-reported measures of daily walking capacity or walking distance on the treadmill., Conclusions: A majority of patients with neurogenic claudication prioritized walking with reduced pain over walking farther. Reduction in pain while walking may therefore constitute a sufficient patient-focused treatment outcome for the majority of these patients. These results have implications for clinical trial design and assessment of treatment efficacy in neurogenic claudication., (© 2015 American Academy of Neurology.)

Objective: Systematic reviews often struggle with how to combine information when more than 1 instrument is used across studies being synthesized. Different techniques have been suggested based on frequency of use in the literature, or on consensus. We explore an approach blending 2 initiatives: OMERACT (Outcome Measurement in Rheumatology) and COSMIN (Consensus On Selection of Measurement Instruments), and investigate the effects of an evidence-based measurement approach on selection of outcomes., Methods: Readings were circulated to attendees registered for a preconference workshop on pain measurement. Three instruments were considered and exercises conducted to engage people in the content and measurement performance of these tools. Consensus was sought that an evidence-based approach could be created for selection of instruments for summary of findings (SoF) tables., Results: The blending of COSMIN and OMERACT approaches led to an evidence-based approach that depended both on a clear definition of target concept and a review of measurement performance of the instrument. Participants emphasized that conceptual clarity and practical considerations should come before measurement property results., Conclusion: Evidence-based approaches can be adopted for selection of instruments for SoF tables. A research agenda was formulated.

An outcome assessment, the patient assessment used in an endpoint, is the measuring instrument that provides a rating or score (categorical or continuous) that is intended to represent some aspect of the patient's health status. Outcome assessments are used to define efficacy endpoints when developing a therapy for a disease or condition. Most efficacy endpoints are based on specified clinical assessments of patients. When clinical assessments are used as clinical trial outcomes, they are called clinical outcome assessments (COAs). COAs include any assessment that may be influenced by human choices, judgment, or motivation. COAs must be well-defined and possess adequate measurement properties to demonstrate (directly or indirectly) the benefits of a treatment. In contrast, a biomarker assessment is one that is subject to little, if any, patient motivational or rater judgmental influence. This is the first of two reports by the ISPOR Clinical Outcomes Assessment - Emerging Good Practices for Outcomes Research Task Force. This report provides foundational definitions important for an understanding of COA measurement principles. The foundation provided in this report includes what it means to demonstrate a beneficial effect, how assessments of patients relate to the objective of showing a treatment's benefit, and how these assessments are used in clinical trial endpoints. In addition, this report describes intrinsic attributes of patient assessments and clinical trial factors that can affect the properties of the measurements. These factors should be considered when developing or refining assessments. These considerations will aid investigators designing trials in their choice of using an existing assessment or developing a new outcome assessment. Although the focus of this report is on the development of a new COA to define endpoints in a clinical trial, these principles may be applied more generally. A critical element in appraising or developing a COA is to describe the treatment's intended benefit as an effect on a clearly identified aspect of how a patient feels or functions. This aspect must have importance to the patient and be part of the patient's typical life. This meaningful health aspect can be measured directly or measured indirectly when it is impractical to evaluate it directly or when it is difficult to measure. For indirect measurement, a concept of interest (COI) can be identified. The COI must be related to how a patient feels or functions. Procedures are then developed to measure the COI. The relationship of these measurements with how a patient feels or functions in the intended setting and manner of use of the COA (the context of use) could then be defined. A COA has identifiable attributes or characteristics that affect the measurement properties of the COA when used in endpoints. One of these features is whether judgment can influence the measurement, and if so, whose judgment. This attribute defines four categories of COAs: patient reported outcomes, clinician reported outcomes, observer reported outcomes, and performance outcomes. A full description as well as explanation of other important COA features is included in this report. The information in this report should aid in the development, refinement, and standardization of COAs, and, ultimately, improve their measurement properties., (Copyright © 2015 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Although certain risk factors can identify individuals who are most likely to develop chronic pain, few interventions to prevent chronic pain have been identified. To facilitate the identification of preventive interventions, an IMMPACT meeting was convened to discuss research design considerations for clinical trials investigating the prevention of chronic pain. We present general design considerations for prevention trials in populations that are at relatively high risk for developing chronic pain. Specific design considerations included subject identification, timing and duration of treatment, outcomes, timing of assessment, and adjusting for risk factors in the analyses. We provide a detailed examination of 4 models of chronic pain prevention (ie, chronic postsurgical pain, postherpetic neuralgia, chronic low back pain, and painful chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy). The issues discussed can, in many instances, be extrapolated to other chronic pain conditions. These examples were selected because they are representative models of primary and secondary prevention, reflect persistent pain resulting from multiple insults (ie, surgery, viral infection, injury, and toxic or noxious element exposure), and are chronically painful conditions that are treated with a range of interventions. Improvements in the design of chronic pain prevention trials could improve assay sensitivity and thus accelerate the identification of efficacious interventions. Such interventions would have the potential to reduce the prevalence of chronic pain in the population. Additionally, standardization of outcomes in prevention clinical trials will facilitate meta-analyses and systematic reviews and improve detection of preventive strategies emerging from clinical trials.

Unlabelled: Measurement of inappropriate medication use events (eg, abuse or misuse) in clinical trials is important in characterizing a medication's abuse potential. However, no gold standard assessment of inappropriate use events in clinical trials has been identified. In this systematic review, we examine the measurement properties (ie, content validity, cross-sectional reliability and construct validity, longitudinal construct validity, ability to detect change, and responder definitions) of instruments assessing inappropriate use of opioid and nonopioid prescription medications to identify any that meet U.S. and European regulatory agencies' rigorous standards for outcome measures in clinical trials. Sixteen published instruments were identified, most of which were not designed for the selected concept of interest and context of use. For this reason, many instruments were found to lack adequate content validity (or documentation of content validity) to evaluate current inappropriate medication use events; for example, evaluating inappropriate use across the life span rather than current use, including items that did not directly assess inappropriate use (eg, questions about anger), or failing to capture information pertinent to inappropriate use events (eg, intention and route of administration). In addition, the psychometric data across all instruments were generally limited in scope. A further limitation is the heterogeneous, nonstandardized use of inappropriate medication use terminology. These observations suggest that available instruments are not well suited for assessing current inappropriate medication use within the specific context of clinical trials. Further effort is needed to develop reliable and valid instruments to measure current inappropriate medication use events in clinical trials., Perspective: This systematic review evaluates the measurement properties of inappropriate medication use (eg, abuse or misuse) instruments to determine whether any meet regulatory standards for clinical trial outcome measures to assess abuse potential., (Copyright © 2015 American Pain Society. All rights reserved.)

Unlabelled: Pain intensity assessments are used widely in human pain research, and their transparent reporting is crucial to interpreting study results. In this systematic review, we examined reporting of human pain intensity assessments and related elements (eg, administration frequency, time period assessed, type of pain) in all empirical pain studies with adult participants in 3 major pain journals (ie, European Journal of Pain, Journal of Pain, and Pain) between January 2011 and July 2012. Of the 262 articles identified, close to one-quarter (24%) ambiguously reported the pain intensity assessment. Elements related to the pain intensity assessment were frequently not reported: 31% did not identify the time period participants were asked to rate, 43% failed to report the type of pain intensity rated, and 58% did not report the specific location or pain condition rated. No differences were observed between randomized clinical trials and experimental (eg, studies involving experimental manipulation without random group assignment and blinding) and observational studies in reporting quality. The ability to understand study results, and to compare results between studies, is compromised when pain intensity assessments are not fully reported. Recommendations are presented regarding key details for investigators to consider when conducting and reporting pain intensity assessments in human adults., Perspective: This systematic review demonstrates that publications of pain research often incompletely report pain intensity assessments and their details (eg, administration frequency, type of pain). Failure to fully report details of pain intensity assessments creates ambiguity in interpreting research results. Recommendations are proposed to increase transparent reporting., (Copyright © 2015 American Pain Society. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Established in 2008, the Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Consortium is a collaboration among the US Food and Drug Administration's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, the Critical Path Institute, the pharmaceutical/biotechnology industry, and other stakeholders. The purpose of the consortium is to qualify PRO instruments through the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research's drug development tool qualification process for use as clinical trial endpoints to support drug approval and product labeling claims. The PRO Consortium has made notable progress toward collaborative development of PRO instruments in the following areas: asthma, mild cognitive impairment, depression, functional dyspepsia, irritable bowel syndrome, non-small cell lung cancer, and rheumatoid arthritis. This progress has come with considerable challenges, including navigating a new and evolving regulatory initiative, gaining consensus on key issues, and maintaining communication and engagement in a precompetitive environment. The purpose of this paper is to describe some of the challenges and lessons learned since the creation of the PRO Consortium in hopes that this information may provide direction and insight for similar collaborations.

Purpose: To investigate whether increasing temporal resolution with higher parallel imaging (PI) reduction factors (RF) in both breath-hold and free breathing approaches, using a non-contrast T1-weighted 3D gradient echo (GRE) sequence and a 32-channel phased array coil, permits diagnostic image quality, with potential application in patients unable to cooperate with breath-hold requirements., Materials and Methods: The 9 healthy subjects (5 females and 4 males; age range was 20-49, mean 36 yrs) were recruited. A 3D GRE MR imaging of the abdomen was performed on 1.5 T MR system using a 32-element phased-array torso coil with PI RFs of 2, 4 and 6, breath hold and free breathing. Two reviewers retrospectively qualitatively evaluated all sequences for image quality, extent of artifacts, including motion, truncation, aliasing, pixel graininess and signal heterogeneity. The results were compared using Wilcoxon signed rank and a Bonferroni adjustment was applied for multiple comparisons., Results: Image quality and extent of artifacts were better with breath hold than with free breathing acquisitions. The rate of artifacts increased with higher RF. The best quality was acquired with breath hold sequence using RF=2. RF=4 had lower but diagnostic rates (P=.004). The severity of artifacts, mainly pixel graininess (P=.004), rendered sequences with RF=6 non-diagnostic. All sequences were non-diagnostic in free breathing acquisitions., Conclusion: Breath hold sequences with RF=2 had excellent quality and RF=4 had good quality and may be potentially used in partially cooperative patients. None of the sequences was considered diagnostic in free breathing acquisitions., (Copyright © 2011 SERAM. Published by Elsevier Espana. All rights reserved.)

Performing multiple analyses in clinical trials can inflate the probability of a type I error, or the chance of falsely concluding a significant effect of the treatment. Strategies to minimize type I error probability include prespecification of primary analyses and statistical adjustment for multiple comparisons, when applicable. The objective of this study was to assess the quality of primary analysis reporting and frequency of multiplicity adjustment in 3 major pain journals (ie, European Journal of Pain, Journal of Pain, and PAIN®). A total of 161 randomized controlled trials investigating noninvasive pharmacological treatments or interventional treatments for pain, published between 2006 and 2012, were included. Only 52% of trials identified a primary analysis, and only 10% of trials reported prespecification of that analysis. Among the 33 articles that identified a primary analysis with multiple testing, 15 (45%) adjusted for multiplicity; of those 15, only 2 (13%) reported prespecification of the adjustment methodology. Trials in clinical pain conditions and industry-sponsored trials identified a primary analysis more often than trials in experimental pain models and non-industry-sponsored trials, respectively. The results of this systematic review demonstrate deficiencies in the reporting and possibly the execution of primary analyses in published analgesic trials. These deficiencies can be rectified by changes in, or better enforcement of, journal policies pertaining to requirements for the reporting of analyses of clinical trial data., (Copyright © 2013 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

Background: Pain palliation resulting from antitumor therapy provides direct evidence of treatment benefit when combined with evidence of antitumor activity. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) previously issued guidance regarding the use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures to support labeling claims. The purpose of this article is to identify common challenges and key design strategies when measuring pain palliation in antitumor therapy clinical trials that are consistent with PRO Guidance principles., Methods: Antitumor clinical protocols submitted to the FDA between 1995 and 2012 that included pain palliation as a primary or secondary endpoint were reviewed. Challenges in critical trial design components were identified. Design strategies consistent with PRO Guidance principles are proposed., Results: The challenges identified were measurement of pain intensity and analgesic use, enrollment eligibility criteria, data collection methods, responder definitions, missing data, and blinding. Strategies included the use of well-defined, reliable, PRO assessments of pain intensity and analgesics; ensuring that enrollment criteria define patients with clinically significant pain attributable to cancer on an optimal analgesic regimen; defining responders using both pain and analgesic use criteria; incorporating an analysis of tumor response to support evidence of pain response; and minimizing missing data and inadvertent unblinding., Conclusions: Improvement in cancer-related pain resulting from antitumor therapy is an important treatment benefit that can support drug approval and labeling claims when adequately measured if study results demonstrate statistically and clinically significant findings. Sponsors are encouraged to discuss pain palliation assessment methods with the FDA early in and throughout product development., (© 2013 American Cancer Society.)

The National Institutes of Health released the trial registry ClinicalTrials.gov in 2000 to increase public reporting and clinical trial transparency. This systematic review examined whether registered primary outcome specifications (POS; ie, definitions, timing, and analytic plans) in analgesic treatment trials correspond with published POS. Trials with accompanying publications (n = 87) were selected from the Repository of Registered Analgesic Clinical Trials (RReACT) database of all postherpetic neuralgia, diabetic peripheral neuropathy, and fibromyalgia clinical trials registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as of December 1, 2011. POS never matched precisely; discrepancies occurred in 79% of the registry-publication pairs (21% failed to register or publish primary outcomes [PO]). These percentages did not differ significantly between industry and non-industry-sponsored trials. Thirty percent of the trials contained unambiguous POS discrepancies (eg, omitting a registered PO from the publication, "demoting" a registered PO to a published secondary outcome), with a statistically significantly higher percentage of non-industry-sponsored than industry-sponsored trials containing unambiguous POS discrepancies. POS discrepancies due to ambiguous reporting included vaguely worded PO registration; or failing to report the timing of PO assessment, statistical analysis used for the PO, or method to address missing PO data. At best, POS discrepancies may be attributable to insufficient registry requirements, carelessness (eg, failing to report PO assessment timing), or difficulty uploading registry information. At worst, discrepancies could indicate investigator impropriety (eg, registering imprecise PO ["pain"], then publishing whichever pain assessment produced statistically significant results). Improvements in PO registration, as well as journal policies requiring consistency between registered and published PO descriptions, are needed., (Copyright © 2013 International Association for the Study of Pain. All rights reserved.)

Assessing and mitigating the abuse liability (AL) of analgesics is an urgent clinical and societal problem. Analgesics have traditionally been assessed in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) designed to demonstrate analgesic efficacy relative to placebo or an active comparator. In these trials, rigorous, prospectively designed assessment for AL is generally not performed. The Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) convened a consensus meeting to review the available evidence and discuss methods for improving the assessment of the AL of analgesics in clinical trials in patients with pain. Recommendations for improved assessment include: (1) performing trials that include individuals with diverse risks of abuse; (2) improving the assessment of AL in clinical trials (eg, training study personnel in the principles of abuse and addiction behaviors, designing the trial to assess AL outcomes as primary or secondary outcome measures depending on the trial objectives); (3) performing standardized assessment of outcomes, including targeted observations by study personnel and using structured adverse events query forms that ask all subjects specifically for certain symptoms (such as euphoria and craving); and (4) collecting detailed information about events of potential concern (eg, unexpected urine drug testing results, loss of study medication, and dropping out of the trial). The authors also propose a research agenda for improving the assessment of AL in future trials., (Copyright © 2013 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

The development of valid and informative treatment risk-benefit profiles requires consistent and thorough information about adverse event (AE) assessment and participants' AEs during randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Despite a 2004 extension of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement recommending the specific AE information that investigators should report, there is little evidence that analgesic RCTs adequately adhere to these recommendations. This systematic review builds on prior recommendations by describing a comprehensive checklist for AE reporting developed to capture clinically important AE information. Using this checklist, we coded AE assessment methods and reporting in all 80 double-blind RCTs of noninvasive pharmacologic treatments published in the European Journal of Pain, Journal of Pain, and PAIN® from 2006 to 2011. Across all trials, reports of AEs were frequently incomplete, inconsistent across trials, and, in some cases, missing. For example, >40% of trials failed to report any information on serious adverse events. Trials of participants with acute or chronic pain conditions and industry-sponsored trials typically provided more and better-quality AE data than trials involving pain-free volunteers or trials that were not industry sponsored. The results of this review suggest that improved AE reporting is needed in analgesic RCTs. We developed an ACTTION (Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks) AE reporting checklist that is intended to assist investigators in thoroughly and consistently capturing and reporting these critically important data in publications., (Copyright © 2013 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

A critical component in development of opioid analgesics is assessment of their abuse liability (AL). Standardization of approaches and measures used in assessing AL have the potential to facilitate comparisons across studies, research laboratories, and drugs. The goal of this report is to provide consensus recommendations regarding core outcome measures for assessing the abuse potential of opioid medications in humans in a controlled laboratory setting. Although many of the recommended measures are appropriate for assessing the AL of medications from other drug classes, the focus here is on opioid medications because they present unique risks from both physiological (e.g., respiratory depression, physical dependence) and public health (e.g., individuals in pain) perspectives. A brief historical perspective on AL testing is provided, and those measures that can be considered primary and secondary outcomes and possible additional outcomes in AL assessment are then discussed. These outcome measures include the following: subjective effects (some of which comprise the primary outcome measures, including drug liking; physiological responses; drug self-administration behavior; and cognitive and psychomotor performance. Before presenting recommendations for standardized approaches and measures to be used in AL assessments, the appropriateness of using these measures in clinical trials with patients in pain is discussed., (Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Opioids are essential to the management of pain in many patients, but they also are associated with potential risks for abuse, overdose, and diversion. A number of efforts have been devoted to the development of abuse-deterrent formulations of opioids to reduce these risks. This article summarizes a consensus meeting that was organized to propose recommendations for the types of clinical studies that can be used to assess the abuse deterrence of different opioid formulations. Because of the many types of individuals who may be exposed to opioids, an opioid formulation will need to be studied in several populations using various study designs to determine its abuse-deterrent capabilities. It is recommended that the research conducted to evaluate abuse deterrence should include studies assessing: (1) abuse liability, (2) the likelihood that opioid abusers will find methods to circumvent the deterrent properties of the formulation, (3) measures of misuse and abuse in randomized clinical trials involving pain patients with both low risk and high risk of abuse, and (4) postmarketing epidemiological studies., (Copyright © 2012 International Association for the Study of Pain. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

On November 16, 2011, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted full approval to ruxolitinib, (Jakafi; Incyte Corp.), an inhibitor of the Janus kinases 1 and 2, for the treatment of patients with intermediate- or high-risk myelofibrosis, including primary myelofibrosis, postpolycythemia vera myelofibrosis, and postessential thrombocythemia myelofibrosis. This approval was based on the results of 2 large randomized phase III trials that enrolled patients with intermediate-2 or high-risk myelofibrosis and compared ruxolitinib with placebo (study 1) or best available therapy (study 2). The primary efficacy endpoint was the proportion of patients who experienced a reduction in spleen volume of ≥ 35% at 24 weeks (study 1) or 48 weeks (study 2). The key secondary endpoint in study 1 was the proportion of patients who experienced a ≥ 50% improvement from baseline in myelofibrosis total symptom score at 24 weeks. The results of these studies showed that a greater proportion of patients treated with ruxolitinib experienced a ≥ 35% reduction in spleen volume as compared with those treated with placebo (42% vs. 1%, P < 0.0001) or best available therapy (29% vs. 0%, P < 0.0001). A greater proportion of patients in study 1 experienced a ≥ 50% reduction in the myelofibrosis total symptom score during treatment with ruxolitinib than with placebo (46% vs. 5%, P < 0.0001). Ruxolitinib treatment was associated with an increased incidence of grades III and IV anemia, thrombocytopenia, and neutropenia. This is the first drug approved for myelofibrosis., (©2012 AACR.)

The importance of content validity in developing patient reported outcomes (PRO) instruments is stressed by both the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency. Content validity is the extent to which an instrument measures the important aspects of concepts developers or users purport it to assess. A PRO instrument measures the concepts most relevant and important to a patient's condition and its treatment. For PRO instruments, items and domains as reflected in the scores of an instrument should be important to the target population and comprehensive with respect to patient concerns. Documentation of target population input in item generation, as well as evaluation of patient understanding through cognitive interviewing, can provide the evidence for content validity. Part 1 of this task force report covers elicitation of key concepts using qualitative focus groups and/or interviews to inform content and structure of a new PRO instrument. Building on qualitative interviews and focus groups used to elicit concepts, cognitive interviews help developers craft items that can be understood by respondents in the target population and can ultimately confirm that the final instrument is appropriate, comprehensive, and understandable in the target population. Part 2 details: 1) the methods for conducting cognitive interviews that address patient understanding of items, instructions, and response options; and 2) the methods for tracking item development through the various stages of research and preparing this tracking for submission to regulatory agencies. The task force report's two parts are meant to be read together. They are intended to offer suggestions for good practice in planning, executing, and documenting qualitative studies that are used to support the content validity of PRO instruments to be used in medical product evaluation., (Copyright © 2011 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The importance of content validity in developing patient reported outcomes (PRO) instruments is stressed by both the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency. Content validity is the extent to which an instrument measures the important aspects of concepts that developers or users purport it to assess. A PRO instrument measures the concepts most significant and relevant to a patient's condition and its treatment. For PRO instruments, items and domains as reflected in the scores of an instrument should be important to the target population and comprehensive with respect to patient concerns. Documentation of target population input in item generation, as well as evaluation of patient understanding through cognitive interviewing, can provide the evidence for content validity. Developing content for, and assessing respondent understanding of, newly developed PRO instruments for medical product evaluation will be discussed in this two-part ISPOR PRO Good Research Practices Task Force Report. Topics include the methods for generating items, documenting item development, coding of qualitative data from item generation, cognitive interviewing, and tracking item development through the various stages of research and preparing this tracking for submission to regulatory agencies. Part 1 covers elicitation of key concepts using qualitative focus groups and/or interviews to inform content and structure of a new PRO instrument. Part 2 covers the instrument development process, the assessment of patient understanding of the draft instrument using cognitive interviews and steps for instrument revision. The two parts are meant to be read together. They are intended to offer suggestions for good practices in planning, executing, and documenting qualitative studies that are used to support the content validity of PRO instruments to be used in medical product evaluation., (Copyright © 2011 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The importance of appropriately and effectively incorporating the patient's voice into the evaluation of new medical products has been recognized and affirmed by regulators.(1,2,3) Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly being assessed in clinical trials to quantify treatment benefits such as symptom relief and improved functioning. Translating PRO-based treatment benefits into labeling claims can provide information to physicians and patients and assist in prescribing decisions.(4,5) Hence, standardizing the valid and reliable measurement of PRO end points is critical.

There has been an increase in the number of chronic pain clinical trials in which the treatments being evaluated did not differ significantly from placebo in the primary efficacy analyses despite previous research suggesting that efficacy could be expected. These findings could reflect a true lack of efficacy or methodological and other aspects of these trials that compromise the demonstration of efficacy. There is substantial variability among chronic pain clinical trials with respect to important research design considerations, and identifying and addressing any methodological weaknesses would enhance the likelihood of demonstrating the analgesic effects of new interventions. An IMMPACT consensus meeting was therefore convened to identify the critical research design considerations for confirmatory chronic pain trials and to make recommendations for their conduct. We present recommendations for the major components of confirmatory chronic pain clinical trials, including participant selection, trial phases and duration, treatment groups and dosing regimens, and types of trials. Increased attention to and research on the methodological aspects of confirmatory chronic pain clinical trials has the potential to enhance their assay sensitivity and ultimately provide more meaningful evaluations of treatments for chronic pain., (Copyright 2010 International Association for the Study of Pain. All rights reserved.)

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) involves a broad range of physiological and psychological alterations that may affect brain-gut dysregulation, gut function, visceral perception, and mucosal integrity and function. Despite advances in our understanding of basic neuroenteric mechanisms and the role of effectors and transmitters in the brain-gut axis, a reliable biologic marker of IBS has yet to be identified. IBS diagnosis and status depend entirely on an assessment of IBS signs and symptoms. This has made development of optimal end points and study design for evaluation of efficacy of IBS drugs a challenge. This article addresses three main topics: the evolution of primary end points for IBS clinical trials; a potential path forward for IBS end points in new clinical trials; and recommendations for the future development of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments for use in IBS clinical trials.

The increasing complexity of randomized clinical trials and the practice of obtaining a wide variety of measurements from study participants have made the consideration of multiple endpoints a critically important issue in the design, analysis, and interpretation of clinical trials. Failure to consider important outcomes can limit the validity and utility of clinical trials; specifying multiple endpoints for the evaluation of treatment efficacy, however, can increase the rate of false positive conclusions about the efficacy of a treatment. We describe the use of multiple endpoints in the design, analysis, and interpretation of pain clinical trials, and review available strategies and methods for addressing multiplicity. To decrease the probability of a Type I error (i.e., the likelihood of obtaining statistically significant results by chance) in pain clinical trials, the use of gatekeeping procedures and other methods that correct for multiple analyses is recommended when a single primary endpoint does not adequately reflect the overall benefits of treatment. We emphasize the importance of specifying in advance the outcomes and clinical decision rule that will serve as the basis for determining that a treatment is efficacious and the methods that will be used to control the overall Type I error rate.

This two-phase study was conducted to identify relevant domains of patient-reported outcomes from the perspective of people who experience chronic pain. In Phase 1, focus groups were conducted to generate a pool of patient outcome-related domains and their components. The results of the focus groups identified 19 aspects of their lives that were significantly impacted by the presence of their symptoms and for which improvements were important criteria they would use in evaluating the effectiveness of any treatment. Phase 2 was conducted to examine the importance and relevance of domains identified from a much larger and diverse sample of people with chronic pain. A survey was developed and posted on the American Chronic Pain Association website. Participants were asked to rate the importance of each item or domain identified by the focus groups on a scale of 0 to10 (i.e., 0="not at all important" and 10="extremely important"). The survey was completed by 959 individuals. The results indicate that all 19 aspects of daily life derived from the focus groups were considered important with a majority of respondents indicating a score of 8 or greater. In addition to pain reduction, the most important aspects were enjoyment of life, emotional well-being, fatigue, weakness, and sleep-related problems. Chronic pain clearly impacts health-related quality of life. The results of the two phases of the study indicate that people with chronic pain consider functioning and well-being as important areas affected by the presence of symptoms and as appropriate targets of treatment. These multiple outcomes should be considered when evaluating the efficacy and effectiveness of chronic pain treatments.

Unlabelled: A consensus meeting was convened by the Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (IMMPACT) to provide recommendations for interpreting clinical importance of treatment outcomes in clinical trials of the efficacy and effectiveness of chronic pain treatments. A group of 40 participants from universities, governmental agencies, a patient self-help organization, and the pharmaceutical industry considered methodologic issues and research results relevant to determining the clinical importance of changes in the specific outcome measures previously recommended by IMMPACT for 4 core chronic pain outcome domains: (1) Pain intensity, assessed by a 0 to 10 numerical rating scale; (2) physical functioning, assessed by the Multidimensional Pain Inventory and Brief Pain Inventory interference scales; (3) emotional functioning, assessed by the Beck Depression Inventory and Profile of Mood States; and (4) participant ratings of overall improvement, assessed by the Patient Global Impression of Change scale. It is recommended that 2 or more different methods be used to evaluate the clinical importance of improvement or worsening for chronic pain clinical trial outcome measures. Provisional benchmarks for identifying clinically important changes in specific outcome measures that can be used for outcome studies of treatments for chronic pain are proposed., Perspective: Systematically collecting and reporting the recommended information needed to evaluate the clinical importance of treatment outcomes of chronic pain clinical trials will allow additional validation of proposed benchmarks and provide more meaningful comparisons of chronic pain treatments.

To evaluate and improve the use of cancer trial end points that reflect the patient's own perspective, the National Cancer Institute organized an international conference, Patient-Reported Outcomes Assessment in Cancer Trials (PROACT), in 2006. The 13 preceding articles in this special issue of the Journal were commissioned in preparation for or in response to the PROACT conference, which was cosponsored by the American Cancer Society. Drawing from these articles and also commentary from the conference itself, this concluding report takes stock of what has been learned to date about the successes and challenges in patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessment in phase III, phase II, and symptom management trials in cancer and identifies ways to improve the scientific soundness, feasibility, and policy relevance of PROs in trials. Building on this synthesis of lessons learned, this article discusses specific administrative policies and management procedures to improve PRO data collection, analysis, and dissemination of findings; opportunities afforded by recent methodologic and technologic advances in PRO data collection and analysis to enhance the scientific soundness and cost efficiency of PRO use in trials; and the importance of better understanding the usefulness of PRO data to the full spectrum of cancer decision makers, including patients and families, health providers, public and private payers, regulatory agencies, and standards-setting organizations.

In 2006, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published draft guidance to provide recommendations for development, validation, implementation, and interpretation of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures that can support treatment benefit claims in product labeling. Here, we summarize and discuss FDA approvals of anticancer products in the context of the draft guidance. We identified anticancer product approvals having efficacy claim(s) based at least in part on a PRO. In addition, we collated limitations of PRO instruments commonly submitted for regulatory review over the period from October 1, 2004 to September 30, 2006. From 1995 onward, nine indications were approved for seven anticancer products based at least in part on a PRO. In eight of nine approvals, PRO data supplemented other evidence of clinical benefit. In seven approvals, the PRO measured a single symptom or functional domain that was directly attributable to the treatment benefit observed in the disease. The FDA's draft PRO guidance describes principles that have been used in anticancer product approvals for more than a decade. PRO end points typically support treatment benefit claims that refer to a patient's symptoms or ability to function. Single-item PROs may be acceptable. PRO data should be both internally consistent and aligned with other evidence of clinical benefit. The FDA encourages sponsors to consult with the FDA early in the process of PRO development.