Patient-reported outcome labeling claims and measurement approach for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer treatments in the United States and European Union.

BACKGROUND: Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and its treatment significantly affect health-related quality of life (HRQOL). Our objectives were to evaluate and compare patient-reported outcome (PRO) claims granted by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) for 5 recently approved mCRPC treatments and to examine key characteristics, development, and measurement properties of the PRO measures supporting these claims against current regulatory standards. METHODS: Five products approved for treatment of mCRPC by the FDA and the EMA (2010-2013) were examined: enzalutamide, abiraterone, sipuleucel-T, cabazitaxel, and radium Ra 223 dichloride. United States (US) drug approval packages and European Public Assessment Reports were reviewed. PRO claims in the US labels and European Summaries of Product Characteristics and supporting measures were identified. For PRO measures supporting claims, a targeted literature review was conducted to identify information on key characteristics and measurement properties; this information was compared against FDA PRO guidance criteria. RESULTS: Nine PRO "claims" were granted across 4 of 5 products reviewed. The EMA granted more claims (7 claims-4 for pain, 3 for HRQOL) than the FDA (2 claims, both for pain). The Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form (BPI-SF) worst pain item supported most pain claims and was the only measure supporting US claims. EMA pain claims were supported by BPI-SF worst pain (n = 2) and average pain (n = 1) items and the McGill Pain Questionnaire Present Pain Intensity component (n = 1). EMA HRQOL claims were supported by the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate Module (n = 2) and the EuroQol 5 Dimensions with visual analogue scale (n = 1). Pain and prostate cancer-specific HRQOL measures supporting claims met US regulatory standards for construct validity, reliability, and responsiveness; these properties were strongest for the BPI-SF worst pain item. Only the BPI-SF worst pain item has documented content validity in mCRPC. CONCLUSIONS: PRO label claims were commonly granted across the mCRPC products reviewed. Among the measures reviewed, only the BPI-SF worst pain item supported US label claims. The BPI-SF worst pain item is recommended for pain assessment for the evaluation of new mCRPC treatments.

Evaluating meaningful changes in physical functioning and cognitive declines in metachromatic leukodystrophy: a caregiver interview study.

BACKGROUND: Metachromatic leukodystrophy (MLD) is a rare lysosomal storage disease caused by deficient activity of arylsulfatase A (ASA). Treatment options for patients are limited; gene therapy based on haematopoietic stem cell transplantation is the only approved treatment for some subtypes of MLD. Any therapeutic benefit of treatments must be meaningful for patients and their families. We evaluated the clinical meaningfulness of slowing the decline in gross motor function as measured by the Gross Motor Function Classification in MLD (GMFC-MLD) from the caregiver perspective via semi-structured telephone interviews with caregivers of children with late-infantile MLD. We also evaluated the perceived significance of declines in communication abilities measured by the Expressive Language Function Classification in MLD (ELFC-MLD). This work could help to inform the endpoints of a phase 2 clinical trial (NCT03771898) assessing the efficacy of intrathecal recombinant human ASA in MLD. RESULTS: Twelve caregivers were recruited, reporting on 12 children with MLD. Children had a mean age of 6.1 years; mean age at symptom onset was 17.6 months. Most children (10/12) progressed from walking without support (categories 0-1) to a loss of locomotion (categories 5-6) in ≤ 2 years. Caregivers felt that GMFC-MLD and ELFC-MLD accurately described motor and language declines in their children, respectively. Most caregivers (10/12) reported that the idea of delaying disease progression would be meaningful. Further, a slowing of motor function decline in GMFC-MLD, from category 1 to category 3 or from category 2 to category 4 over 2 years, was seen as meaningful by all caregivers asked; however, only 3/12 caregivers reported that delayed decline would be meaningful if baseline category was ≥ 3. Caregivers also reported that delaying expressive language decline at any level that did not indicate a complete loss of expressive language (indicated by categories 1-3) would be meaningful. CONCLUSIONS: Caregivers of children with MLD felt that a delayed decline in gross motor function, as assessed by the GMFC-MLD, would be meaningful, supporting the selection of primary and secondary endpoints for the phase 2 clinical trial. Communication abilities were another area of significance for consideration in future clinical trial design.

Patient experiences with patient-reported outcome measures in metastatic breast cancer trials: qualitative interviews.

BACKGROUND: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are critical for assessing treatment benefit of anticancer treatments. Although PRO measures have been developed with the intention of capturing patient-centric concepts, a gap exists in understanding the patient experience with these tools. We characterized the experience of patients with metastatic breast cancer (mBC) with PRO measures in an oncology clinical trial setting to determine the importance, relevance, barriers, and facilitators for PRO completion. METHODS: The multicenter, qualitative design included semistructured interviews with 18 women with mBC who completed PRO measures in a clinical trial setting within 1 year of screening. Interviews began with concept elicitation to understand symptom characterization, decision to participate in a clinical trial, pre-trial expectations, and thoughts on study-related questionnaires. Cognitive debriefing was conducted to determine if items in a commonly used PRO instrument were relevant to the patient experience. Qualitative data were analyzed using a constant comparative approach. RESULTS: Participants described the need for detailed explanation of PRO measures at study start, including information about how the PRO data will likely be used to support drug development. Respondents who felt connected to clinical trial research were more likely to feel as if the measures adequately captured their experiences. Items that were deemed irrelevant or out of date to the patient experience may cause a respondent to feel marginalized and adds to the overall burden of PRO measure completion. Mode of PRO measure administration (electronic/paper) was important to some, but placement of the instrument completion within a study visit appeared to influence respondent willingness to fully engage with the measures. A lack of any type of feedback loop to allow respondents to learn from the captured PRO data was noted as important but missing from the patient experience. CONCLUSIONS: PRO measures need to include content that is relevant to the patient experience over the course of the clinical trial period to be considered meaningful to respondents, and administration techniques also impact engagement. Robust communication strategies that socialize the intent, use, and results of PRO data may enrich the patient experience and support greater adherence to PRO completion in future studies.

A review of patient-reported outcome assessments in registration trials of FDA-approved new oncology drugs (2014-2018).

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) encourages the assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in oncology clinical trials. A 2015 review showed that approximately 26% of industry-sponsored oncology trials included assessment of PROs. However, the proportion of recent trials that supported new oncology drug approvals and assessed PROs is unknown. This review found that assessment of PROs was included in about 75% of registration trials that supported 55 new FDA drug approvals during 2014-2018. Patient-reported outcome assessment was included more in randomized controlled trials than in open-label trials (88% vs. 69%, respectively) and more in phase 3 than in phase 2 trials (89% vs. 66%, respectively).

Validation of the Alopecia Areata Patient Priority Outcomes (AAPPO) Questionnaire in Adults and Adolescents with Alopecia Areata.

INTRODUCTION: Individuals with alopecia areata (AA) may experience significant impacts on their health-related quality of life. The novel Alopecia Areata Patient Priority Outcomes (AAPPO) questionnaire has been developed to assess hair loss signs, emotional symptoms, and activity limitations associated with AA. The objective of this study was to evaluate psychometric properties and establish scoring of the AAPPO in adults and adolescents with AA. METHODS: Scoring and measurement properties of the AAPPO were examined using baseline and 2-week follow-up data from a prospective, noninterventional, web-based study of 121 patients with AA (85 adults aged ≥ 18 years, 36 adolescents aged 12-17 years) with Severity of Alopecia Tool (SALT) ≥ 25% scalp hair loss. RESULTS: Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis supported four single Hair Loss (HL) items, an Emotional Symptoms domain (ES; 4 items), and an Activity Limitations domain (AL; 3 items). Among all patients, the multi-item ES and AL domains had strong internal consistency (α ≥ 0.87); all HL items and domain scores had strong test-retest reliability (weighted kappa or intraclass correlation coefficients ≥ 0.78). All HL item scores demonstrated strong construct validity (r ≥ 0.52) compared with the patient-reported Alopecia Areata Symptom and Impact Scale (AASIS) hair loss subscale score; ES and AL domain scores exhibited strong construct validity (r ≥ 0.66) compared with the SF-36 Mental Component Summary (MCS) score. Using SALT scores, HL mean item scores were better (lower) in the 25-49% SALT subgroup versus those with highest SALT scores (76-100%); however, ES mean domain scores were better in the SALT 76-100% subgroup in the same comparison (p < 0.0001). Using AASIS and MCS score-created subgroups, ES and AL mean domain scores demonstrated hypothesized differences across subgroups (all p values < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: The AAPPO questionnaire is a reliable, valid disease-specific measure of hair loss severity and impact in individuals with AA.

Qualitative Analysis of Pain in Patients With Locally Advanced or Metastatic Urothelial Carcinoma.

BACKGROUND: Pain is not well described in patients with locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer (la/mUC). OBJECTIVE: To characterize pain and assess the content validity of the Brief Pain Inventory Short Form (BPI-SF) worst pain item in patients with la/mUC receiving first-line treatment in the US. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were conducted in patients aged≥45 years with confirmed la/mUC, self-reported la/mUC-attributed pain before enrollment, and no major surgery≤3 months prior to being interviewed. Interview participants were asked open-ended questions about their la/mUC symptoms and pain. "Think aloud" cognitive debriefing was conducted for the BPI-SF worst pain item. RESULTS: Ten participants with laUC and six (38%) with mUC were interviewed. First-line treatments included cisplatin (n = 14; 88%) or carboplatin (n = 2; 13%). The average past-week worst pain score (0-10 scale) was 6.2 (range, 3-10); seven (44%) participants reported severe pain (score≥7). Pain was most frequently reported in the back (n = 14; 88%) and/or pelvic/lower abdominal area (n = 10; 63%). Pain impacted all participants' physical and daily activities; 81% reported it impacted their overall quality of life. All participants interpreted and completed the BPI-SF worst pain item without difficulty; 15 (94%) reported it was relevant to their la/mUC experience. Participants understood the 24-hour recall period; most supported daily (n = 13; 81%) or weekly (n = 14; 88%) assessment, preferring electronic administration using their phone (n = 14; 88%). CONCLUSIONS: Pain attributed to la/mUC impacted physical and daily activities in all participants undergoing first-line treatment for la/mUC. Content validity was demonstrated for the BPI-SF worst pain item in this population.

Development of the Alopecia Areata Patient Priority Outcomes Instrument: A Qualitative Study.

INTRODUCTION: Although alopecia areata (AA) profoundly impacts patients' physical appearance, emotional state, and daily activities, no treatment approved for AA currently exists. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments currently used to capture patients' AA experiences do not meet the requirements to support claims of treatment benefit as described in the US Food and Drug Administration's 2009 PRO guidance. Our objective was to explore the consequences and priority treatment outcomes among individuals with AA and develop a PRO measure consistent with regulatory requirements that assesses these priorities and represents clinical benefit from the AA patient perspective. METHODS: Targeted literature and instrument reviews informed an initial concept set. Concept elicitation interviews with 20 adults with AA confirmed the relevance and importance of the initial concepts, identified additional relevant concepts, and informed an AA consequence model. Thematic analysis yielded a draft item pool, which was evaluated through two iterative rounds of cognitive debriefing interviews with 16 patients with AA (9 adults; 7 adolescents). RESULTS: Hair loss was the primary consequence of importance to patients with AA. Patients emphasized the need to differentiate hair loss by location: scalp, eyebrows, eyelashes, and body. Consequences of AA include difficulty conducting daily activities, particularly outdoor activities and exercise, and emotional impacts such as sadness, frustration, and negative self-image. Following cognitive debriefing interviews, 11 items were included to form the Alopecia Areata Patient Priority Outcome (AAPPO), assessing AA-related symptoms and impacts over the past week. CONCLUSIONS: The AAPPO is a novel, content-valid PRO that captures the consequences of AA of the highest priority to patients.

Psychometric evaluation of the DAILY EATS questionnaire in individuals living with obesity.

BACKGROUND: Physiological and behavioral factors including hunger, satiety, food intake, and cravings are health determinants contributing to obesity. Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures focused on eating-related factors provide insight into the relationships between food choice and quantity, weight change, and weight-loss treatment for individuals living with obesity. The DAILY EATS is a novel 5-item, patient-reported measure evaluating key eating-related factors (Worst and Average Hunger, Appetite, Cravings, and Satiety). METHODS: Psychometric analyses, consistent with regulatory standards, were conducted to evaluate the DAILY EATS using data from two randomized trials that included individuals with severe obesity without diabetes (NCT03486392) and with severe obesity and type 2 diabetes (NCT03586830). Additional measures included Patient Global Impression of Status (PGIS) and Patient Global Impression of Change items, Impact of Weight on Quality of Life-Lite, Ease of Weight Management, and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System Physical Function Short Form 8b and 10a. The reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the DAILY EATS were assessed, and a scoring algorithm and thresholds to interpret meaningful score changes were developed. RESULTS: Item-level analyses of the DAILY EATS supported computation of an Eating Drivers Index (EDI), comprising the related items Worst Hunger, Appetite, and Cravings. Internal consistency (Cronbach's coefficient alphas ≥0.80) and test-retest reliability (coefficients > 0.7) of the EDI were robust. Construct validity correlation patterns with other PRO measures were as hypothesized, with moderate to strong significant correlations between the EDI and PGIS-Hunger (0.30 ≤ r ≤ 0.68), PGIS-Cravings (0.33 ≤ r ≤ 0.77) and PGIS-Appetite (0.52 ≤ r ≤ 0.77). Anchor- and distribution-based analyses support reductions ranging from 1.6 to 2.1 as responder thresholds for the EDI, representing meaningful within-person improvement. CONCLUSIONS: The DAILY EATS individual items and the composite EDI are reliable, sensitive, and valid in evaluating the concepts of hunger, appetite, and cravings for use in individuals with severe obesity with or without type 2 diabetes.

Development of a Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Chronic Hypoparathyroidism.

INTRODUCTION: A patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure specific to chronic hypoparathyroidism is lacking to facilitate the evaluation of treatment. A PRO measure that followed the recommendations of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) PRO guidance was created to address key hypoparathyroidism symptoms. METHODS: A literature review was conducted to identify symptoms of hypoparathyroidism and any existing PRO measures appropriate for evaluating these symptoms, followed by concept elicitation interviews involving six individuals with hypoparathyroidism. On the basis of the results of the literature review and interviews, a draft item pool was developed and refined through two sets of cognitive debriefing interviews with six additional patients. A translatability assessment was also conducted to evaluate concepts, phrases, or components of the items that could be problematic in future translations and to identify culturally specific phrasing. RESULTS: No PRO measures appropriate to address hypoparathyroidism symptoms documented in the literature were identified. Qualitative research participants included 11 women and one man, with an average age of 49 years; the majority (10) of these participants were white. Concept elicitation interview results were generally consistent with the results of the literature review; the most commonly reported symptoms included issues with cognition, often described as "brain fog" (n = 6), muscle cramping (n = 5), tingling (n = 5), and muscle spasms or twitching (n = 4). The initial draft item pool included 20 items; based upon participant feedback, the final Hypoparathyroidism Symptom Diary comprised 13 items and was found to be easily understood and relevant to the participants. No significant issues were identified by the translatability assessment. CONCLUSION: The Hypoparathyroidism Symptom Diary was developed following the recommendations of the FDA's PRO guidance. The measure addresses a comprehensive set of symptoms, as well as key impacts of hypoparathyroidism deemed important by patients. FUNDING: Shire Human Genetic Therapies, Inc., Lexington, MA, USA, a member of the Takeda group of companies.

Psychometric evaluation of the hypoparathyroidism symptom diary.

PURPOSE: To conduct an initial psychometric evaluation of the reliability and validity of the Hypoparathyroidism Symptom Diary (HPT-SD). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were collected during a cross-sectional, observational study. Participants with self-reported hypoparathyroidism (HPT) completed the HPT-SD, the Functional Assessment in Cancer Therapy-Cognitive Function (FACT-Cog), the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue), and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) measures. Item- and scale-level internal consistency reliability, known-groups validity, and construct validity were evaluated. Subscales were identified and preliminary scoring algorithms were developed. RESULTS: The study included 52 participants (mean age, 51 years). Overall, the measurement properties of the HPT-SD were very good. Item-level response frequency distributions showed evidence of possible floor effects for four muscle-related symptom items. Inter-item correlations revealed a pattern of relationships among symptom items (r=0.3-0.8) and among impact items (r=0.5-0.7) and provided evidence for two HPT-SD subscales: Symptoms and Impacts. Construct validity correlations supported a priori convergent validity hypotheses (|r|≥0.4) between HPT-SD subscales and the FACT-Cog, FACIT-Fatigue, and HADS. Mean HPT-SD Symptom and Impact scores were in the expected direction and significantly different between subgroups of patients with high and low HPT disease severity. CONCLUSION: Results indicate that the HPT-SD is an appropriate measure of HPT-related symptoms and impacts. Floor effects may be attributed to the observational study design: participants manage symptoms with calcium and active vitamin D supplements prior to an escalation in severity. Future studies should assess the HPT-SD measurement properties using longitudinal study designs.

Nosebleeds in hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia: Development of a patient-completed daily eDiary.

OBJECTIVE: A prospective, qualitative study was conducted to develop a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) for daily administration via electronic diary (eDiary) to assess the severity of nosebleeds in patients with hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia (HHT), in accordance with Food and Drug Administration (FDA) PROM guidance criteria. METHODS: Three expert clinicians who treat patients with HHT provided input during instrument development, which comprised: 1) Peer-reviewed literature and instrument review; 2) Development of draft Nosebleed Diary items; 3a) Three rounds of qualitative interviews (two with a paper-based diary, one with an eDiary) with patients with documented severe epistaxis related to HHT, for concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing; 3b) Face validity and translatability assessment; 3c) Patient evaluation of the usability and acceptability of the eDiary device; and 4) Preparation of the final Nosebleed eDiary and conceptual framework. RESULTS: No existing instruments were identified that evaluate HHT-related nosebleed severity daily and meet FDA PROM guidance criteria. Frequency, duration, and/or speed of flow (i.e., intensity) were reported by most participants with HHT when asked to describe their nosebleed severity. The Nosebleed eDiary was refined based on 17 patient interviews, clinical expert input and the face validity and translatability assessment. The final four-item eDiary was acceptable to patients with HHT. CONCLUSION: The Nosebleed eDiary is "fit for purpose" to assess the severity of HHT-related nosebleeds, and has established face and content validity. Further adaptation may be required for use in mild or moderate HHT populations. Psychometric testing to evaluate construct validity and reliability are recommended next steps. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2c "Outcomes research".