Patient Global Impression of Benefit-Risk (PGI-BR): Incorporating Patients' Views of Clinical Benefit-Risk into Assessment of New Medicines.

INTRODUCTION: There is a need to understand how patients assess perceived benefits and risks of treatments. OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to (i) elucidate how patients evaluate treatment experiences and (ii) develop a brief patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument for use across disease areas for perceived benefit-risk evaluation of a new medicine in a clinical trial setting. METHODS: Concepts relating to patient-perceived benefit-risk were identified from literature reviews and qualitative concept elicitation interviews with patients across a variety of primary medical conditions. Draft instrument items were developed from identified concepts and evaluated for clarity, relevance and appropriateness of response options in cognitive interviews. Items were iteratively revised to address patient feedback. RESULTS: Qualitative interviews were conducted with 47 patients (primary condition: 20 oncological, 12 respiratory, 10 metabolic, 5 cardiovascular), of whom 32 contributed to concept elicitation and 42 to cognitive debriefing. Elicited concepts could be grouped into four medication-related categories: effectiveness of treatment, burden of side effects, convenience of use and overall acceptance/satisfaction. Cost, trial experience and altruism were additional concept categories unrelated to medication. The final instrument contained one item each on the medication's effectiveness, side effects and convenience, and an overall item capturing patient benefit-risk assessment. An upfront question was included to separate out non-medication aspects of patients' experiences. CONCLUSION: We developed a brief PRO instrument, the Patient Global Impression of Benefit-Risk (PGI-BR), which can be applied across disease areas to assess patient views of benefit-risk of a new medicine in the clinical trial setting.

Content validity and psychometric evaluation of the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue scale in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

PURPOSE: Fatigue is a prominent symptom in individuals with chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL). This work evaluates the content validity and psychometric properties of the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue scale (FACIT-Fatigue) in patients with CLL to determine if it is fit for purpose in CLL research. METHODS: The FACIT-Fatigue yields a 13-item total score from a five-item symptom subscale and an eight-item impact subscale. To evaluate content validity, cognitive debriefing interviews were conducted with 40 patients with CLL in the first-line or relapsed or refractory setting. Psychometric properties, including structural validity, internal consistency, construct and known-groups validity, were investigated using data from a phase 3 trial in relapsed or refractory CLL (NCT02970318). RESULTS: Interviewed patients considered the FACIT-Fatigue items relevant to their CLL experience, understood the terminology and agreed with response options. Confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the presence of symptom and impact subscales, but also supported unidimensionality of the FACIT-Fatigue. The FACIT-Fatigue total, symptom and impact subscales demonstrated good internal consistency (Cronbach's coefficient α > 0.85 and McDonald's omega ω > 0.90), and strong correlations with relevant EORTC QLQ-C30 scales (all Spearman's r ≥ 0.5). Known-groups validity was shown by significant differences between groups defined by baseline performance status, hemoglobin level and constitutional symptoms (all p < .0001). Cluster analysis supported FACIT-Fatigue score thresholds of 30 and 34 to define a severe fatigue population. CONCLUSIONS: Content validity and psychometric evaluation in patients with CLL demonstrated that the FACIT-Fatigue has good psychometric properties and is fit for purpose in CLL.

Development of a Conceptual Model of Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia to Better Understand the Patient Experience.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Understanding the patient experience is important for identifying the unmet need in chronic lymphocytic leukemia. The current study aimed to develop a comprehensive chronic lymphocytic leukemia conceptual model. METHODS: The conceptual model was based on literature searches, review of chronic lymphocytic leukemia patient blogs/forums, and interviews with five expert clinicians, with 20 patients who received at most one treatment (first line) for their chronic lymphocytic leukemia, and with 20 patients with relapsed or refractory chronic lymphocytic leukemia. De-identified interviews were transcribed, coded, and evaluated using qualitative data analysis software. RESULTS: Thirty-five prevalent chronic lymphocytic leukemia-related symptom and impact concepts were identified from literature searches, patient blogs/forums, and clinician interviews. Patient interviews confirmed the identified concepts and revealed five additional concepts. Fatigue-related sub-components were identified from how patients described their fatigue, covering symptoms (tiredness/need for sleep, lack of energy, weakness, cognitive fatigue), and impacts (decreased ability to maintain their social, familial, or professional role, decreased physical functioning, frustration). Three versions of the conceptual model were created: an overall model with all concepts; a model highlighting the most prominent concepts in first line; and a model highlighting the most prominent concepts in relapsed or refractory disease. Prominent concepts in both first line and relapsed or refractory disease were fatigue-related symptoms and impacts, muscle/joint aches, night sweats, bruising, fever, recurrent infections/illness, insomnia, decreased cognitive/emotional functioning, anxiety/worry, stress, depression, financial difficulty, and fear of death. Dyspnea and cough were prominent in first line only, and enlarged lymph nodes, headaches, pain/discomfort, weight loss, nausea/vomiting, and infusion reactions were prominent in relapsed or refractory disease only. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that fatigue is a dominant issue affecting patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia. The three versions of the conceptual model can help researchers to understand patients' unmet needs and guide the patient-reported outcome strategy for clinical trials.

"Lower abdominal pains, as if I was being squeezed in a clamp": A Qualitative Analysis of Symptoms, Patient-Perceived Side Effects and Impacts of Ovarian Cancer.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the patient's perception of their disease is vital for guiding care decisions. The current study aimed to identify the most predominant experiences in women diagnosed with, and treated for, ovarian cancer in terms of disease-related symptoms, treatment-attributed side effects and their impacts. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative interviews about disease-related symptoms, treatment-attributed side effects and their impacts were conducted with women who were being treated for ovarian cancer in Europe (n = 55) or in the USA (n = 9). The women were also asked to rate the bothersomeness of the symptoms, side effects and impacts that they mentioned during the interview. Symptoms, side effects and impacts were identified from coded interview transcripts using an iterative coding framework. RESULTS: Bloating, abdominal pain, tiredness and frequent urination were the most frequently expressed symptoms, and were reported by 72%, 67%, 64% and 55% of women, respectively, which together constituted approximately 30% of all symptom expressions. The most bothersome symptoms were reported as bloating, abdominal pain, pain in the side, tiredness and fatigue. The most frequently expressed side effects were hair loss, neuropathy, tiredness and nausea, which were reported by 84%, 63%, 61% and 61% of women, respectively. The most bothersome reported side effects were constipation, nausea, diarrhoea, pain in general, fatigue, weakness, reduced sleep quality and hair loss. Feelings of anxiety, concerns about the future, physical functioning, work limitations and the adoption of coping strategies were the most frequently expressed impacts and were reported by 72-80% of women. Impacts reported as the most difficult to deal with were concerns about the future, emotional difficulties in general, physical functioning, sexual functioning, negative self-image, fatigue, sleep difficulties, financial burden and work limitations. CONCLUSIONS: In our qualitative study, the most common and most bothersome experiences reported by women treated for ovarian cancer were symptoms of bloating, abdominal pain and tiredness; side effects of hair loss, nausea and tiredness/fatigue; and impacts relating to concerns about the future, physical functioning and work limitations. We suggest that clinicians measure these experiences consistently and take them into consideration when making treatment decisions.

Does recall period matter? Comparing PROMIS® physical function with no recall, 24-hr recall, and 7-day recall.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the influence of recall periods on the assessment of physical function, we compared, in cancer and general population samples, the standard administration of PROMIS Physical Function items without a recall period to administrations with 24-hour and 7-day recall periods. METHODS: We administered 31 items from the PROMIS Physical Function v2.0 item bank to 2400 respondents (n = 1001 with cancer; n = 1399 from the general population). Respondents were randomly assigned to one of three recall conditions (no recall, 24-hours, or 7-days) and one of two "reminder" conditions (with recall periods presented only at the start of the survey or with every item). We assessed items for potential differential item functioning (DIF) by recall time period. We then tested recall and reminder effects with analysis of variance controlling for demographics, English fluency, and co-morbidities. RESULTS: Based on conservative pre-set criteria, no items were flagged for recall time period-related DIF. Using analysis of variance, each condition was compared to the standard PROMIS administration for Physical Function (no recall period). There was no evidence of significant differences among groups in the cancer sample. In the general population sample, only the 24-hour recall condition with reminders was significantly different from the "no recall" PROMIS standard. At the item level, for both samples, the number of items with non-trivial effect size differences across conditions was minimal. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to no recall, the use of a recall period has little to no effect upon PROMIS physical function responses or scores. We recommend that PROMIS Physical Function be administered with the standard PROMIS "no recall" period.

Health-related quality of life and patient-centred outcomes with olaparib maintenance after chemotherapy in patients with platinum-sensitive, relapsed ovarian cancer and a BRCA1/2 mutation (SOLO2/ENGOT Ov-21): a placebo-controlled, phase 3 randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: In the phase 3 SOLO2 trial (ENGOT Ov-21), maintenance therapy with olaparib tablets significantly prolonged progression-free survival (primary endpoint) compared with placebo in patients with a germline BRCA1 or BRCA2 (BRCA1/2) mutation and platinum-sensitive, relapsed ovarian cancer who had received two or more lines of previous chemotherapy. The most common subjective adverse effects included fatigue, nausea, and vomiting, which were typically low grade and self-limiting. Our a-priori hypothesis was that maintenance olaparib would not negatively affect health-related quality of life (HRQOL) and additionally that the prolongation of progression-free survival with olaparib would be underpinned by additional patient-centred benefits. METHODS: In SOLO2, 196 patients were randomly assigned to olaparib tablets (300 mg twice daily) and 99 to placebo. Randomisation was stratified by response to previous chemotherapy (complete vs partial) and length of platinum-free interval (>6-12 vs >12 months). The prespecified primary HRQOL analysis evaluated the change from baseline in the Trial Outcome Index (TOI) score during the first 12 months of the study. To be assessable, patients had to have an evaluable score at baseline and at least one evaluable follow-up form. Secondary planned quality-of-life (QOL) analyses included the duration of good quality of life (defined as time without significant symptoms of toxicity [TWiST] and quality-adjusted progression-free survival [QAPFS]). Efficacy and QOL outcomes were analysed in all randomly assigned patients (the full analysis set), and safety outcomes were analysed in all randomly assigned patients who received at least one dose of study drug. This ongoing study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01874353, and is closed to new participants. FINDINGS: The adjusted average mean change from baseline over the first 12 months in TOI was -2·90 (95% CI -4·13 to -1·67) with olaparib and -2·87 (-4·64 to -1·10) with placebo (estimated difference -0·03; 95% CI -2·19 to 2·13; p=0·98). Mean QAPFS (13·96 [SD 10·96] vs 7·28 [5·22] months; difference 6·68, 95% CI 4·98-8·54) and mean duration of TWiST (15·03 [SD 12·79] vs 7·70 [6·42] months; difference 7·33, 95% CI 4·70-8·96) were significantly longer with olaparib than with placebo. INTERPRETATION: Olaparib maintenance therapy did not have a significant detrimental effect on HRQOL compared with placebo. There were clinically meaningful patient-centred benefits in both TWiST and QAPFS despite the adverse effects associated with olaparib. These patient-centred endpoints support the improvement in progression-free survival, the primary endpoint in SOLO2, and should be included in future trials of maintenance therapies. FUNDING: AstraZeneca.

Understanding polycystic ovary syndrome from the patient perspective: a concept elicitation patient interview study.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to explore the need for a new disease-specific patient reported outcome (PRO) measure for use in clinical trials of drugs designed to target the underlying causes of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), and in the process contribute to our understanding of the symptoms and impacts that define the patient experience with PCOS. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted in 20 women diagnosed with PCOS according to the Rotterdam criteria who had not menstruated in the previous month. The relative importance of PCOS symptoms and impact concepts to patients was determined by analyzing the frequency of their expression in the interview transcripts. These insights were compared to clinicians' perceptions of PCOS. RESULTS: Pain- and discomfort-related symptoms accounted for the highest proportion (27.6%) of the 735 patient expressions, although clinicians did not consider pain to be important to patients with PCOS. The most frequently expressed individual symptoms were cramping (70% of patients; 14.7% of concepts), irregular menstruation (95% of patients; 12.2% of concepts), facial hair growth (75% of patients; 10.6% of concepts), heavy bleeding (70% of patients; 8.8% of concepts), infertility (70% of patients; 5.4% of concepts), and bloating (60% of patients; 5.2% of concepts). Cramping, heavy bleeding, and bloating were not identified by clinicians as being important to patients with PCOS. The impacts most frequently reported by patients with PCOS related to emotional well-being (e.g. anxiety/stress) and coping behaviors (e.g. acne medication, hair removal). CONCLUSIONS: The only validated PCOS-specific PRO, the PCOSQ, does not capture some key PCOS symptoms and impacts expressed by patients with PCOS, most notably those related to pain and discomfort, bleeding intensity and coping behaviours. Furthermore, some key PCOS symptoms may be under-recognized in the clinic.

What Do Ovarian Cancer Patients Expect From Treatment?: Perspectives From an Online Patient Community.

BACKGROUND: Advances in ovarian cancer treatment have improved outcomes. However, the gap between patients' hopes and expectations and their actual outcomes remains an understudied aspect of treatment decision making. This gap has been noted to be a predictor of poorer health-related quality of life. Incorporating patient hopes and expectations for treatment into clinical care may improve patient experiences. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study is to describe the hopes and expectations of ovarian cancer patients at diagnosis and throughout treatment transitions. METHODS: This study sampled from an online community of patients with ovarian cancer. Thirty members completed an online qualitative survey about their diagnostic and treatment journey, including hopes and expectations around treatment. RESULTS: Initially, ovarian cancer patients hoped for a complete cure or removal of cancer. As they progressed through treatment, hopes and expectations centered on issues related to living with ovarian cancer. A subset of patients emphasized a lack of information about treatment side effects. CONCLUSIONS: The shift in expectations from survival to living with ovarian cancer may demonstrate an enhanced understanding of ovarian cancer prognosis as patients learn more about their condition. Patients underscored that a more involved discussion of side effect profiles with clinicians would enhance their treatment decision making and expectation setting process. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Expectation setting may be improved by contextualizing treatment in terms of the transitions ovarian cancer patients experience. Providing relevant information that aligns with patient needs, desires, and concerns at critical transitions may improve clinical care and decision making.

Patient-reported preferences for oral versus intravenous administration for the treatment of cancer: a review of the literature.

OBJECTIVE: The emergence of various modes of administration for cancer treatment, including oral administration, brings into focus the importance of patient preference for administration. The purpose of this research was to evaluate the administration preferences of cancer patients, specifically between oral and intravenous (IV) treatment, as well as the factors contributing to preference. METHODS: A literature search was conducted in OvidSP to identify research in which the preferences of cancer patients for oral or IV treatment have been evaluated. Data were analyzed in two stages: 1) those articles that directly compared preference between modes of administration were tallied to determine explicit preference for oral or IV treatment; and 2) all attributes associated with patient preference were documented. RESULTS: Of the 48 abstracts identified as part of the initial OvidSP search, eight articles were selected for full-text review. One article was removed following full-text review, and seven additional articles were identified through a gray literature search, yielding a total of 14 articles for evaluation. In Stage 1, 13 of the 14 articles compared preference, of which eleven articles (84.6%) reported that patients preferred oral treatment over IV, while two (15.4%) stated that cancer patients preferred IV treatment over oral. In Stage 2, the most frequently reported attributes contributing to preference included convenience, ability to receive treatment at home, treatment schedule, and side effects. DISCUSSION: Evidence suggests that oncology patients prefer oral treatment to IV. Rationale for preference was due to a number of factors, including convenience, perception of efficacy, and past experience. Further evaluation should be conducted, given the limited data on patient preference in oncology.