FARS-ADL across Ataxias: Construct Validity, Sensitivity to Change, and Minimal Important Change.

BACKGROUND: Patient-focused outcomes present a central need for trial-readiness across all ataxias. The Activities of Daily Living part of the Friedreich Ataxia Rating Scale (FARS-ADL) captures functional impairment and longitudinal change but is only validated in Friedreich Ataxia. OBJECTIVE: Validation of FARS-ADL regarding disease severity and patient-meaningful impairment, and its sensitivity to change across genetic ataxias. METHODS: Real-world registry data of FARS-ADL in 298 ataxia patients across genotypes were analyzed, including (1) cross-correlation with FARS-stage, Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (SARA), Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (PROM)-ataxia, and European Quality of Life 5 Dimensions visual analogue scale (EQ5D-VAS); (2) sensitivity to change within a trial-relevant 1-year median follow-up, anchored in Patient Global Impression of Change (PGI-C); and (3) general linear modeling of factors age, sex, and depression (nine-item Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-9]). RESULTS: FARS-ADL correlated with overall disability (rhoFARS-stage = 0.79), clinical disease severity (rhoSARA = 0.80), and patient-reported impairment (rhoPROM-ataxia = 0.69, rhoEQ5D-VAS = -0.37), indicating comprehensive construct validity. Also at item level, and validated within genotype (SCA3, RFC1), FARS-ADL correlated with the corresponding SARA effector domains; and all items correlated to EQ5D-VAS quality of life. FARS-ADL was sensitive to change at a 1-year interval, progressing only in patients with worsening PGI-C. Minimal important change was 1.1. points based on intraindividual variability in patients with stable PGI-C. Depression was captured using FARS-ADL (+0.3 points/PHQ-9 count) and EQ5D-VAS, but not FARS-stage or SARA. CONCLUSION: FARS-ADL reflects both disease severity and patient-meaningful impairment across genetic ataxias, with sensitivity to change in trial-relevant timescales in patients perceiving change. It thus presents a promising patient-focused outcome for upcoming ataxia trials. © 2024 The Authors. Movement Disorders published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of International Parkinson and Movement Disorder Society.

Content Validity of the Modified Functional Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (f-SARA) Instrument in Spinocerebellar Ataxia.

The functional Scale for the Assessment and Rating of Ataxia (f-SARA) assesses Gait, Stance, Sitting, and Speech. It was developed as a potentially clinically meaningful measure of spinocerebellar ataxia (SCA) progression for clinical trial use. Here, we evaluated content validity of the f-SARA. Qualitative interviews were conducted among individuals with SCA1 (n = 1) and SCA3 (n = 6) and healthcare professionals (HCPs) with SCA expertise (USA, n = 5; Europe, n = 3). Interviews evaluated symptoms and signs of SCA and relevance of f-SARA concepts for SCA. HCP cognitive debriefing was conducted. Interviews were recorded, transcribed, coded, and analyzed by ATLAS.TI software. Individuals with SCA1 and 3 reported 85 symptoms, signs, and impacts of SCA. All indicated difficulties with walking, stance, balance, speech, fatigue, emotions, and work. All individuals with SCA1 and 3 considered Gait, Stance, and Speech relevant f-SARA concepts; 3 considered Sitting relevant (42.9%). All HCPs considered Gait and Speech relevant; 5 (62.5%) indicated Stance was relevant. Sitting was considered a late-stage disease indicator. Most HCPs suggested inclusion of appendicular items would enhance clinical relevance. Cognitive debriefing supported clarity and comprehension of f-SARA. Maintaining current abilities on f-SARA items for 1 year was considered meaningful for most individuals with SCA1 and 3. All HCPs considered meaningful changes as stability in f-SARA score over 1-2 years, 1-2-point change in total f-SARA score, and deviation from natural history. These results support content validity of f-SARA for assessing SCA disease progression in clinical trials.

Psychometric evaluation of clinician- and caregiver-reported clinical severity assessments for individuals with CDKL5 deficiency disorder.

OBJECTIVE: The CDKL5 Clinical Severity Assessment (CCSA) is a comprehensive, content-validated measurement tool capturing the diverse challenges of cyclin-dependent kinase-like 5 (CDKL5) deficiency disorder (CDD), a genetically caused developmental epileptic encephalopathy (DEE). The CCSA is divided into clinician-reported (CCSA-Clinician) and caregiver-reported (CCSA-Caregiver) assessments. The aim of this study was to evaluate the factor structure of these measures through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and evaluate their validity and reliability. METHODS: Participants were recruited from the International CDKL5 Clinical Research Network to take part in an in-clinic CCSA-Clinician evaluation (n = 148) and/or complete the CCSA-Caregiver questionnaire (n = 198). CFA was used to determine domains, and factor loadings and validity were assessed. For the CCSA-Clinician, inter-rater reliability was assessed by nine CDD experienced clinicians via 14 pre-recorded evaluations. Eight clinicians re-viewed and re-scored the videos after 4 weeks to evaluate intra-rater reliability. The CCSA-Caregiver was completed on a second occasion by 34 caregivers after 2-4 weeks to assess test-retest reliability. RESULTS: CFA resulted in three domains for the CCSA-Clinician (motor and movement, communication, vision) and four domains for the CCSA-Caregiver (seizures, behavior, alertness, feeding), with good item loadings across both measures. Structural statistics, internal consistency, discriminant validity, and reliability were satisfactory for both measures, and scores were consistent between known groups. SIGNIFICANCE: This study provides strong evidence that the CCSA measures are suitable to assess the clinical severity of individuals with CDD, supporting their use in clinical trials. Further evaluation of responsiveness to change in a longitudinal assessment is planned. Use may also be appropriate in similar DEEs but would require validation in those populations.

Psychometric Evaluation of the Diary for Irritable Bowel Syndrome Symptoms-Constipation in a Prospective Observational Study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the psychometric properties of the Diary for Irritable Bowel Syndrome Symptoms-Constipation (DIBSS-C), which was developed to support primary and secondary endpoints in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) with predominant constipation (IBS-C) clinical trials. METHODS: Observational data were collected from 108 adults with IBS-C using a smartphone-type device for 17 days. DIBSS-C data regarding bowel movements (BMs) were collected for each event (along with the Bristol Stool Form Scale); abdominal symptoms were rated each evening. Global status items and the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale-IBS were completed on day 10 and day 17 and the IBS-Symptom Severity Scale on day 17. Item-level performance, internal consistency reliability, test-retest reliability, and construct validity were evaluated. RESULTS: The Abdominal Symptoms Domain score demonstrated high internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha week 1 = 0.98; week 2 = 0.96) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.93). Test-retest reliability was stronger for abdominal symptoms (ICC = 0.91-0.94) than for the frequency-based BM-related outcomes (ICC = 0.54-0.66). Key construct validity hypotheses were supported by moderate to strong correlations with the corresponding Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale-IBS, IBS-Symptom Severity Scale, and Bristol Stool Form Scale items. All known-groups comparisons were statistically significant for the abdominal symptom items and domain score; evidence for known-groups validity of BM-related outcomes was supportive when based on constipation severity. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study provided key psychometric evidence for the DIBSS-C, ultimately contributing to its qualification by the US Food and Drug Administration for use in IBS-C clinical trials.

Best Practices for the Electronic Implementation and Migration of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures.

While the use of electronic methods to collect patient-reported outcome data in clinical trials continues to increase, it remains the case that many patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) have originally been developed and validated on paper. Careful consideration during the move from paper PROMs to electronic format is required to preserve the integrity of the measure and ensure a "faithful migration." Relevant literature has long called out the importance of following migration best practices during this process; nevertheless, such best practices are distributed across multiple documents. This article consolidates and builds upon existing electronic PROM implementation best practice recommendations to provide a comprehensive, up-to-date, single point of reference. It reflects the current consensus based on the significant advances in technology capabilities and knowledge gleaned from the growing evidence base on electronic migration and implementation, to balance the need for maintaining the integrity of the measure while optimizing respondent usability. It also specifies whether the practice is rooted in evidence or expert consensus, to enable those using these best practices to make informed and considered decisions when conducting migration.

Development of a functional outcome measure for riboflavin transporter deficiency.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Riboflavin transporter deficiency (RTD) is a progressive inherited neuropathy of childhood onset, characterised clinically by pontobulbar palsy, sensory ataxia, sensorineural deafness, muscle weakness, optic atrophy and respiratory failure. A robust and responsive functional outcome measure is essential for future clinical trials of disease-modifying therapies including genetic therapies. The Charcot-Marie-Tooth disease Pediatric Scale (CMTPedS) is a well-validated outcome measure for CMT and related neuropathies, and might have utility for measuring disease progression in individuals with RTD. However, the CMTPedS requires modifications to account for phenotypic differences between children with CMT and RTD. The aim of this study was to develop a functional outcome measure based on the CMTPedS for specific use in individuals with RTD. METHODS: The CMTPedS data collected over the last 10 years in individuals with RTD attending the Peripheral Neuropathy Management Clinic at the Children's Hospital at Westmead (Sydney, Australia) were reviewed to evaluate each item within the CMTPedS. A literature review of articles published until September 2021 for functional outcome measures generated an item pool for pilot testing. The results of this pilot testing, alongside analysis of existing CMTPedS item scores in the RTD cohort, informed the modification of the CMTPedS. RESULTS: CMTPedS data were reviewed for eight individuals over the past 10 years. Two items were identified as requiring modification or removal and additional items of proximal strength and function needed to be considered. Six studies were identified in the literature review, and five items were selected for pilot testing. 'Shoulder internal rotation' and the '30-s sit to stand test' were added as proximal measures of strength and function. The composite balance item comprising nine tasks in the CMTPedS showed a ceiling effect and was replaced with the single 'Feet apart on a line eyes open' balance item. 'Pinprick sensation' was removed due to a floor effect. INTERPRETATION: This study provides preliminary evidence that the Riboflavin Transporter Deficiency Pediatric Scale (RTDPedS) is a functional outcome measure covering strength, upper and lower limb function, balance and mobility for individuals with RTD to assess disease severity and progression in clinical trials and cohort studies.

A framework for best practices in clinical outcome assessment (COA) concept mapping: a case study.

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.

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 study­in which items from the SF-36v2^® Health Survey were mapped to concepts from a systematic review of knee osteoarthritis symptoms and impacts­shows 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.

Patient adherence and response time in electronic patient-reported outcomes: insights from three longitudinal clinical trials.

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.

Patient experiences in ulcerative colitis: conceptual model and review of patient-reported outcome measures.

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.

How to select and understand guidelines for patient-reported outcomes: a scoping review of existing guidance.

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.

"TiC-TUG": technology in clinical practice using the instrumented timed up and go test-a scoping review.

Digitized assessments have a considerable potential to guide clinicial decision making and monitor progress and disease trajectories. The Timed Up and Go test (TUG) has been long established for assessment in geriatric medicine and instrumented versions (iTUG) have been developed and validated. This scoping review includes studies that applied the iTUG and aims to identify use cases to show where and how iTUG assessment could guide interventions and clinical management. The literature search was limited to peer-reviewed studies that performed pre- and post-intervention measurements with a 3-meter TUG instrumented with body-worn technology in samples of at least 20 subjects aged 60+ years. Of 3018 identified articles 20 were included. Four clinical use cases were identified: stratification for subsequent therapy, monitoring of disease or treatment-associated changes and evaluation of interventions in patients with idiopathic normal pressure hydrocephalus (1), and patients with Parkinson's disease (2); monitoring after joint replacement surgery (3), and evaluation after different exercise and rehabilitation interventions (4). The included studies show diversity in terms of iTUG technology and procedures. The identified use cases highlight clinical relevance and high potential for the clinical application of the iTUG. A consensual approach as well as comprehensive reporting would help to further exploit the potential of the iTUG to support clinical management. Future studies should investigate the benefits of segmental iTUG analysis, responsiveness and participants' perspectives on clinically meaningful changes in iTUG.

Consensus Recommendations for Clinical Outcome Assessments and Registry Development in Ataxias: Ataxia Global Initiative (AGI) Working Group Expert Guidance.

To accelerate and facilitate clinical trials, the Ataxia Global Initiative (AGI) was established as a worldwide research platform for trial readiness in ataxias. One of AGI's major goals is the harmonization and standardization of outcome assessments. Clinical outcome assessments (COAs) that describe or reflect how a patient feels or functions are indispensable for clinical trials, but similarly important for observational studies and in routine patient care. The AGI working group on COAs has defined a set of data including a graded catalog of COAs that are recommended as a standard for future assessment and sharing of clinical data and joint clinical studies. Two datasets were defined: a mandatory dataset (minimal dataset) that can ideally be obtained during a routine clinical consultation and a more demanding extended dataset that is useful for research purposes. In the future, the currently most widely used clinician-reported outcome measure (ClinRO) in ataxia, the scale for the assessment and rating of ataxia (SARA), should be developed into a generally accepted instrument that can be used in upcoming clinical trials. Furthermore, there is an urgent need (i) to obtain more data on ataxia-specific, patient-reported outcome measures (PROs), (ii) to demonstrate and optimize sensitivity to change of many COAs, and (iii) to establish methods and evidence of anchoring change in COAs in patient meaningfulness, e.g., by determining patient-derived minimally meaningful thresholds of change.

The Facioscapulohumeral Muscular Dystrophy-Health Index: Development and evaluation of a disease-specific outcome measure.

INTRODUCTION/AIMS: As promising therapeutic interventions are tested among patients with facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy (FSHD), there is a clear need for valid and reliable outcome tools to track disease progression and therapeutic gain in clinical trials and for clinical monitoring. Our aim was to develop and validate the Facioscapulohumeral Muscular Dystrophy-Health Index (FSHD-HI) as a multifaceted patient-reported outcome measure (PRO) designed to measure disease burden in adults with FSHD. METHODS: Through initial interviews with 20 individuals and a national cross-sectional study with 328 individuals with FSHD, we identified the most prevalent and impactful symptoms in FSHD. The most relevant symptoms were included in the FSHD-HI. We used patient interviews, test-retest reliability evaluation, known groups validity testing, and factor analysis to evaluate and optimize the FSHD-HI. RESULTS: The FSHD-HI contains 14 subscales that measure FSHD disease burden from the patient's perspective. Fourteen adults with FSHD participated in semistructured beta interviews and found the FSHD-HI to be clear, usable, and relevant to them. Thirty-two adults with FSHD participated in test-retest reliability assessments, which demonstrated the high reliability of the FSHD-HI total score (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.924). The final FSHD-HI and its subscales also demonstrated a high internal consistency (Cronbach α = 0.988). DISCUSSION: The FSHD-HI provides researchers and clinicians with a reliable and valid mechanism to measure multifaceted disease burden in patients with FSHD. The FSHD-HI may facilitate quantification of therapeutic effectiveness, as demonstrated by its use as a secondary and exploratory measure in several clinical trials.

Approaches to the Assessment of Clinical Benefit of Treatments for Conditions That Have Heterogeneous Symptoms and Impacts: Potential Applications in Rare Disease.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluating the clinical benefit of interventions for conditions with heterogeneous symptom and impact presentations is challenging. The same condition can present differently across and within individuals over time. This occurs frequently in rare diseases. The purpose of this review was to identify (1) assessment approaches used in clinical trials to address heterogeneous manifestations that could be relevant in rare disease research and (2) US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved labeling claims that used these approaches. METHODS: A targeted literature review was conducted examining peer-reviewed publications and FDA-approved labeling claims from January 2002 to July 2020, focusing on claims incorporating clinical outcome assessments. Approaches were then assessed for their potential application in rare diseases. RESULTS: A total of 6 assessment approaches were identified: composite or other multicomponent endpoints, multidomain responder index, most bothersome symptom (MBS), goal attainment scaling, sliding dichotomy, and adequate relief. A total of 59 FDA-approved labeling claims associated with these approaches were identified: composite or other multicomponent endpoints (n=49), MBS (n=9), and adequate relief (n=1). A total of 10 FDA-approved labeling claims, all using multicomponent endpoints, were identified for rare diseases. CONCLUSIONS: Multicomponent, MBS, and adequate relief have been included in FDA-approved labeling claims. Multicomponent endpoints, including composite endpoints, were the most frequent way to address heterogeneous manifestations of both common and rare diseases. MBS may be acceptable to regulators, whereas multidomain responder index is unlikely to be. The goal attainment scaling and adequate relief approaches may have potential utility in rare disease trials, assuming the theoretical and statistical challenges inherent in each approach are managed.

Deriving Meaningful Aspects of Health Related to Physical Activity in Chronic Disease: Concept Elicitation Using Machine Learning-Assisted Coding of Online Patient Conversations.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical outcome assessment (COA) developers must ensure that measures assess aspects of health that are meaningful to the target patient population. Although the methodology for doing this is well understood for certain COAs, such as patient-reported outcome measures, there are fewer examples of this practice in the development of digital endpoints using mobile sensor technology such as physical activity monitors. This study explored the utility of social media data, specifically, posts on online health boards, in understanding meaningful aspects of health related to physical activity in 3 different chronic diseases: fibromyalgia, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and chronic heart failure. METHODS: We used machine learning and manual coding to summarize the content of posts extracted from 4 online health boards. Where available, patient age and sex were retrieved from post content or user profiles. We utilized analytical approaches to assess the robustness of findings to differences in the characteristics of online samples compared to the true patient population. Finally, we assessed concept saturation by measuring the convergence of autocorrelations. RESULTS: We identify a number of aspects of health described as important by patients in our samples, and summarize these into concepts for measurement. For chronic heart failure, these included purposeful walking duration and speed, fatigue, difficulty going upstairs, standing, and aspects of physical exercise. Overall and age-adjusted results did not differ considerably for each disease group. CONCLUSIONS: This study illustrates the potential of performing concept elicitation research using social media data, which may provide valuable insight to inform COA development.

Updated Recommendations on Evidence Needed to Support Measurement Comparability Among Modes of Data Collection for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: A Good Practices Report of an ISPOR Task Force.

The ISPOR Task Force on measurement comparability between modes of data collection for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) has updated the good practice recommendations from the 2009 ISPOR electronic patient-reported outcome and 2014 patient-reported outcome mixed modes Good Research Practices Task Force reports in light of accumulated evidence of measurement comparability among different modes of PROM data collection. Furthermore, with the increasing use of electronic formats of clinical outcome assessments in clinical trials and the US Food and Drug Administration's encouragement of electronic data collection, this new task force report provides stakeholders with best practice recommendations reflecting the current body of evidence and enables them to respond to future developments in research and technology. This task force recommends an evidence-based approach to determine whether new research is needed to evaluate measurement comparability for a given questionnaire or technology. The suitability of existing evidence depends upon whether it satisfactorily demonstrates that the change in data collection mode has not affected the PROM's measurement properties. In cases where sufficient evidence of measurement comparability exists and best practices for faithful migration are followed, this task force concludes that further testing of measurement comparability among the data collection modes is unnecessary, including cases of "mixing modes" within clinical trials such as bring your own device designs.

Best Practice Recommendations for Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Dataset Structure and Standardization to Support Drug Development.

The electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) Dataset Structure and Standardization Project is a multistakeholder initiative formed by Critical Path Institute's PRO Consortium and Electronic Clinical Outcome Assessment (eCOA) Consortium to address issues related to ePRO dataset structure and standardization and to provide best practice recommendations for clinical trial sponsors and eCOA providers. Given the many benefits of utilizing electronic modes to capture PRO data, clinical trials are increasingly using these methods, yet there are challenges to using data generated by eCOA systems. Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium (CDISC) standards are used in clinical trials to ensure consistency in data collection, tabulation, and analysis and to facilitate regulatory submission. Currently, ePRO data are not required to follow a standard model, and the data models used often vary by eCOA provider and sponsor. This lack of consistency creates risks for programming and analysis and difficulties for analytics functions generating the required analysis and submission datasets. There is a disconnect between data standards used for study data submission and those used for data collection via case report forms and ePRO forms, which would be mitigated through the application of CDISC standards for ePRO data capture and transfer. The project was formed to collate and examine the issues arising from the lack of adoption of standardized approaches and this paper details recommendations to address those issues. Recommendations to address issues with ePRO dataset structure and standardization include adopting CDISC standards in the ePRO data platform, timely involvement of key stakeholders, ensuring ePRO controls are implemented, addressing issues of missing data early in development, ensuring quality control and validation of ePRO datasets, and use of read-only datasets.

International Society for Quality of Life Research commentary on the US Food and Drug Administration draft guidance for industry on core patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials.

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.

The challenges inherent with anchor-based approaches to the interpretation of important change in clinical outcome assessments.

PURPOSE: Anchor-based methods are group-level approaches used to derive clinical outcome assessment (COA) interpretation thresholds of meaningful within-patient change over time for understanding impacts of disease and treatment. The methods explore the associations between change in the targeted concept of the COA measure and the concept measured by the external anchor(s), typically a global rating, chosen as easier to interpret than the COA measure. While they are valued for providing plausible interpretation thresholds, group-level anchor-based methods pose a number of inherent theoretical and methodological conundrums for interpreting individual-level change. METHODS: This investigation provides a critical appraisal of anchor-based methods for COA interpretation thresholds and details key biases in anchor-based methods that directly influences the magnitude of the interpretation threshold. RESULTS: Five important research issues inherent with the use of anchor-based methods deserve attention: (1) global estimates of change are consistently biased toward the present state; (2) the use of static current state global measures, while not subject to artifacts of recall, may exacerbate the problem of estimating clinically meaningful change; (3) the specific anchor assessment response(s) that identify the meaningful change group usually involves an arbitrary judgment; (4) the calculated interpretation thresholds are sensitive to the proportion of patients who have improved; and (5) examination of anchor-based regression methods reveals that the correlation between the COA change scores and the anchor has a direct linear relationship to the magnitude of the interpretation threshold derived using an anchor-based approach; stronger correlations yielding larger interpretation thresholds. CONCLUSIONS: While anchor-based methods are recognized for their utility in deriving interpretation thresholds for COAs, attention to the biases associated with estimation of the threshold using these methods is needed to progress in the development of standard-setting methodologies for COAs.

Meaningful within-patient change for clinical outcome assessments: model-based approach versus cumulative distribution functions.

OBJECTIVES: The FDA recommends the use of anchor-based methods and empirical cumulative distribution function (eCDF) curves to establish a meaningful within-patient change (MWPC) for a clinical outcome assessment (COA). In practice, the estimates obtained from model-based methods and eCDF curves may not closely align, although an anchor is used with both. To help interpret their results, we investigated and compared these approaches. METHODS: Both repeated measures model (RMM) and eCDF approaches were used to estimate an MWPC on a target COA. We used both real-life (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02697773) and simulated data sets that included 688 patients with up to six visits per patient, target COA (range 0 to 10), and an anchor measure on patient global assessment of osteoarthritis from 1 (very good) to 5 (very poor). Ninety-five percent confidence intervals for the MWPC were calculated by the bootstrap method. RESULTS: The distribution of the COA score changes affected the degree of concordance between RMM and eCDF estimates. The COA score changes from simulated normally distributed data led to greater concordance between the two approaches than did COA score changes from the actual clinical data. The confidence intervals of MWPC estimate based on eCDF methods were much wider than that by RMM methods, and the point estimate of eCDF methods varied noticeably across visits. CONCLUSIONS: Our data explored the differences of model-based methods over eCDF approaches, finding that the former integrates more information across a diverse range of COA and anchor scores and provides more precise estimates for the MWPC.