Patient-reported Outcome Concepts Research Articles

A Systematic Review of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Primary Biliary Cholangitis and Primary Sclerosing Cholangitis.

Primary biliary cholangitis (PBC) and primary sclerosing cholangitis (PSC) are associated with decreased health‐related quality of life and debilitating symptoms. These experiences can be defined as patient‐reported outcome (PRO) concepts and measured using PRO instruments. We identified all PRO concepts and instruments used in the PBC and PSC literature. This systematic review identified PBC and/or PSC studies from January 1, 1990, to May 6, 2019, that measured at least one PRO concept. Study population, design, PRO concept, PRO instrument, and validation data for PRO instruments were investigated. We provided descriptive statistics of PRO concepts and instruments used, stratified by population type. Use of PRO concepts and instruments were assessed over time. The search yielded 318 articles (69% in PBC, 18% in PSC, 13% in both, and 24% in drug trials). Forty‐nine unique PRO concepts were identified. The five most common PRO concepts included pruritus (25%), fatigue (19%), broad health‐related quality of life (16%), gastrointestinal adverse events (6%), and physical adverse events (6%). Only 60% of PRO concepts were measured with a PRO instrument, most of which were nonvalidated visual analogue or numeric rating scales. Only three of 83 PRO instruments were developed with feedback from the target populations (one for PBC, one for PSC, and one for both), and only six documented any psychometric testing in the target populations. Use of PRO instruments increased over time from 30% in the 1990s to 67% by 2019. Conclusion: The overwhelming majority of PRO instruments used in PBC/PSC were nonspecific and lacked patient validation or empirical justification. Significant opportunities exist to use qualitative methods to better understand patient experiences, and translate this knowledge into meaningful, patient‐driven study outcomes.

US Food and Drug Administration review of statistical analysis of patient-reported outcomes in lung cancer clinical trials approved between January, 2008, and December, 2017.

With the advent of patient-focused drug development, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has redoubled its efforts to review patient-reported outcome (PRO) data in cancer trials submitted as part of a drug's marketing application. This Review aims to characterise the statistical analysis of PRO data from pivotal lung cancer trials submitted to support FDA drug approval between January, 2008, and December, 2017. For each trial and PRO instrument identified, we evaluated prespecified PRO concepts, statistical analysis, missing data and sensitivity analysis, instrument completion, and clinical relevance. Of the 37 pivotal lung cancer trials used to support FDA drug approval, 25 (68%) trials included PRO measures. The most common prespecified PRO concepts were cough, dyspnoea, and chest pain. At the trial level, the most common statistical analyses were descriptive (24 trials [96%]), followed by time-to-event analyses (19 trials [76%]), longitudinal analyses (12 trials [48%]), and basic inferential tests or general linear models (10 trials [40%]). Our findings indicate a wide variation in the analytic techniques and data presentation methods used, with very few trials reporting clear PRO research objectives and sensitivity analyses for PRO results. Our work further supports the need for focused research objectives to justify and to guide the analytic strategy of PROs to facilitate the interpretation of patient experience.

Streamlining the Validation of Patient Reported Outcome (PRO) Measures in Drug Regulatory Processes

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.

Review of patient-reported outcome measures in chronic hepatitis C.

BackgroundChronic hepatitis C (CHC) and its treatment are associated with a variety of patient-reported symptoms and impacts. Some CHC symptoms and impacts may be difficult to evaluate through objective clinical testing, and more easily measured through patient self-report. This literature review identified concepts raised by CHC patients related to symptoms, impacts, and treatment effects, and evaluated integration of these concepts within patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. The goal of this work was to provide recommendations for incorporation of PRO measurement of concepts that are relevant to the CHC experience into CHC clinical trial design.MethodsA three-tiered literature search was conducted. This included searches on concepts of importance, PRO measures used in clinical trials, and existing PRO measures. The PRO Concept Search focused on reviewing issues raised by CHC patients about CHC symptoms, disease impact, and treatment effects. The CHC Trials with PRO Endpoints Search reviewed clinical trials with PRO endpoints to assess differences between treatments over time. The PRO Measure Search reviewed existing PRO measures associated with the concepts of interest.ResultsThis multi-tiered approach identified five key concepts of interest: depression/anxiety, fatigue, flu-like symptoms, cognitive function, insomnia. Comparing these five concepts of interest to the PRO measures in published CHC clinical trials showed that, while treatment of CHC may decrease health-related quality of life in a number of mental and physical domains, the PRO measures that were utilized in published clinical trials inadequately covered the concepts of interest. Further review of 18 existing PRO measures of the concepts of interest showed only four of the 18 were validated in CHC populations.ConclusionsThis review identified several gaps in the literature regarding assessment of symptoms and outcomes reported as important by CHC patients. Further research is needed to ensure that CHC clinical trials evaluate concepts that are important to patients and include measures that have evidence supporting content validity, reliability, construct validity, and responsiveness.

A Concept Taxonomy and an Instrument Hierarchy: Tools for Establishing and Evaluating the Conceptual Framework of a Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Instrument as Applied to Product Labeling Claims

To facilitate development and evaluation of a PRO instrument conceptual framework, we propose two tools--a PRO concept taxonomy and a PRO instrument hierarchy. FDA's draft guidance on patient reported outcome (PRO) measures states that a clear description of the conceptual framework of an instrument is useful for evaluating its adequacy to support a treatment benefit claim for use in product labeling the draft guidance, however does not propose tools for establishing or evaluating a PRO instrument's conceptual framework. We draw from our review of PRO concepts and instruments that appear in prescription drug labeling approved in the United States from 1997 to 2007. We propose taxonomy terms that define relationships between PRO concepts, including "family,""compound concept," and "singular concept." Based on the range of complexity represented by the concepts, as defined by the taxonomy, we propose nine instrument orders for PRO measurement. The nine orders range from individual event counts to multi-item, multiscale instruments. This analysis of PRO concepts and instruments illustrates that the taxonomy and hierarchy are applicable to PRO concepts across a wide range of therapeutic areas and provide a basis for defining the instrument conceptual framework complexity. Although the utility of these tools in the drug development, review, and approval processes has not yet been demonstrated, these tools could be useful to improve communication and enhance efficiency in the instrument development and review process.

Use of Existing Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Instruments and Their Modification: The ISPOR Good Research Practices for Evaluating and Documenting Content Validity for the Use of Existing Instruments and Their Modification PRO Task Force Report

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments are used to evaluate the effect of medical products on how patients feel or function. This article presents the results of an ISPOR task force convened to address good clinical research practices for the use of existing or modified PRO instruments to support medical product labeling claims. The focus of the article is on content validity, with specific reference to existing or modified PRO instruments, because of the importance of content validity in selecting or modifying an existing PRO instrument and the lack of consensus in the research community regarding best practices for establishing and documenting this measurement property. Topics addressed in the article include: definition and general description of content validity; PRO concept identification as the important first step in establishing content validity; instrument identification and the initial review process; key issues in qualitative methodology; and potential threats to content validity, with three case examples used to illustrate types of threats and how they might be resolved. A table of steps used to identify and evaluate an existing PRO instrument is provided, and figures are used to illustrate the meaning of content validity in relationship to instrument development and evaluation. RESULTS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Four important threats to content validity are identified: unclear conceptual match between the PRO instrument and the intended claim, lack of direct patient input into PRO item content from the target population in which the claim is desired, no evidence that the most relevant and important item content is contained in the instrument, and lack of documentation to support modifications to the PRO instrument. In some cases, careful review of the threats to content validity in a specific application may be reduced through additional well documented qualitative studies that specifically address the issue of concern. Published evidence of the content validity of a PRO instrument for an intended application is often limited. Such evidence is, however, important to evaluating the adequacy of a PRO instrument for the intended application. This article provides an overview of key issues involved in assessing and documenting content validity as it relates to using existing instruments in the drug approval process.

Patient-Reported Outcomes: Conceptual Issues

Abstract There is a broad agreement that patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessment in health care should proceed from a strong conceptual basis, with rationales clearly articulated in advance concerning what is to be measured and how this is to be accomplished. The representation of the patient's perspective has been part of clinical trials for some time; but the formalization of, and broader emphasis on PROs has become increasingly important with the release of the draft guidance for industry on patient-reported outcomes. In response, we address the challenges in constructing the conceptual foundations for PRO assessment to support drug product labeling claims submitted to regulatory agencies worldwide. After discussing what constitutes a PRO concept and an adequate basis for framing a PRO assessment, we examine the consequences of choosing PRO instruments without reference to a well-established conceptual framework for measurement. Then we illustrate through a hypothetical examplethe important interplay between the sponsor's proposed product claim, the corresponding conceptual model that depicts hypotheses involving the PRO concept(s) in the claim, and the resulting conceptual framework(s) for measurement to guide instrument selection and psychometric analyses. We discuss how these conceptual issues may vary or evolve over time depending on the phase of product development. As the science of PRO measurement continues to develop and experience accumulates, a consensus may emerge on how best to articulate the conceptual basis of PRO measurement for purposes of product labeling and regulation. In the meantime, one point is imminently clear: in regulatory decisions expected to affect not only the quantity but the quality of life, it is imperative to incorporate the patient's own perspective on the illness experience and the effects of therapy.

Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance

This guidance describes how the FDA evaluates patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments used as effectiveness endpoints in clinical trials. It also describes our current thinking on how sponsors can develop and use study results measured by PRO instruments to support claims in approved product labeling (see appendix point 1). It does not address the use of PRO instruments for purposes beyond evaluation of claims made about a drug or medical product in its labeling. By explicitly addressing the review issues identified in this guidance, sponsors can increase the efficiency of their endpoint discussions with the FDA during the product development process, streamline the FDA's review of PRO endpoint adequacy, and provide optimal information about the patient's perspective of treatment benefit at the time of product approval.A PRO is a measurement of any aspect of a patient's health status that comes directly from the patient (i.e., without the interpretation of the patient's responses by a physician or anyone else). In clinical trials, a PRO instrument can be used to measure the impact of an intervention on one or more aspects of patients' health status, hereafter referred to as PRO concepts, ranging from the purely symptomatic (response of a headache) to more complex concepts (e.g., ability to carry out activities of daily living), to extremely complex concepts such as quality of life, which is widely understood to be a multidomain concept with physical, psychological, and social components. Data generated by a PRO instrument can provide evidence of a treatment benefit from the patient perspective. For this data to be meaningful, however, there should be evidence that the PRO instrument effectively measures the particular concept that is studied. Generally, findings measured by PRO instruments may be used to support claims in approved product labeling if the claims are derived from adequate and well-controlled investigations that use PRO instruments that reliably and validly measure the specific concepts at issue.The glossary defines many of the terms used in this guidance. In particular, the term instrument refers to the actual questions or items contained in a questionnaire or interview schedule along with all the additional information and documentation that supports the use of these items in producing a PRO measure (e.g., interviewer training and instructions, scoring and interpretation manual). The term conceptual framework refers to how items are grouped according to subconcepts or domains (e.g., the item walking without help may be grouped with another item, walking with difficulty, within the domain of ambulation, and ambulation may be further grouped into the concept of physical ability).FDA's guidance documents, including this guidance, do not establish legally enforceable responsibilities. Instead, guidance documents describe the Agency's current thinking on a topic and should be viewed only as recommendations, unless specific regulatory or statutory requirements are cited. The use of the word should in Agency guidance documents means that something is suggested or recommended but not required. First publication of the Draft Guidance by the Food and Drug Administration- February 2006.