Psychometric Validation and Meaningful Change Thresholds of the New Nasal Polyposis Symptom Diary.

OBJECTIVES: The Nasal Polyposis Symptom Diary (NPSD) is a novel and short patient-reported outcome (PRO) tool specifically developed to assess important and relevant symptoms reported by patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP). We evaluated the psychometric properties of 4 predefined NPSD-derived scores intended to support symptom-improvement assessments of investigational therapies for inclusion in product labeling. METHODS: Five hundred eighteen patients with severe CRSwNP from a Phase III clinical trial (NCT03401229) completed the NPSD, comprising 11 items: 8 symptom-specific, 2 symptom-impact, and 1 optional medication-compliance. The psychometric characteristics of 3 single-item symptom scores (Nasal Blockage Score [NBS], Nasal Congestion Score [NCS], and Difficulty with Sense of Smell Score [DSS]) and a Total Symptom Score (TSS, summary of the 8 symptom-specific items) were evaluated for reliability, validity, and ability to detect change. Within-patient meaningful change thresholds (MCTs) were established using anchor- and distribution-based methods. Comparative PROs included the 22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) and Patient Global Impression of Severity (PGI-S). RESULTS: The TSS exhibited strong internal consistency (Cronbach α = .88) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient >.80). Correlation between the TSS and SNOT-22 total score indicated good convergent validity (r = .70). All 4 NPSD scores demonstrated known-groups validity (significant differences among subgroups of patients with predetermined disease severity levels based on PGI-S categories) and were sensitive to detect change in patients' clinical status (significant differences among subgroups of patients with reported changes between 2 time-points in PGI-S and Patient Global Impression of Change scores). MCTs for improvement were established at 1.0 point for NBS, NCS, and DSS, and 4.0 points for TSS. CONCLUSION: These findings support the reliability, validity, and suitability of the 4 NPSD-derived scores for evaluating treatment effect on CRSwNP symptoms and their use in clinical trials with predetermined MCTs for improvement.

Measuring the patient experience of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis: qualitative development of a novel symptom diary.

BACKGROUND: This qualitative study assessed the experience of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (NP) to inform the development of a novel symptom diary for clinical study use. METHODS: Concept elicitation and cognitive interviews were conducted with patients who had a physician-verified diagnosis of NP and a history of intranasal corticosteroid use. Concepts were identified via open-ended and follow-up questions. Relative symptom/impact disturbance level was assessed using a scale of 0 (not at all disturbing) to 10 (extremely disturbing). RESULTS: Patients (n = 30) attributed numerous symptoms and impacts to NP; the most prevalent and disturbing were nasal congestion (identified by 100% of patients; average disturbance rating = 7.9), nasal blockage/obstruction (97%; 8.2), difficulty with sense of smell (97%; 7.6), facial pressure (90%; 6.2), postnasal drip (87%; 6.5), runny nose (87%; 6.2), facial pain (80%; 6.3), and headache (77%; 6.5). These symptoms, along with the impact of NP on sleep and daily activities, were included in the Nasal Polyposis Symptom Diary (NPSD). Cognitive interviews confirmed that patients understood the NPSD items and could select a response reflective of their experience at its worst over the past 24 hours using a four-point scale (none, mild, moderate, or severe). CONCLUSION: The most relevant and disturbing symptoms, according to patients with NP, were included in the NPSD. Interviews confirmed the suitability of NPSD in capturing the daily experience of patients. These findings support the content validity of the NPSD as a suitable tool for capturing NP symptoms and impacts.

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.

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.

The Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Consortium: Lessons Learned Along the Path to PRO Instrument Qualification.

Established in 2008, the Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Consortium is a collaboration among the US Food and Drug Administration's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, the Critical Path Institute, the pharmaceutical/biotechnology industry, and other stakeholders. The purpose of the consortium is to qualify PRO instruments through the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research's drug development tool qualification process for use as clinical trial endpoints to support drug approval and product labeling claims. The PRO Consortium has made notable progress toward collaborative development of PRO instruments in the following areas: asthma, mild cognitive impairment, depression, functional dyspepsia, irritable bowel syndrome, non-small cell lung cancer, and rheumatoid arthritis. This progress has come with considerable challenges, including navigating a new and evolving regulatory initiative, gaining consensus on key issues, and maintaining communication and engagement in a precompetitive environment. The purpose of this paper is to describe some of the challenges and lessons learned since the creation of the PRO Consortium in hopes that this information may provide direction and insight for similar collaborations.