Search

Purpose: Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are used to collect data on disease symptoms in support of clinical trial endpoints. Clinical studies can last a year or more, and the patients' adherence and response time to daily at-home questionnaires may vary significantly over time. The aim of this study was to understand patterns and changes in patients' completion of daily PROMs during longitudinal clinical studies., Methods: Data were collected from 1342 patients randomized into three respiratory clinical trials (NCT03401229, NCT03347279, and NCT03406078). PROMs were completed by patients using electronic handheld devices that collected the starting and completion times. A Bayesian generalized linear mixed-effects model was used to identify unbiased coefficients associated with PROM adherence and response time using patient, site, and calendar features as covariates., Results: Adherence decreased over time after randomization, and the rate of decrease was higher in younger patients. The 14-day pre-randomization adherence was correlated with adherence throughout the study. Patients were also more adherent during working days compared to non-working days. Oldest patients took twice as long to complete PROMs throughout the study; however, the response time for all patients decreased during the first month of the study regardless of age. Response time increased 7 days before and after the date of a scheduled clinic visit and when a patient-reported higher symptom burden., Conclusion: Detailed analyses of adherence and response time for daily PROMs in clinical trials can provide significant insights about trends of patient behavior in longitudinal clinical studies with high baseline adherence., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.)

Purpose: To identify symptoms and their impacts on daily functioning and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) experienced by adult patients with ulcerative colitis (UC) and evaluate patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures for UC clinical studies., Methods: A conceptual model of symptoms and impacts of UC were developed from a literature review. PRO measures were identified from the literature, clinical trials databases, health technology assessment submissions, and regulatory label claims, and were selected for conceptual analysis based on disease specificity and use across information sources. PRO measures covering the most concepts when mapped against the conceptual model were assessed for gaps in psychometric properties using Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance and consensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement instruments (COSMIN) criteria., Results: The conceptual model grouped the 52 symptom concepts and 72 proximal and distal impacts into eight, two, and five dimensions, respectively. Of 65 PRO measures identified, eight underwent conceptual analysis. Measures covering the most concepts and assessed for psychometric properties were the Inflammatory Bowel Disease Questionnaire, Symptoms and Impacts Questionnaire for UC, UC-PRO symptoms modules, UC-PRO impact modules, and Crohn's and UC Questionnaire; all had good or excellent support for content validity. The UC-PRO Signs and Symptoms fully met FDA guidance and COSMIN criteria for content validity and most psychometric properties., Conclusion: Existing PRO measures assess concepts relevant to patients with UC, but all PRO measures reviewed require further psychometric evaluation to demonstrate they are fit for purpose., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Over the past few decades, patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have been used to understand patient health conditions better. Therefore, numerous PRO measures (questionnaires) and guidelines or guidance have been developed. However, it is challenging to select target guidance from among the many available guidance and to understand the chosen guidance. This study comprehensively collected the existing PRO guidance for clinical trials or studies and practices to support novice PRO users in academia, industry, clinical practice, and regulatory and reimbursement decision-making., Methods: For the scoping review, we searched the MEDLINE, Embase, Google Books, WorldCat, and the National Library of Medicine (NLM) Bookshelf databases from 2009 to 2023. The eligibility criteria were PRO guidance for clinical trials, clinical practice, or application such as health technology assessment. Those guidance cover aspects such as quality of life (QOL), PRO, health-related QOL, health state utilities, psychometric requirements, implementation methods, analysis and interpretation, or clinical practice applications. After the systematic search, three researchers individually reviewed the collected data, and the reviewed articles and books were scrutinized using the same criteria., Results: We collected the PRO guidance published in articles and books between 2009 and 2023. From the database searches, 1,455 articles and 387 books were identified, of which one book and 33 articles were finally selected. The collected PRO guidance was categorized into the adoption of PRO measures, design and reporting of trials or studies using PROs, implementation of PRO evaluation in clinical trials or studies or clinical practice, analysis and interpretation of PROs, and application of PRO evaluation. Based on this categorization, we suggest the following for novices: When selecting guidance, novices should clarify the "place" and "purpose" where the guidance will be used. Additionally, they should know that the terminology related to PRO and the scope and expectations of PROs vary by "places" and "purposes"., Conclusions: From this scoping review of existing PRO guidance, we provided summaries and caveats to assist novices in selecting guidance that fits their purpose and understanding it., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Measures of pain intensity (eg, numeric rating scales [NRS]) are widely used in clinical research and practice. While these measures have evidence for validity and reliability, poor standardization of instructions, and response options limits precision of pain assessment, allows for inconsistency in interpretation, and presents a challenge for comparison and aggregation of study results. Despite these pitfalls, the 0 to 10 NRS remains the most commonly used primary outcome measure in clinical trials of pain treatments and is the core measure recommended by regulatory agencies. The purpose of this study was to describe the first phase in the development of a pain intensity measure that is easily interpretable, psychometrically sound, and that adheres to FDA qualification processes. The Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial, Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks (ACTTION) public-private partnership conducted concept elicitation interviews (N = 44; 22 with acute pain; 22 with chronic pain) to understand the patient perspective on rating pain intensity and to identify actionable suggestions for improved clarity and meaningfulness of instructions, recall periods, and response options. This article summarizes interview findings, describes how patient input and FDA feedback informed preliminary candidate measures, and provides an overview of the FDA qualification process. PERSPECTIVE: Concept elicitation interviews informed the development of content-valid candidate measures of acute and chronic pain intensity for planned use in clinical trials of pain treatments, and comprise the initial stage in FDA clinical outcome assessment qualification. Measures will subsequently be evaluated through cognitive interviews and a series of psychometric studies., (Copyright © 2022 United States Association for the Study of Pain, Inc. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Understanding how one clinical outcome assessment (COA) (eg, a patient-reported outcome [PRO]) relates to a second COA (eg, a clinician-reported outcome [ClinRO]) may provide insights into disease burden or treatment efficacy. We aimed to briefly review commonly used cross-sectional methods to evaluate the association between a PRO and a ClinRO and to demonstrate the advantages of longitudinal modeling approaches, particularly a joint mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM), to evaluate this association., Methods: We generated an example longitudinal data set that included a PRO measured on an 11-point numeric rating scale and a binary ClinRO. The association between change in PRO score and ClinRO response at each time point was examined using 2 cross-sectional analyses: point biserial correlation and logistic regression. We conducted longitudinal analyses of the association between the 2 COAs across time points using MMRM and joint MMRM approaches., Results: Point-biserial correlation and logistic regression analyses correctly captured the "built in" associations between the 2 COAs that strengthened over time, but each association was applicable only for a single time point. The MMRM approach provided correlations over time but only for a single outcome variable. The joint MMRM approach modeled the relationship between both outcome variables simultaneously, allowing for evaluation of the correlations both within and between the variables over time., Conclusion: Each analysis demonstrated the relationship between PRO score changes and ClinRO response. Longitudinal analysis methods, particularly the joint MMRM, allow for a more thorough examination of the correlations among the 2 outcomes than cross-sectional analysis methods.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used to monitor treatment-related symptoms and physical function decrements in cancer clinical trials. As more patients enter survivorship, it is important to capture PRO physical function throughout trials to help restore pretreatment levels of function. We completed a systematic review of PRO physical function measures used in cancer clinical trials and evaluated their psychometric properties on the basis of guidelines from the US Food and Drug Administration. Five databases were searched through October 2015: PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL (Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature), Health and Psychosocial Instruments, and Cochrane. From an initial total of 10,233 articles, we identified 108 trials that captured PRO physical function. Within these trials, approximately 67% used the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire and 25% used the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36. Both the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire and Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 36 instruments generically satisfy most Food and Drug Administration requirements, although neither sought direct patient input as part of item development. The newer Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System physical function short form may be a brief, viable alternative. Clinicians should carefully consider the psychometric properties of these measures when incorporating PRO instrumentation into clinical trial design to provide a more comprehensive understanding of patient function., (© The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Purpose: Mapping or matching the items in a clinical outcome assessment (COA) to concepts that define a condition is a common method for evaluating a COA's concept coverage. The purpose of this research was to address the lack of formal guidance for conducting this task by developing a framework for best practices in COA concept mapping and applying it to a case study. Methods: To develop the framework, we examined the literature and created a draft set of best practices which was then reviewed by experienced researchers through focus groups before being finalized. To conduct the case study, we extracted data from a systematic review of knee osteoarthritis (KO) symptoms and impacts and used the framework to map relevant concepts to items in the SF-36v2® Health Survey (SF-36v2). Results: The framework guides researchers in defining the purpose of and data sources for the mapping, establishing guiding principles and decision-making thresholds, and conducting the mapping exercise. The results of the case study demonstrate the usefulness of the framework in identifying 27/36 items (75%) in the SF-36v2 that addressed concepts that define KO. Conclusion: This case study illustrates how the framework for best practices in COA concept mapping may be used, highlighting how establishing clear concept definitions and guiding principles and following a structured process throughout can help produce consistent, reliable, and reproducible results. The results from this rigorous approach can provide valuable evidence to support decisions about the appropriateness of a COA for the intended patient population. Plain English Summary: In health-related quality of life research, mapping items in a clinical outcome assessment (COA) to concepts that define a health condition is one way to evaluate an instrument's content validity (or, how well the instrument addresses the concepts it intends to measure). Without formal guidance on how to do this mapping, researchers can be inconsistent. This article describes the development of a framework for best practices in COA concept mapping. Informed by the literature and input from researchers with expertise in COA development and evaluation, the final framework guides researchers through the mapping process from start to finish, from helping to define the purpose of the task and identify the data sources, to establishing guiding principles and decision-making thresholds, conducting the mapping, and displaying the results. A case study—in which items from the SF-36v2® Health Survey were mapped to concepts from a systematic review of knee osteoarthritis symptoms and impacts—shows the framework in action, demonstrating how following the best practices can lead to consistent results that can support the evaluation of an instrument's content validity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BackgroundResearch about pediatric patients' perspective on mucopolysaccharidosis type VI (MPS VI) and its impact on daily life is limited. We aimed to identify the disease concepts of interest that most impact function and day-to-day life of pediatric patients with MPS VI, and to consider clinical outcome assessments (COAs) that may potentially measure meaningful improvements in these concepts.MethodsPotential focus group participants were identified by the National MPS Society (USA) and invited to participate if they self-reported a clinician-provided diagnosis of MPS VI and were 4 to 18 years, receiving enzyme replacement therapy (ERT), and available to attend a 1-day focus group with their caregiver in Dallas, TX, USA. The focus group consisted of a series of polling and open-ended concept elicitation questions and a cognitive debriefing session. The discussion was audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed to identify disease concepts of interest and functional impacts most relevant to participants.ResultsOverall, caregivers (n = 9) and patients with MPS VI (n = 9) endorsed that although their children/they receive ERT, residual symptoms exist and impact health-related quality of life. The key disease concepts of interest identified were impaired mobility, upper extremity and fine motor deficits, pain, and fatigue. Pain was unanimously reported by all patients across many areas of the body and impacted daily activity. Key disease concepts were mapped to a selection of pediatric COAs including generic measures such as PROMIS®, PODCI, CHAQ, and PedsQL™. Caregivers endorsed the relevance of PODCI and PROMIS Upper Extremity, Mobility, and Pain items and all patients completed the NIH Toolbox Pegboard Dexterity Test. Additional COAs that aligned with the disease concepts included range of motion, the 2- and 6-min walk tests, timed stair climbs, Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency, 2nd edition, grip strength, pain visual analog scale, and the Faces Pain Scale-Revised.ConclusionAn MPS VI focus group of pediatric patients and their caregivers identified impaired mobility, upper extremity and fine motor deficits, pain, and fatigue as key disease concepts of interest. These disease concepts were mapped to existing pediatric COAs, which were provided to the group for endorsement of their relevance.

In June 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a draft guidance for industry on core patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and related considerations for instrument selection and trial design in registrational cancer clinical trials, building on prior communications about the use of PROs to assess efficacy and tolerability in oncology drug development. The International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) Standards and Best Practices Committee led an initiative to draft a commentary about the guidance, focusing on its positive aspects and areas that would benefit from additional clarification and consideration. For comprehensiveness, the authors reviewed existing public comments on the draft guidance, and the commentary underwent a thorough review process through three ISOQOL Special Interest Groups (Psychometrics, Clinical Practice, and Regulatory and Health Technology Assessment Engagement) followed by the ISOQOL Board. The goal of this commentary is to situate this new and relevant guidance document within the context of recent regulatory efforts on PROs and highlight areas in which further work may ultimately benefit the field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Retinitis pigmentosa (RP) and Leber congenital amaurosis (LCA) are rare inherited retinal degenerative disorders resulting in visual impairments and impacts on patients' vision-dependent activities of daily living (ADL), mobility and distal health-related quality of life (HRQoL). This study aimed to conduct qualitative research to understand the patient experience of RP/LCA across genotypes and inform development of patient- and observer-reported outcome (PRO/ObsRO) instruments in RP/LCA. Methods: Research activities included a qualitative literature review and review of existing visual function PRO instruments in RLBP1 RP, and concept elicitation (CE) and cognitive debriefing (CD) interviews of existing PRO instruments with patients with RLBP1 RP, expert clinicians, and payers. In wider RP/LCA, a social media listening (SML) study and a qualitative literature review was conducted, while psychometric evaluation of a PRO instrument in LCA was performed. Input from expert clinicians was sought at key stages. Results: Findings from the qualitative literature reviews identified a range of visual function symptoms which had significant impacts on patients' vision-related ADL and distal HRQoL. Patient interviews identified additional visual function symptoms and impacts not previously reported in published literature. These sources informed development and refinement of a conceptual model displaying the patient experience of RP/LCA. Review of existing visual function PRO instruments, and CD interviews evaluating their content validity, confirmed that no existing instrument provides a comprehensive assessment of all concepts relevant to patients with RP/LCA. This highlighted the need for development of the Visual Symptom and Impact Outcomes PRO and ObsRO instruments to adequately assess the patient experience of RP/LCA. Conclusions: Results informed and supported development of the instruments to assess visual functioning symptoms and vision-dependent ADL, mobility and distal HRQoL in RP/LCA, in accordance with regulatory standards. Next steps to further support use in RP/LCA clinical trials/practice includes content and psychometric validation of the instruments in this population. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background Research about pediatric patients’ perspective on mucopolysaccharidosis type VI (MPS VI) and its impact on daily life is limited. We aimed to identify the disease concepts of interest that most impact function and day-to-day life of pediatric patients with MPS VI, and to consider clinical outcome assessments (COAs) that may potentially measure meaningful improvements in these concepts. Methods Potential focus group participants were identified by the National MPS Society (USA) and invited to participate if they self-reported a clinician-provided diagnosis of MPS VI and were 4 to 18 years, receiving enzyme replacement therapy (ERT), and available to attend a 1-day focus group with their caregiver in Dallas, TX, USA. The focus group consisted of a series of polling and open-ended concept elicitation questions and a cognitive debriefing session. The discussion was audio recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed to identify disease concepts of interest and functional impacts most relevant to participants. Results Overall, caregivers (n = 9) and patients with MPS VI (n = 9) endorsed that although their children/they receive ERT, residual symptoms exist and impact health-related quality of life. The key disease concepts of interest identified were impaired mobility, upper extremity and fine motor deficits, pain, and fatigue. Pain was unanimously reported by all patients across many areas of the body and impacted daily activity. Key disease concepts were mapped to a selection of pediatric COAs including generic measures such as PROMIS®, PODCI, CHAQ, and PedsQL™. Caregivers endorsed the relevance of PODCI and PROMIS Upper Extremity, Mobility, and Pain items and all patients completed the NIH Toolbox Pegboard Dexterity Test. Additional COAs that aligned with the disease concepts included range of motion, the 2- and 6-min walk tests, timed stair climbs, Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency, 2nd edition, grip strength, pain visual analog scale, and the Faces Pain Scale-Revised. Conclusion An MPS VI focus group of pediatric patients and their caregivers identified impaired mobility, upper extremity and fine motor deficits, pain, and fatigue as key disease concepts of interest. These disease concepts were mapped to existing pediatric COAs, which were provided to the group for endorsement of their relevance.

Background: The systematic collection of disease-specific symptoms and impacts on the lives of patients with Fabry Disease (FD) can offer unique insights into the patient experience, yet no disease-specific tool to measure FD symptoms exists. This study describes the development of the Fabry Disease Patient-Reported Outcome (FD-PRO).Methods: A targeted literature search, interviews with key opinion leaders (KOLs), and concept elicitation (CE) interviews with patients identified the most frequent signs and symptoms associated with FD and their impact on daily life. Cognitive interviews evaluated patients' ability to understand the FD-PRO instructions and respond to the items on the draft FD-PRO instrument.Results: The targeted literature search identified key signs and symptoms in domains that were confirmed in KOL interviews. In CE interviews with 37 treated and treatment-naïve patients, neuropathic pain symptoms (95% treated, 82% treatment-naïve), temperature intolerance (95% treated, 88% treatment-naïve), energy difficulties (95% treated, 94% treatment-naïve), hearing/vision impairment (95% treated, 71% treatment-naïve), and gastrointestinal symptoms (80% treated, 59% treatment-naïve) were most frequently mentioned. Results were similar for men and women in both treated and treatment-naïve groups. While treatment-naïve patients in general expressed fewer and milder symptoms compared to treated patients, the overall sets of symptoms expressed by the two groups were similar. The most severe symptoms were neuropathic pain, stomach pain, burning pain, and fatigue. The most bothersome symptoms were stomach pain, breathing difficulty, fatigue, neuropathic pain, and constipation. The most frequent impacts were in the work/school limitations domain for both treated and treatment-naïve patients. The impacts with the highest difficulty ratings were stress, limited outdoor activity, and guilt. Cognitive interviews with 14 treated and treatment-naïve patients resulted in the refinement of FD-PRO items and language.Conclusions: The FD-PRO is a novel, disease-specific instrument that measures the patient experience in Fabry disease. Such tools are valuable in capturing the burden of disease in patients with FD and demonstrating the value of treatment in clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Over the last six decades (earliest included publication from 1959), clinical trials of migraine preventive treatments have led to the regulatory approval of many medications and devices. Despite similar clinical goals, the outcomes and endpoints used in these trials are broad and not well standardized. Objective: To describe results from a systematic literature review focused on outcomes and endpoints used in preventive migraine clinical trials. Method: A systematic literature review, following a pre‐specified (unregistered) protocol developed to adhere to recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses, was conducted to characterize the endpoints and outcomes used in preventive migraine clinical trials. Predetermined terms were searched in PubMed on October 28, 2019. Data related to trial design, subject characteristics, outcomes, and endpoints reported in each publication were extracted. Descriptive summaries of these features were tabulated for the recent subset of publications, published during or after 1988, that were randomized, blinded, and focused on pharmacological or device therapies for the preventive treatment of migraine. Results: The initial literature search identified 1506 publications, of which 757 publications were eligible for data extraction. Of specific clinical interest were the recent subset of 268 articles (268/757, 35.4%) fulfilling the targeted criteria. Results showed that the outcomes used to define endpoints varied substantially across publications. For example, in the recent subset of publications, 68.7% (184/268) of the publications examined ≥1 migraine‐specific outcome, 39.6% (106/268) examined ≥1 headache‐specific outcome, 50.7% (136/268) examined ≥1 acute/rescue medication use outcome, 40.3% (108/268) examined ≥1 headache‐related patient‐reported outcome measure (PROM), and 22.0% (59/268) examined ≥1 non‐headache‐specific PROM. Furthermore, the definition of the endpoints used (e.g., change from baseline, fixed timepoint comparisons, categorization of "responders" to treatment based on wide variety of "responder definitions") also differed across publications. Conclusion: Publications from clinical trials of preventive migraine pharmacologic and device treatments differed in terms of study design, endpoint definitions, and how endpoints and outcomes were measured. Although there were common outcomes and endpoints used across publications, no clear "standardized" set of endpoints and outcomes emerged. The inconsistencies in endpoints and outcomes within this literature suggest that the development of a uniform set of outcomes and endpoints could improve the clinical meaningfulness of clinical trial results, facilitate cross‐trial comparisons and better inform patient care. This standard set of outcomes and endpoints should be statistically robust and informed by the priorities of various stakeholders, most importantly, the needs and preferences of people living with migraine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]