Search

Simple Summary: It is recognized that patients with multiple myeloma (MM) experience a high burden of disease and treatment-related symptoms that impact upon their quality of life (QoL). In these patients, patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are important in providing information on how treatment affects their QoL. In the past 10 years in the MM setting, the main focus has been to achieve the most durable remission with the best QoL as primary goals of therapy. Optimizing the QoL of patients with MM is an important treatment goal and the use of PROs in clinical trials has the potential to improve treatment outcomes. The present report, on behalf of the European Hematology Association (EHA), provides evidence-based guidelines for the use and reporting of PROs in patients with MM that have been developed according to the EHA's core Guidelines Development Methodology. Currently, there is considerable variation in the measurement of QoL in MM trials, thus underlining the importance of systematic measurements. These Guidelines will aid clinicians, regulatory agencies and the pharmaceutical industry in the measurement of QoL in patients with MM in clinical trials. In the era of personalized medicine there is an increasing need for the assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to become a standard of patient care. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) are important in assessing significant and meaningful changes as a result of an intervention based on a patient's own perspective. It is well established that active multiple myeloma (MM) can be characterized by a high burden of disease and treatment-related symptoms, with considerable worsening of quality of life (QoL). In general, and over the past decade, the focus has shifted to obtaining the most durable remissions with the best QoL as primary goals for MM treatment. Patients place considerable value on their QoL and communicating about QoL data prior to treatment decisions allows them to make informed treatment choices. Consequently, optimization of QoL of patients with MM is an important therapeutic goal and the incorporation of PROs into clinical trials has the potential of improving treatment outcomes. In this regard, guidance for the use and reporting of PROMs in MM in clinical trials is warranted. Under the auspices of the European Hematology Association, evidence-based guidelines for the use and reporting of PROs in patients with MM have been developed according to the EHA's core Guidelines Development Methodology. This document provides general considerations for the choice of PROMs in MM clinical trials as well as a series of recommendations covering a selection of PROMs in MM clinical trials; the mode of administration; timing of assessments; strategies to minimize missing data; sample size calculation; reporting of results; and interpretation of results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Pyruvate kinase (PK) deficiency is a rare hereditary disorder characterized by chronic hemolytic anemia and serious sequalae which negatively affect patient quality of life. This study aimed to psychometrically validate the first disease-specific patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments: the 7-item PK Deficiency Diary (PKDD) and 12-item PK Deficiency Impact Assessment (PKDIA), designed to assess signs, symptoms, and impacts of PK deficiency in patients enrolled in the ACTIVATE global phase 3 study of mitapivat versus placebo (NCT03548220). Methods: All validation analyses for the PKDD and PKDIA were performed on blinded data, with analyses on item integrity, scoring, reliability, and validity conducted on data from screening and baseline. Completion rates and baseline response distributions were characterized using descriptive statistics. Item response modelling was used to inform a weighted scoring system. Reliability was assessed by internal consistency and test–retest reliability; and validity by convergent and known-groups analyses. Results: Of the 80 adults enrolled, baseline data were available for 77 (96.3%) and 78 (97.5%) patients for the PKDD and PKDIA, respectively. Item responses skewed right, indicating that mean values exceeded median values, especially for items utilizing a 0–10 numeric scale, which were subsequently recoded to a 0–4 scale; 4 items were removed from the PKDIA due to redundancy or low relevance to the trial population. Both the PKDD and PKDIA demonstrated high internal consistency (McDonald's coefficient ω = 0.86 and 0.90, respectively), test–retest reliability (intra-class coefficients of 0.94 and 0.87, respectively), and convergent validity with other PROs (linear correlation coefficients [|r|] between 0.30–0.73 and 0.50–0.82, respectively). Conclusions: The findings provide evidence of validity and reliability for the PKDD and PKDIA, the first disease-specific PRO measures for PK deficiency, and can therefore increase understanding of, and more accurately capture, the wider impact of PK deficiency on health-related quality of life. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03548220. Registered June 07, 2018; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03548220. Plain language summary: Pyruvate kinase (PK) deficiency is a rare genetic blood disorder with a wide range of signs and symptoms that may have a negative impact on patients' quality of life. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments are tools that assess how a disease affects a patient from the patient's perspective. These instruments must go through a validation process to make sure they truly capture the patient's experience with their condition or its treatment. This study aimed to validate two new PRO instruments in adult patients enrolled in the ACTIVATE clinical trial (NCT03548220), where patients with PK deficiency received the drug mitapivat or a placebo. These two new PRO instruments are the first to be developed specifically for PK deficiency: the PK Deficiency Diary (PKDD), a daily diary that asks 7 questions to measure the core signs and symptoms of PK deficiency, and the PK Deficiency Impact Assessment (PKDIA), a weekly questionnaire with 12 questions to assess the impact of PK deficiency on a patient's life. The results of this study showed that the PKDD and PKDIA properly and reliably measured the signs, symptoms, and impacts of PK deficiency that they aimed to capture. These findings indicate that the PKDD and PKDIA are the first validated PROs specifically for PK deficiency and can help improve the understanding of the impact of PK deficiency on patients' quality of life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Hyperhidrosis Quality of Life Index (HidroQoL ©) is a well-developed and validated patient-reported outcome measure assessing the quality-of-life impacts in hyperhidrosis with 18 items. Our aim was to extend the already existing validity evidence for the HidroQoL, especially in relation to structural validity. Especially Rasch analysis has not been applied to the final 18-item HidroQoL before. Methods: Data from a phase III clinical trial were used. Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to confirm the two a priori HidroQoL scales within classical test theory. Furthermore, the assumptions of the Rasch model (model fit, monotonicity, unidimensionality, local independence) and Differential Item Functioning (DIF) were assessed using item response theory. Results: The sample included 529 patients with severe primary axillary hyperhidrosis. The two-factor structure could be confirmed by the confirmatory factor analysis (SRMR = 0.058). The item characteristic curves showed mainly optimally functioning response categories, indicating monotonicity. The overall fit to the Rasch model was adequate and unidimensionality for the HidroQoL overall scale could be confirmed, since the first factor had an eigenvalue of 2.244 and accounted for 18.7%. Local independence was below assumed thresholds (residual correlations ≤ 0.26). DIF analysis, controlling for age or gender, was critical for four and three items, respectively. However, this DIF could be explained. Conclusion: Using classical test theory and item response theory/Rasch analyses, this study provided further evidence for the structural validity of the HidroQoL. This study confirmed several specific (measurement) properties of the HidroQoL questionnaire in patients with physician-confirmed severe primary axillary hyperhidrosis: the HidroQoL is a unidimensional scale allowing the summation of scores to generate a single score, and simultaneously it has a dual structure, also allowing the calculation of separate domain scores for daily activities and psychosocial impacts. With this study, we provided new evidence of the structural validity of the HidroQoL in the context of a clinical trial. Trial registration The study was registered (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03658616, 05 September 2018, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03658616?term=NCT03658616&draw=2&rank=1). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: In multiple myeloma, a type of blood cancer, the measurement of the outcomes of treatment reported by patients (patient-reported outcome measurement) is useful to reveal how treatment affects the quality of life, symptoms, and side effects of treatment to evaluate the benefit-risk balance of a particular drug or drug combination. We evaluated the research reported in the literature to identify and evaluate patient-reported outcome measures used in clinical trials. The most frequently used instrument was the generic questionnaire, named EORTC QLQ-30, used for cancer patients. The second most frequently used tools were the multiple myeloma-specific EORTC-MY20 questionnaires and the generic EQ-5D. Only 19 instruments reported in the literature were consistent with the trial design. The findings indicate that the measurement of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials for multiple myeloma patients is underutilised, underreported, and often inconsistent. Thus, guidelines for the appropriate use and reporting of such questionnaires are needed to ensure standardisation in the selection and reporting of patients' views. This report is a valuable reference for the appropriate use of questionnaires for professionals performing clinical trials to ensure accurate and appropriate reporting of results for multiple myeloma patients and their caregivers and patient advocates. Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are becoming increasingly important in supporting clinical outcomes in clinical trials. In multiple myeloma (MM), PRO measurement is useful to reveal how treatment affects physical, psychosocial, and functional behaviour as well as symptoms and treatment-related adverse events to evaluate the benefit-risk ratio of a particular drug or drug combination. We report the types of PRO instruments used in MM, the frequency in which they are utilised in randomised controlled trials (RCTs), and the consistency of their reporting. Methods: The European Hematology Association (EHA) supports the development of guidelines for the use of PROs in adult patients with haematological malignancies. The first step is the present systematic review of the literature. MEDLINE and CENTRAL were searched for RCTs in MM between 2015 and 2020. Study design, characteristics of MM and its treatment, the primary outcomes, and the types of PRO instrument(s) were extracted using a predefined template. Additionally, in a stepwise approach, it was assessed whether the identified instruments had been validated for multiple myeloma patients, patients with haematological malignancies, or cancer patients. Results: Following screening for RCTs, 283 studies were included for review from 10,707 records retrieved, and 118 of these planned the use of PRO measures. Thirty-eight PRO instruments were reported. The most frequently used instrument (92 studies) was the EORTC QLQ-30. The EORTC-MY20 MM-specific questionnaire was the second most frequently used (50 studies), together with the EQ-5D (50 studies). Only 19 PRO instruments reported were consistent with the trial registry. Furthermore, in 58 publications, the information on PRO instruments differed between the publication and the trial registry. Further, information on PRO in HTA reports was available for 26 studies, of which 18 reports were consistent with the trial registries. Out of the 38 instruments used, six had been validated for patients with multiple myeloma (the most frequently used), six for patients with haematological malignancies, and 10 for cancer patients in general. Conclusions: The findings indicate that the measurement of PROs in RCTs for MM is underutilised, underreported, and often inconsistent. Guidelines for the appropriate use of PROs in MM are needed to ensure standardisation in selection and reporting. Furthermore, not all PRO instruments identified have been validated for myeloma patients or patients with haematological malignancies. Thus, guidelines for the appropriate use and reporting of PROs are needed in MM to ensure standardisation in the selection and reporting of PROs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The context and setting in which patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures applied in drug development programmes are developed and applied are undergoing rapid changes. The emergence of social media, coupled with advancement of patient-centred methodologies, has led to more connected and empowered patients than before. Drug regulatory agencies are beginning to embrace a new role as collaborators in the drug development process, and new models for defining core outcomes in various disease areas are emerging. Technological advances and social changes have led to the wide use of personal gadgets with greater internet connectivity and computing power than most computers had a generation ago. To explore how progress in the measurement of PROs might be achieved amidst such changes, lessons were drawn from the PRO labelling claims reviewed by the US FDA following the publication of the PRO guidance in 2009. In addition, semi-structured interviews were carried out with seven experts working with drug regulatory agencies and in the pharmaceutical industry to identify major issues and possible solutions. The following recommendations are proposed: (1) that comprehensive hypotheses about the PRO concept be developed; (2) that PRO concepts/measures maintain substantive and clinical validity; (3) that the use of advanced psychometric methods be considered as the new gold standard in the development of PRO measures; (4) that psychometric properties of measures established through 'validation by application' be enhanced; (5) that the generalizability of PRO measures be enhanced; (6) that the assessment of ability to detect change, and the interpretability of scores, be improved; and (7) that PRO guidelines by major regulatory authorities be aligned. These entail a greater transparency on the decisions taken during the PRO measure development process and greater understanding of the integration between qualitative aspects of the PRO measure and the score/measurement attributes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Electronic formats (ePROs) of paper-based patient-reported outcomes (PROs) should be validated before they can be reliably used. This review aimed to examine studies investigating measurement equivalence between ePROs and their paper originals to identify methodologies used and to determine the extent of such validation. Methods: Three databases (OvidSP, Web of Science and PubMed) were searched using a set of keywords. Results were examined for compliance with inclusion criteria. Articles or abstracts that directly compared screen-based electronic versions of PROs with their validated paper-based originals, with regard to their measurement equivalence, were included. Publications were excluded if the only instruments reported were stand-alone visual analogue scales or interactive voice response formats. Papers published before 2007 were excluded, as a previous meta-analysis examined papers published before this time. Results: Fifty-five studies investigating 79 instruments met the inclusion criteria. 53 % of the 79 instruments studied were condition specific. Several instruments, such as the SF-36, were reported in more than one publication. The most frequently reported formats for ePROs were Web-based versions. In 78 % of the publications, there was evidence of equivalence or comparability between the two formats as judged by study authors. Of the 30 publications that provided preference data, 87 % found that overall participants preferred the electronic format. Conclusions: When examining equivalence between paper and electronic versions of PROs, formats are usually judged by authors to be equivalent. Participants prefer electronic formats. This literature review gives encouragement to the further widespread development and use of ePROs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Recent years have witnessed growing international interest in the active involvement, or engagement [patient engagement (PE)], of patients and the public in health services research. However, there is limited evidence of the extent or impact of PE in health-related quality of life (HRQL) and patient-reported outcomes (PRO) research. Therefore, in October 2013, the International Society for Quality of Life research (ISOQOL) hosted its first symposium, which sought to explore the potential for PE in this field. Methods: A 'World Café' format encouraged the exploration of three 'menu' questions' in small groups at round tables. Views, opinions and concerns were captured. A thematic analysis was undertaken, and key themes listed. Results: Sixty conference attendees participated in the 'PE Café', which lasted for 90 min. A diversity of experience was communicated, with most participants positive about the potential for PE. Similarities and differences in approaches, barriers and solutions were identified. However, a key message focused on the uncertainty about how to effectively engage with patients throughout the research process. Moreover, the lack of evidence-base demonstrating the impact of PE was a significant concern. No patient partners participated in the meeting. Conclusion: This study describes the first international exploration of PE in HRQL and PRO research. Discussions highlighted that, in the absence of good practice guidelines, a framework or toolkit of how to embed PE within HRQL and PRO research is required. Moreover, this framework should support the rigorous evaluation of PE impact. ISOQOL should be instrumental in taking these ideas forward, actively engaging with patient partners towards shaping a future ISOQOL PE strategy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: The impact of patients' illness on family members has proven to be both widespread and severe. Currently, there is no generic instrument that can be used to measure the impact of illnesses on the partner or family members of patients. This study describes the development of the Family Reported Outcome Measure (FROM-16). Methods: A total of 30 items were generated from the content of previous interviews with family members. Qualitative and quantitative feedback from expert panels was collected. Items were reduced using both Rasch analysis and factor analysis, and full psychometric testing was carried out including construct validity and reliability. Results: Collapsing response categories, removing misfitting items and combining residually correlating items produced a good fit to the Rasch model ( n = 240, total χ = 56.6, df = 48, p = 0.18). Factor analysis produced a 16-item measure with two factors. The FROM showed high internal consistency ( n = 120, Cronbach's α = 0.80-0.89), high reproducibility ( n = 51, intraclass correlation = 0.85-0.92) and a mean completion time of 2 min. Construct validity was proven through the correlation between the FROM and the WHOQOL-BREF total scores ( n = 119, r = −0.53-0.52, p < 0.001), and the correlation between the FROM and the patient's overall health score ( n = 120, r = −0.45-0.48, p < 0.001). Conclusion: The FROM-16 is both reliable and valid for use. It has a potential for wide use, including clinical (healthcare professionals or researchers in all medical specialties), industrial and social sciences. The FROM can be used to identify areas where family members need further support, as well as identify those individuals most affected by the patient's illness. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite great interest in the development of methods used in the economic evaluation of health technologies, the effects of carer costs and quality of life (QOL) on the cost effectiveness of treatments has not been widely explored. Yet carer effects are clearly evident in the literature and relevant to the perspective of many published economic evaluations.Objective: To examine whether patient QOL is associated with carer time and carer QOL.Methods: We used two datasets to investigate carer effects. Firstly, we used 40,312 cases from the Health Outcomes Data Repository (HODaR) to assess the relationship between patient utility, using the EuroQoL (EQ)-5D, and the number of days care needed from friends and relatives. The stability of the relationship across patient subgroups was assessed by replicating the analysis in ten disease groups. Secondly, we used 64 cases from a study of patients with Alzheimer's disease and their primary carer. These data allowed us to estimate the relationships between patient and carer utility, using the EQ-5D, and patient utility and carer burden using the Community Dementia Quality of Life Profile (CDQLP).Results: For carer time, a linear model showed that each 0.1-point reduction in patient utility was associated with a 2.5-day increase in carer time over a 6-week period. A more general model, based on EQ-5D domain scores, was better specified and showed that decreased functioning within each domain is associated with increased carer time. Problems with self-care and usual activities have the greatest impact on carer time. These models do not appear to be stable across different disease groups. For carer utility, the relationships between carer and patient utility have low explanatory power and are poorly specified. A clearer relationship is shown between carer burden and utility, such that when sociodemographic covariates are introduced, the relationship reaches conventional levels of statistical significance (p < 0.05).Conclusions: The preliminary work described here shows that improving patient QOL may reduce the need for carer time and improve carer QOL. Incorporating such effects into economic evaluations will change cost-per-QALY estimates, with the size of reduction dependent on the domains of health affected by treatment. Clinical studies need to capture carer data so that we can better understand these effects, and how they impact on economic evaluation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]