Acute pain pathways: protocol for a prospective cohort study.

INTRODUCTION: Opioid analgesics are often used to treat moderate-to-severe acute non-cancer pain; however, there is little high-quality evidence to guide clinician prescribing. An essential element to developing evidence-based guidelines is a better understanding of pain management and pain control among individuals experiencing acute pain for various common diagnoses. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This multicentre prospective observational study will recruit 1550 opioid-naïve participants with acute pain seen in diverse clinical settings including primary/urgent care, emergency departments and dental clinics. Participants will be followed for 6 months with the aid of a patient-centred health data aggregating platform that consolidates data from study questionnaires, electronic health record data on healthcare services received, prescription fill data from pharmacies, and activity and sleep data from a Fitbit activity tracker. Participants will be enrolled to represent diverse races and ethnicities and pain conditions, as well as geographical diversity. Data analysis will focus on assessing patients' patterns of pain and opioid analgesic use, along with other pain treatments; associations between patient and condition characteristics and patient-centred outcomes including resolution of pain, satisfaction with care and long-term use of opioid analgesics; and descriptive analyses of patient management of leftover opioids. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study has received approval from IRBs at each site. Results will be made available to participants, funders, the research community and the public. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04509115.

Advancing Therapeutic Development for Pulmonary Morbidities Associated with Preterm Birth.

Chronic pulmonary and respiratory conditions associated with preterm birth are incompletely characterized, complicating long-term treatment and development of more effective therapies. Stakeholders face challenges in the development of validated, clinically meaningful endpoints that adequately measure morbidities and predict or represent health outcomes for preterm neonates. We propose in this paper a research agenda, informed by the input of experts from a 2018 workshop we convened on this topic, to advance endpoint and treatment development. We discuss the necessity of further evaluation of existing endpoints and the improved characterization of disease endotypes. We also discuss key steps to the development of optimized short- and long-term endpoints that can be linked to meaningful health outcomes. Finally, we discuss the importance of limiting variability in data collection and the application of new clinical trial endpoints as well as the critical nature of multi-stakeholder collaboration to advancing therapeutic development for this vulnerable patient population.

Public-private partnerships in transplant drug development.

The Transplant Therapeutics Consortium (TTC), a public-private partnership (PPP) led by the Critical Path Institute (C-Path), recently published a whitepaper titled "The Importance of Drug Safety and Tolerability in the Development of New Immunosuppressive Therapy for Transplant Recipients" by Stegall et al in the American Journal of Transplantation. As staff members of the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA), Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Office of New Drugs and Office of Translational Science, and the Oncology Center of Excellence, we would like to provide our perspective on the TTCs efforts and the whitepaper.

Use of PRO Measures to Inform Tolerability in Oncology Trials: Implications for Clinical Review, IND Safety Reporting, and Clinical Site Inspections.

Cancer therapeutics frequently lead to symptomatic adverse events (AE) that can affect treatment tolerability. The NCI has developed the Patient-Reported Outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE) to assess symptomatic AEs by direct patient self-report. Although longitudinal assessment of patient-reported symptomatic AEs holds promise to better inform treatment tolerability, using patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures to assess symptomatic AEs has raised several regulatory and good clinical practice issues among those who conduct cancer clinical trials. These include concerns regarding trial monitoring, clinical review of PRO results by investigators and delegated clinical staff, whether PRO data on symptomatic AEs require investigational new drug (IND) safety reporting, and how the trial conduct and resultant PRO data will be assessed during clinical investigator site inspections. This article addresses current thinking regarding these issues in cancer clinical trials from the FDA, the NCI, and the Office for Human Research Protections. PRO measures, such as PRO-CTCAE, that assess symptomatic AEs in cancer trials are considered similar to other PRO assessments of symptoms, function, and health-related quality of life and can generate complementary data that may inform tolerability. Clarity on operational concerns related to incorporating PRO measures to inform tolerability is critical to continue the advancement of rigorous PRO assessment in cancer clinical trials. Clin Cancer Res; 24(8); 1780-4. ©2017 AACRSee related commentary by Nipp and Temel, p. 1777.

Development of a harmonized patient-reported outcome questionnaire to assess myelofibrosis symptoms in clinical trials.

Along with reducing spleen size, relieving symptom severity is a key objective of the treatment of myelofibrosis (MF). Several questionnaires have been developed for patient self-report of MF symptoms in clinical trials and each includes unique instructions, items, and/or response scales. This variability in questionnaire content increases uncertainty; it is unclear which questionnaire is the most appropriate for assessing MF symptoms and it makes comparisons across trials difficult. The Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Consortium's MF Working Group (WG) was established to review existing MF symptom questionnaires and to develop a harmonized, consensus-based PRO questionnaire for use in future MF trials. The WG focused on the seven core symptoms of MF: fatigue, night sweats, pruritus, abdominal discomfort, pain under the ribs on the left side, early satiety, and bone pain. The resulting Myelofibrosis Symptom Assessment Form version 4.0 (MFSAF v4.0) asks respondents to report symptom severity at its worst for each of the seven items on a 0 (Absent) to 10 (Worst Imaginable) numeric rating scale. The MFSAF v4.0, for which there are 24-h and 7-day recall formats, will be maintained and licensed by the Critical Path Institute and made publicly available for use in future clinical trials.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration Approval: Cabozantinib for the Treatment of Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma.

On April 25, 2016, the FDA approved cabozantinib (Cabometyx; Exelixis, Inc.) for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) in patients who have received prior antiangiogenic therapy. The approval was based on data from one randomized, open-label, multicenter study in which patients with RCC who had received prior antiangiogenic therapy were treated with either cabozantinib 60 mg orally once daily (n = 330) or everolimus 10 mg orally once daily (n = 328). The major efficacy outcome measure was progression-free survival (PFS) as assessed by a blinded independent radiology review committee in the first 375 randomized patients. A statistically significant improvement in PFS was seen, with a median PFS of 7.4 and 3.8 months in the cabozantinib and everolimus arms, respectively [hazard ratio (HR), 0.58; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.45-0.74; P < 0.0001]. At a second interim analysis, a statistically significant improvement in overall survival (OS) in the intent-to-treat population was also demonstrated, with a median OS of 21.4 and 16.5 months in the cabozantinib and everolimus arms, respectively (HR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.53-0.83; P = 0.0003). The most common (greater than or equal to 25%) adverse reactions included diarrhea, fatigue, nausea, decreased appetite, palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia syndrome, hypertension, vomiting, weight loss, and constipation. Clin Cancer Res; 23(2); 330-5. ©2016 AACR.

Focusing on Core Patient-Reported Outcomes in Cancer Clinical Trials: Symptomatic Adverse Events, Physical Function, and Disease-Related Symptoms.

Cancer clinical trials have relied on overall survival and measures of tumor growth or reduction to assess the efficacy of a drug. However, benefits are often accompanied by significant symptomatic toxicities. The degree to which a therapy improves disease symptoms and introduces symptomatic toxicity affects how patients function in their daily lives. These concepts are important contributors to health-related quality of life (HRQOL). In this article, we discuss patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessment in cancer trials and challenges relying solely on static multi-item HRQOL instruments. We propose focusing on three separate measures of well-defined concepts: symptomatic adverse events, physical function, and disease-related symptoms, which are key contributors to the effect of a therapy on HRQOL. Separate measures of these three concepts may facilitate the incorporation of emerging contemporary instruments that can tailor the PRO assessment strategy to different trial contexts. Irrespective of the PRO measures used, continued improvement in trial design and conduct is crucial to decrease missing data and optimize the quality of PRO information. International stakeholder collaboration and continued research into optimal practices for PRO and other clinical outcome assessments are necessary to advance a common framework for generating and reporting rigorous patient-centered data from cancer clinical trials.

Clinical outcome assessments in neuro-oncology: a regulatory perspective.

Overall survival, progression-free survival, and to a lesser extent objective response rate, have long been the most widely accepted endpoints used to evaluate clinical benefit in oncology trials. More recently, clinical outcome assessments (COAs) that measure the impact of disease and treatment on patients' symptoms and function have been recognized as having potential to be an integral component of the risk/benefit analysis of new therapies. Although COAs have been used to evaluate cognitive and physical functioning in neurological diseases, assessing patient-centered outcomes in individuals with malignant brain tumors presents unique challenges. The approach to developing appropriate instruments to measure COAs in neuro-oncology should include identifying areas requiring new tools, reviewing existing tools that may be suitable or adapted for use in clinical trials, and engaging early with regulatory agencies to standardize a set of well-defined and reliable instruments to quantify important patient-centered outcomes.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Cancer Drug Development and US Regulatory Review: Perspectives From Industry, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Patient.

Data reported directly by patients about how they feel and function are rarely included in oncology drug labeling in the United States, in contrast to Europe and to nononcology labeling in the United States, where this practice is more common. Multiple barriers exist, including challenges unique to oncology trials, and industry's concerns regarding cost, logistical complexities, and the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) rigorous application of its 2009 guidance on the use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. A panel consisting of representatives of industry, FDA, the PRO Consortium, clinicians, and patients was assembled at a 2014 workshop cosponsored by FDA to identify practical recommendations for overcoming these barriers. Key recommendations included increasing proactive encouragement by FDA to clinical trial sponsors for including PROs in drug development programs; provision of comprehensive PRO plans by sponsors to FDA early in drug development; promotion of an oncology-specific PRO research agenda; development of an approach to existing ("legacy") PRO measures, when appropriate (focused initially on symptoms and functional status); and increased FDA and industry training in PRO methodology. FDA has begun implementing several of these recommendations.

Well-defined and reliable clinical outcome assessments for pediatric Crohn disease: a critical need for drug development.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the present study was to identify areas for further development of clinical outcome assessment (COA) in pediatric Crohn disease (CD). METHODS: The study analyzed the measurement properties of all existing COA tools for pediatric CD in literature and published registration trials of approved drugs for pediatric CD based on criteria described in Food and Drug Administration guidance for patient-reported outcome (PRO) development. RESULTS: The Pediatric Crohn's Disease Activity Index (PCDAI) and its derivatives (abbreviated, short, modified, and weighted PCDAIs) were reviewed. The Crohn's Disease Activity Index (CDAI) and Harvey-Bradshaw index (HBI), designed for adult patients, have been adapted for use in a few pediatric CD studies. The use of PCDAI as an endpoint in Remicade and Humira trials led to the Food and Drug Administration-approved indication in pediatric CD. Common issues in measurement properties of COA tools included the absence of direct patient or caregivers' input to generate the items measuring signs and symptoms; absence of evidence demonstrating correlation with clinically relevant inflammation observed with endoscopic measures; lack of standardization in measurement, age-appropriate interviewer script, and response rating criteria for the physician interviewer. CONCLUSIONS: Available evidence indicates that CDAI, HBI, and 5 versions of the PCDAI lack adequate measurement properties for use as a primary endpoint for phase 3 trials intended to support approval of products intended to treat pediatric CD. In order to facilitate pediatric drug development, a well-defined, reliable, sensitive, and globally recognized PRO that measures signs and symptoms in children with CD and that can be used in conjunction with endoscopy-based endpoints and/or biomarkers is sorely needed.

Pain palliation measurement in cancer clinical trials: the US Food and Drug Administration perspective.

BACKGROUND: Pain palliation resulting from antitumor therapy provides direct evidence of treatment benefit when combined with evidence of antitumor activity. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) previously issued guidance regarding the use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures to support labeling claims. The purpose of this article is to identify common challenges and key design strategies when measuring pain palliation in antitumor therapy clinical trials that are consistent with PRO Guidance principles. METHODS: Antitumor clinical protocols submitted to the FDA between 1995 and 2012 that included pain palliation as a primary or secondary endpoint were reviewed. Challenges in critical trial design components were identified. Design strategies consistent with PRO Guidance principles are proposed. RESULTS: The challenges identified were measurement of pain intensity and analgesic use, enrollment eligibility criteria, data collection methods, responder definitions, missing data, and blinding. Strategies included the use of well-defined, reliable, PRO assessments of pain intensity and analgesics; ensuring that enrollment criteria define patients with clinically significant pain attributable to cancer on an optimal analgesic regimen; defining responders using both pain and analgesic use criteria; incorporating an analysis of tumor response to support evidence of pain response; and minimizing missing data and inadvertent unblinding. CONCLUSIONS: Improvement in cancer-related pain resulting from antitumor therapy is an important treatment benefit that can support drug approval and labeling claims when adequately measured if study results demonstrate statistically and clinically significant findings. Sponsors are encouraged to discuss pain palliation assessment methods with the FDA early in and throughout product development.

Discrepancies between registered and published primary outcome specifications in analgesic trials: ACTTION systematic review and recommendations.

The National Institutes of Health released the trial registry ClinicalTrials.gov in 2000 to increase public reporting and clinical trial transparency. This systematic review examined whether registered primary outcome specifications (POS; ie, definitions, timing, and analytic plans) in analgesic treatment trials correspond with published POS. Trials with accompanying publications (n = 87) were selected from the Repository of Registered Analgesic Clinical Trials (RReACT) database of all postherpetic neuralgia, diabetic peripheral neuropathy, and fibromyalgia clinical trials registered at ClinicalTrials.gov as of December 1, 2011. POS never matched precisely; discrepancies occurred in 79% of the registry-publication pairs (21% failed to register or publish primary outcomes [PO]). These percentages did not differ significantly between industry and non-industry-sponsored trials. Thirty percent of the trials contained unambiguous POS discrepancies (eg, omitting a registered PO from the publication, "demoting" a registered PO to a published secondary outcome), with a statistically significantly higher percentage of non-industry-sponsored than industry-sponsored trials containing unambiguous POS discrepancies. POS discrepancies due to ambiguous reporting included vaguely worded PO registration; or failing to report the timing of PO assessment, statistical analysis used for the PO, or method to address missing PO data. At best, POS discrepancies may be attributable to insufficient registry requirements, carelessness (eg, failing to report PO assessment timing), or difficulty uploading registry information. At worst, discrepancies could indicate investigator impropriety (eg, registering imprecise PO ["pain"], then publishing whichever pain assessment produced statistically significant results). Improvements in PO registration, as well as journal policies requiring consistency between registered and published PO descriptions, are needed.

Guillain-Barré and Miller Fisher syndromes occurring with tumor necrosis factor alpha antagonist therapy.

OBJECTIVE: Diverse neurologic syndromes have been described in association with tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFalpha) antagonist therapy for inflammatory arthritides and Crohn's disease. The objective of this study was to review the occurrence and clinical features of Guillain-Barré syndrome and its variant, the Miller Fisher syndrome, during TNFalpha antagonist therapy. METHODS: The postmarketing database of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was searched, following our experience with a patient with rheumatoid arthritis in whom the Miller Fisher syndrome variant of the Guillain-Barré syndrome developed while he was receiving infliximab therapy. RESULTS: Our index patient had a neurologic illness defined initially by ataxia and dysarthria, which fluctuated in relation to each subsequent infliximab infusion and, after 6 months, culminated in areflexic flaccid quadriplegia. In addition, 15 patients in whom Guillain-Barré syndrome developed following TNFalpha antagonist therapy were identified from the FDA database. Guillain-Barré syndrome developed following infliximab therapy in 9 patients, following etanercept therapy in 5 patients, and following adalimumab therapy in 1 patient. Among the 13 patients for whom followup data were available, 1 patient experienced no resolution, 9 patients had partial resolution, and 3 patients had complete resolution of Guillain-Barré syndrome following therapy. CONCLUSION: An association of Guillain-Barré syndrome with TNFalpha antagonist therapy is supported by the worsening of neurologic symptoms that occurred in our index patient following each infusion of infliximab, and by the temporal association of this syndrome with TNFalpha antagonist therapy in 15 other patients. An acute or subacute demyelinating polyneuropathy should be considered a potential adverse effect of TNFalpha antagonist therapy.

Neurothekeoma: report of a case in an infant and review of the literature.

Neurothekeomas (nerve sheath myxomas) are uncommon benign tumors of nerve sheath origin. We describe an infant with a neurothekeoma and review the literature of neurothekeomas in children and adults. Neurothekeomas have been reported in 292 patients whose ages have ranged from 15 months to 84 years. They occur twice as often in women as in men. Neurothekeomas were most commonly located on the upper extremities and the head and neck. They also occurred on the trunk, the lower extremities, and mucosa. Histologic variants of neurothekeomas include classical, cellular, and mixed tumors. Surgical excision was the most common treatment. Recurrences were attributed to an incomplete excision; treatment of these tumors is by complete excision. Neurothekeomas should be included in the differential diagnosis of dermal nodules in infants and children.