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.

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.

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.

Recommendations on the Selection, Development, and Modification of Performance Outcome Assessments: A Good Practices Report of an ISPOR Task Force.

In evaluating the clinical benefit of new therapeutic interventions, it is critical that the treatment outcomes assessed reflect aspects of health that are clinically important and meaningful to patients. Performance outcome (PerfO) assessments are measurements based on standardized tasks actively undertaken by a patient that reflect physical, cognitive, sensory, and other functional skills that bring meaning to people's lives. PerfO assessments can have substantial value as drug development tools when the concepts of interest being measured best suit task performance and in cases where patients may be limited in their capacity for self-report. In their development, selection, and modification, including the evaluation and documentation of validity, reliability, usability, and interpretability, the good practice recommendations established for other clinical outcome assessment types should continue to be followed, with concept elicitation as a critical foundation. In addition, the importance of standardization, and the need to ensure feasibility and safety, as well as their utility in patient groups, such as pediatric populations, or those with cognitive and psychiatric challenges, may enhance the need for structured pilot evaluations, additional cognitive interviewing, and evaluation of quantitative data, such as that which would support concept confirmation or provide ecological evidence and other forms of construct evidence within a unitary approach to validity. The opportunity for PerfO assessments to inform key areas of clinical benefit is substantial and establishing good practices in their selection or development, validation, and implementation, as well as how they reflect meaningful aspects of health is critical to ensuring high standards and in furthering patient-focused drug development.

Comparing patient global impression of severity and patient global impression of change to evaluate test-retest reliability of depression, non-small cell lung cancer, and asthma measures.

PURPOSE: Score reproducibility is an important measurement property of fit-for-purpose patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. It is commonly assessed via test-retest reliability, and best evaluated with a stable participant sample, which can be challenging to identify in diseases with highly variable symptoms. To provide empirical evidence comparing the retrospective (patient global impression of change [PGIC]) and current state (patient global impression of severity [PGIS]) approaches to identifying a stable subgroup for test-retest analyses, 3 PRO Consortium working groups collected data using both items as anchor measures. METHODS: The PGIS was completed on Day 1 and Day 8 + 3 for the depression and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) studies, and daily for the asthma study and compared between Day 3 and 10. The PGIC was completed on the final day in each study. Scores were compared using an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for participants who reported "no change" between timepoints for each anchor. RESULTS: ICCs using the PGIS "no change" group were higher for depression (0.84 vs. 0.74), nighttime asthma (0.95 vs. 0.53) and daytime asthma (0.86 vs. 0.68) compared to the PGIC "no change" group. ICCs were similar for NSCLC (PGIS: 0.87; PGIC: 0.85). CONCLUSION: When considering anchor measures to identify a stable subgroup for test-retest reliability analyses, current state anchors perform better than retrospective anchors. Researchers should carefully consider the type of anchor selected, the time period covered, and should ensure anchor content is consistent with the target measure concept, as well as inclusion of both current and retrospective anchor measures.

Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Symptom Assessment Questionnaire: Psychometric Performance and Regulatory Qualification of a Novel Patient-Reported Symptom Measure.

BACKGROUND: The Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (NSCLC-SAQ) was developed to incorporate the patient's perspective into evaluation of clinical benefit in advanced non-small cell lung cancer trials and meet regulatory expectations for doing so. Qualitative evidence supported 7 items covering 5 symptom concepts. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated measurement properties of the NSCLC-SAQ's items, overall scale, and total score. METHODS: In this observational cross-sectional study, a purposive sample of patients with clinician-diagnosed advanced non-small cell lung cancer, initiating or undergoing treatment, provided sociodemographic information and completed the NSCLC-SAQ, National Comprehensive Cancer Network/Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Lung Symptom Index (FLSI-17), and a Patient Global Impression of Severity item. Rasch analyses, factor analyses, and assessments of construct validity and reliability were completed. RESULTS: The 152 participants had a mean age of 64 years, 57% were women, and 87% where White. The majority were Stage IV (83%), 51% had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 (32% performance status 0 and 17% performance status 2), and 33% were treatment naïve. Rasch analyses showed ordered thresholds for response options. Factor analyses demonstrated that items could be combined for a total score. Internal consistency (Cronbach  α = 0.78) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.87) were quite satisfactory. NSCLC-SAQ total score correlation was 0.83 with the National Comprehensive Cancer Network/Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy Lung Symptom Index-17. The NSCLC-SAQ was able to differentiate between symptom severity levels and performance status (both P values < .001). CONCLUSIONS: The NSCLC-SAQ generated highly reliable scores with substantial evidence of construct validity. The Food and Drug Administration's qualification supports the NSCLC-SAQ as a measure of symptoms in drug development. Further evaluation is needed on its longitudinal measurement properties and interepretation of meaningful within-patient score change. (Curr Ther Res Clin Exp. 2021; 82:XXX-XXX).

Why Reinvent the Wheel? Use or Modification of Existing Clinical Outcome Assessment Tools in Medical Product Development.

Assessment of clinical benefit in treatment trials can be made through report by a clinician, a patient, or a nonclinician observer (eg, caregiver) or through a performance-based assessment. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a final guidance for industry for one type of clinical outcome assessment (COA)-patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures-in 2009 that described how FDA reviews PRO measures for their adequacy to support medical product-labeling claims. Many of the principles described in the PRO Guidance could be applicable to the other types of COAs, including instruments completed by clinicians (ie, clinician-reported outcome assessments) and nonclinician observers (ie, observer-reported outcome assessments). FDA guidance describing the regulatory expectations for all COA types including performance outcome assessments, which are based on the patient's performance of a defined task or activity, is in progress to meet requirements described within the 21st Century Cures Act and PDUFA VI. This communication highlights potential ways in which existing instruments might be modified or used "as is" to conform to good measurement principles. An industry and a regulatory perspective are described.

Symptoms of Major Depressive Disorder Scale: Performance of a Novel Patient-Reported Symptom Measure.

BACKGROUND: The Symptoms of Major Depressive Disorder Scale (SMDDS) was expressly developed on the basis of qualitative data to directly incorporate patients' voices into evaluation of treatment benefit in major depressive disorder (MDD) clinical trials. OBJECTIVES: To collect quantitative data necessary to refine/optimize the SMDDS and document its psychometric properties. METHODS: In this multicenter, observational study, participants with clinically diagnosed MDD completed questionnaires in 2 waves. Wave 1 was designed to refine the SMDDS using Rasch measurement evaluations and item reduction analyses. On a subset of wave 1 subjects, 7 to 12 months later, wave 2 further examined item performance and measurement properties. Exploratory factor analyses and assessments of construct validity and reliability (internal consistency and reproducibility) were completed. RESULTS: Using wave 1 data (N = 315; females = 71%, white = 81%, mean age = 44 years), the SMDDS was revised from 36 to 16 items. The Rasch item threshold map indicated that all but 1 item (suicidal ideation) were appropriately ordered. The 207 wave 2 participants were 74% females, 82% white, with a mean age of 45 years. The exploratory factor analyses resulted in a single component (all standardized factor loadings >0.46). Cronbach α was 0.93 and the 7-day test-retest intraclass correlation coefficient (n = 93) was 0.84 (95% confidence interval 0.77-0.89). SMDDS scores discriminated between MDD severity levels. CONCLUSIONS: The 16-item SMDDS generated highly reliable scores with substantial evidence of construct validity. On the basis of the evidence of appropriate content validity and sound psychometric performance, the Food and Drug Administration qualified the SMDDS as an outcome measure to support exploratory efficacy endpoints in MDD clinical trials.

Assessing test-retest reliability of patient-reported outcome measures using intraclass correlation coefficients: recommendations for selecting and documenting the analytical formula.

PURPOSE: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 2009 guidance for industry on patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures describes how the Agency evaluates the psychometric properties of measures intended to support medical product labeling claims. An important psychometric property is test-retest reliability. The guidance lists intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) and the assessment time period as key considerations for test-retest reliability evaluations. However, the guidance does not provide recommendations regarding ICC computation, nor is there consensus within the measurement literature regarding the most appropriate ICC formula for test-retest reliability assessment. This absence of consensus emerged as an issue within Critical Path Institute's PRO Consortium. The purpose of this project was to generate thoughtful and informed recommendations regarding the most appropriate ICC formula for assessing a PRO measure's test-retest reliability. METHODS: Literature was reviewed and a preferred ICC formula was proposed. Feedback on the chosen formula was solicited from psychometricians, biostatisticians, regulators, and other scientists who have collaborated on PRO Consortium initiatives. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Feedback was carefully considered and, after further deliberation, the proposed ICC formula was confirmed. In conclusion, to assess test-retest reliability for PRO measures, the two-way mixed-effect analysis of variance model with interaction for the absolute agreement between single scores is recommended.

Selection of and Evidentiary Considerations for Wearable Devices and Their Measurements for Use in Regulatory Decision Making: Recommendations from the ePRO Consortium.

BACKGROUND: Wearable devices offer huge potential to collect rich sources of data to provide insights into the effects of treatment interventions. Despite this, at the time of writing this report, limited regulatory guidance on the use of wearables in clinical trial programs has been published. OBJECTIVES: To present recommendations from the Critical Path Institute's Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Consortium regarding the selection and evaluation of wearable devices and their measurements for use in regulatory trials and to support labeling claims. METHODS: The evaluation group was composed of Critical Path Institute's clinical outcome assessment (COA) scientists and COA specialists from pharmaceutical trial eCOA solution providers, including COA development and validation specialists. The resulting recommendations were drawn from a broad range of backgrounds, perspectives, and expertise that enriched the development of this report. Recommendations were developed through analysis of existing regulatory guidance relating to COA development and use in clinical trials, medical device certification/clearance regulations, literature-reported best practice, and practical experience of wearable technology application in clinical trials. RESULTS: We identify the essential properties of fit-for-purpose wearables and propose evidence needed to support their use. In addition, we overview the activities required to establish clinical endpoints derived from wearables data. CONCLUSIONS: Using this framework, we believe there is enough current understanding to promote the appropriate use of wearables in study protocols. We hope this will provide a basis for discussion among clinical trial stakeholders and catalyze the development of more robust regulatory guidance.

Informing the Tolerability of Cancer Treatments Using Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Summary of an FDA and Critical Path Institute Workshop.

The US Food and Drug Administration and the Critical Path Institute's Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Consortium convened a cosponsored workshop on the use of PRO measures to inform the assessment of safety and tolerability in cancer clinical trials. A broad array of international stakeholders involved in oncology drug development and PRO measurement science provided perspectives on the role of PRO measures to provide complementary clinical data on the symptomatic side effects of anticancer agents. Speakers and panelists explored the utility of information derived from existing and emerging PRO measures, focusing on the PRO version of the National Cancer Institute's Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events. Panelists and speakers discussed potential ways to improve the collection, analysis, and presentation of PRO data describing symptomatic adverse events to support drug development and better inform regulatory and treatment decisions. Workshop participants concluded the day with a discussion of possible approaches to the patient-reported assessment of an investigational drug's overall side effect burden as a potential clinical trial end point. The Food and Drug Administration reiterated its commitment to collaborate with international drug development stakeholders to identify rigorous methods to incorporate the patient perspective into the development of cancer therapeutics.

Development of the Diary for Irritable Bowel Syndrome Symptoms to Assess Treatment Benefit in Clinical Trials: Foundational Qualitative Research.

BACKGROUND: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a chronic gastrointestinal disorder characterized by abdominal pain and alterations in bowel habits. Three subtypes are defined on the basis of stool patterns: diarrhea-predominant IBS, constipation-predominant IBS, and alternating or mixed IBS. OBJECTIVES: To develop patient-reported outcome measures for qualification by the Food and Drug Administration to support product approvals and labeling in IBS; the article focuses on the qualitative research that provided the foundation for the new measures. METHODS: Forty-nine concept elicitation and 42 cognitive debriefing interviews were conducted with subjects meeting Rome III criteria; additional criteria were imposed to yield a sample representative of the target patient population. RESULTS: Although incomplete bowel movements, abnormal stool frequency and consistency, and abdominal pain, discomfort, and bloating were reported most frequently across concept elicitation interviews, the relative importance of specific symptoms varied by subtype. Among their five symptoms most important to treat, diarrhea-predominant and alternating or mixed IBS subjects frequently identified urgency, loose/watery stools, abdominal pain, and cramping, whereas constipation-predominant IBS subjects commonly included infrequent and incomplete bowel movements, bloating, and abdominal pain. The cognitive debriefing interviews facilitated refinement of each item set, supported minor modifications following translatability assessment, and suggested improvements to the electronic interface. Furthermore, subjects reported that every item was relevant and no concepts of importance were missing. CONCLUSIONS: Results support the content validity of the IBS patient-reported outcome measures. A pilot study was recently initiated to inform item reduction, develop scoring algorithms, and provide preliminary psychometric information. Comprehensive psychometric evaluation and responder definition development will follow.

Interpretation of verbal descriptors for response options commonly used in verbal rating scales in patient-reported outcome instruments.

PURPOSE: To assess the variation in the interpretation of common verbal descriptors (VDs) used in response scales and examine factors associated with those interpretations. METHODS: Subjects were recruited through MediGuard and they assigned interpretation scores (11-point scale; 0 = lowest possible, 10 = highest possible) to five common sets of VDs: set one (none, mild, moderate, severe, very severe); set two (never, rarely, sometimes, often, always); set three (poor, fair, good, very good, excellent); set four (not at all, a little bit, moderately, quite a bit, extremely); and set five (not at all, a little bit, somewhat, quite a bit, very much). One-sample test for proportions and T-tests examined equality of proportions (anchors) and means scores (non-anchors) with the fixed intervals (0.0, 2.5, 5.0, 7.5, and 10.0). Ordinal regression examined adjusted associations between demographic/clinical factors and VD scores. RESULTS: Of the 350 subjects, 68 % were females and mean (SD) age was 56.9 (12.1). Two sets had two VDs with mean (95 % CI) scores not different than the fixed intervals. Set one had mild = 2.50 (2.33; 2.66) and moderate = 5.01 (4.89; 5.13) with 98.8 % (97.3 %; 100 %) assigning none = 0. Set five had a little bit = 2.35 (2.17; 2.53) and quite a bit = 7.65 (7.43; 7.87) with 95.0 % (95 % CI 91.7; 98.2) assigning not at all = 0. Significant associations (p ≤ 0.05) included age and education with somewhat and income and comorbidities with very severe. Age, sex, and education showed associations with other VDs albeit in nonsignificant models. CONCLUSIONS: Sets one and five yielded data closest to the fixed intervals. Demographic and clinical factors are associated with the interpretation of some VDs and should be adjusted for in analyses of non-randomized data.

PRO data collection in clinical trials using mixed modes: report of the ISPOR PRO mixed modes good research practices task force.

The objective of this report was to address the use and mixing of data collection modes within and between trials in which patient-reported outcome (PRO) end points are intended to be used to support medical product labeling. The report first addresses the factors that should be considered when selecting a mode or modes of PRO data collection in a clinical trial, which is often when mixing is first considered. Next, a summary of how to "faithfully" migrate instruments is presented followed by a section on qualitative and quantitative study designs used to evaluate measurement equivalence of the new and original modes of data collection. Finally, the report discusses a number of issues that must be taken into account when mixing modes is deemed necessary or unavoidable within or between trials, including considerations of the risk of mixing at different levels within a clinical trial program and mixing between different types of platforms. In the absence of documented evidence of measurement equivalence, it is strongly recommended that a quantitative equivalence study be conducted before mixing modes in a trial to ensure that sufficient equivalence can be demonstrated to have confidence in pooling PRO data collected by the different modes. However, we also strongly discourage the mixing of paper and electronic field-based instruments and suggest that mixing of electronic modes be considered for clinical trials and only after equivalence has been established. If proceeding with mixing modes, it is important to implement data collection carefully in the trial itself in a planned manner at the country level or higher and minimize ad hoc mixing by sites or individual subjects. Finally, when mixing occurs, it must be addressed in the statistical analysis plan for the trial and the ability to pool the data must be evaluated to then evaluate treatment effects with mixed modes data. A successful mixed modes trial requires a "faithful migration," measurement equivalence established between modes, and carefully planned implementation to minimize the risk of increased measurement error impacting the power of the trial to detect a treatment effect.

Testing the measurement equivalence of paper and interactive voice response system versions of the EORTC QLQ-C30.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the measurement equivalence of an interactive voice response system (IVRS) version and the original paper-based version of the EORTC QLQ-C30. METHODS: The QLQ-C30 is a cancer-specific, health-related quality of life questionnaire consisting of nine multi-item scales (physical, role, emotional, cognitive and social functioning, fatigue, nausea/vomiting, pain, and quality of life) and six single item measures (dyspnea, insomnia, appetite loss, constipation, diarrhea, and financial problems). This study utilized a crossover design with subjects randomly assigned to one of two assessment orders: (1) paper then IVRS or (2) IVRS then paper. Equivalence between the two administration modes was established by comparing the 95% lower confidence interval (CI) of the intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for each scale, with a critical value of 0.70. RESULTS: The ICCs for the nine multi-item scales were all above 0.79, ranging from 0.791 to 0.899 (ICC 95% lower CI range 0.726-0.865) and significantly different from our threshold reliability of 0.70. The ICCs for the six single items ranged from 0.689 to 0.896 (ICC 95% lower CI range 0.611-0.888). Two of the items, insomnia and appetite loss, were not statistically different from 0.70. When considered together, the per-protocol analysis results support the equivalence of the paper and IVRS versions of the QLQ-C30 for 13 of the 15 scores. CONCLUSION: This analysis provides evidence that the scores obtained from the IVRS version of the QLQ-C30 are equivalent to those obtained with the original paper version except for the insomnia and appetite loss items.

Patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials of CKD-related therapies: report of a symposium sponsored by the national kidney foundation and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The National Kidney Foundation and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) convened a symposium in September 2010, bringing together more than 70 experts, including representatives from the FDA, the National Institutes of Health, the Critical Path Institute, nephrologists, patients, and the pharmaceutical industry to discuss the feasibility and process of developing patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures to access how patients feel or function to be used in clinical trials for regulatory review of treatment benefit. Three disease areas were evaluated for development of end point models in which PRO measures may be useful: anemia secondary to chronic kidney disease, autosomal dominant polycystic kidney disease (ADPKD), and nephrotic syndrome. The participants thought it valuable to use observational data to generate hypotheses regarding patient baseline characteristics that are likely to predict clinically important changes in PROs in response to anemia treatment and to design adequately powered blinded randomized controlled trials of anemia treatment using PROs as primary rather than secondary end points. Validated PRO instruments that reflect the patient experience in ADPKD and nephrotic syndrome are essential to incorporate into clinical trials of new therapeutic interventions because glomerular filtration rate decline may occur late in the disease course, at which point therapeutic benefit is less likely. Conference attendees addressed how PRO measures could be used to evaluate, monitor, provide care, and facilitate the introduction of treatments for patients with these challenging conditions.

Assessing asthma symptoms in children: qualitative research supporting the development of the Pediatric Asthma Diary-Child (PAD-C) and Pediatric Asthma Diary-Observer (PAD-O).

BACKGROUND: Pediatric asthma has been identified by regulators, clinicians, clinical trial sponsors, and caregivers as an area in need of novel fit-for-purpose clinical outcome assessments (COAs) developed in accordance with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) regulatory guidance for evaluating clinical benefit in treatment trials. To address this gap, the Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Consortium's Pediatric Asthma Working Group has continued development of 2 COAs to assess asthma signs and symptoms in pediatric asthma clinical trials to support efficacy endpoints: a PRO measure, the Pediatric Asthma Diary-Child (PAD-C) for children 8-11 years old (y.o.) and an observer-reported outcome measure, the Pediatric Asthma Diary-Observer (PAD-O) for caregivers of children 4-11 y.o. This qualitative research aimed to generate evidence regarding the content validity of the PAD-C and PAD-O. METHODS: Semi-structured combined concept elicitation and cognitive interviews were conducted with a diverse sample of U.S. participants (15 children 8-11 y.o. and 30 caregivers of children 4-11 y.o.). All children had clinician-diagnosed mild to severe asthma. Interviews explored the experience of pediatric asthma and assessed the understanding and relevance of both measures. Interviews were conducted across 3 iterative rounds to allow for modifications. RESULTS: Concept elicitation findings demonstrated that the core sign/symptom and impact concepts assessed in the PAD-C (cough, hard to breathe, out of breath, wheezing, chest tightness, and nighttime awakenings/symptoms) and PAD-O (cough, difficulty breathing, short of breath, wheezing, and nighttime awakenings/signs) correspond to those most frequently reported by participants; concept saturation was achieved. All PAD-C and PAD-O instructions and core items were well understood and considered relevant by most participants. Feedback from participants, the Pediatric Asthma Working Group, advisory panel, and FDA supported modifications to the measures, including addition of 1 new item to both measures and removal of 1 caregiver item. CONCLUSIONS: Findings provide strong support for the content validity of both measures. The cross-sectional measurement properties of both measures and their user experience and feasibility in electronic format will be assessed in a future quantitative pilot study with qualitative exit interviews, intended to support the reliability, construct validity, final content, and, ultimately, FDA qualification of the measures.

Pediatric asthma is one of the most common chronic diseases in children. However, there are problems of underdiagnosis, poor disease management, and undertreatment for many pediatric asthma patients, pressuring healthcare systems worldwide. Evaluating asthma symptoms is an important part of the development of treatments for pediatric asthma. However, there are few clinical outcome assessments (COAs) developed in line with regulatory guidance to directly assess symptom severity and evaluate the benefit of new treatments in children with asthma. In this study, we continued the development of the Pediatric Asthma Diary­Child (PAD-C) and the Pediatric Asthma Diary­Observer (PAD-O), according to regulatory guidance, to assess asthma signs and symptoms in children 4 through 11 years old and address this unmet need. The study aimed to explore the experience of pediatric asthma and assess how well-understood and relevant the measures are. Three rounds of qualitative interviews were conducted with 15 children 8 through 11 years old and 30 caregivers of children 4 through 11 years old with asthma. Results show that both measures are well-understood and assess the relevant and important aspects of pediatric asthma reported by children and caregivers. Findings provide evidence supporting the PAD-C and PAD-O as measures of symptom severity and their future use in pediatric asthma treatment trials. Further research is underway to evaluate their measurement properties and assess the user experience and feasibility of electronic completion, to ultimately support the PAD-C and PAD-O in an ongoing COA qualification process by the United States Food and Drug Administration.

Preference-based SF-6D scores derived from the SF-36 and SF-12 have different discriminative power in a population health survey.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the discriminative power of the SF-6D index scores derived from the SF-36 (SF-6D36) and SF-12 (SF-6D12) in the general population. METHODS: Data from the National Health Measurement Study were used. The F statistic was used to compare the relative efficiency of the SF-6D36 and SF-6D12, as well as the EQ-5D, HUI2, and HUI3 index scores, in discriminating between respondents with and without 1 of the 11 chronic medical conditions. The efficiency of the multiattribute health classification systems of the study instruments was measured using the Shannon index (H'). The relative efficiency of the SF-6D36 and SF-6D12 was also compared in respondents who were on the ceilings of the EQ-5D, HUI2, and HUI3 scales. RESULTS: The SF-6D36 score was systematically lower than the SF-6D12 score at the group level (range, 0.022-0.036). The SF-6D36 exhibited higher discriminative power in 8 and 5 conditions than the SF-6D12 and all other index scores, respectively. The SF-6D36 had higher H' values than the SF-6D12 in the dimensions of physical functioning (1.73 vs. 0.78), mental health (1.70 vs. 1.39), and bodily pain (2.16 vs. 1.56) as well as than all other instruments in similar health dimensions. In respondents reporting full health on the EQ-5D, HUI2, or HUI3, the SF-6D36 better discriminated between those with and without medical conditions than the SF-6D12. CONCLUSIONS: The SF-6D derived from the SF-36 is more discriminative than that derived from the SF-12 and is therefore preferred for use in population health surveys where a preference-based health index is needed.

Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (NSCLC-SAQ): Measurement Properties and Estimated Clinically Meaningful Thresholds From a Phase 3 Study.

Introduction: The NSCLC Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (NSCLC-SAQ) was developed to assess NSCLC symptom severity in accordance with Food and Drug Administration evidentiary expectations leading to Food and Drug Administration qualification in 2018. This study evaluated the NSCLC-SAQ's measurement properties within a clinical trial. Methods: The KEYNOTE-598 phase 3 study of participants with stage IV metastatic NSCLC with programmed death-ligand 1 tumor proportion score greater than or equal to 50% was used to assess the NSCLC-SAQ's reliability, construct validity, responsiveness, and estimate clinically meaningful within-person change. Other patient-reported outcome measures included patient global impression items of severity and change in lung cancer symptoms, and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire core 30 and lung cancer module, LC13. Results: Participants (N = 560) were mostly men (70%), had a mean age of 64 years, and had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 (64%) or 0 (36%). Internal consistency at baseline (Cronbach's α = 0.74) and test-retest reliability after 3 weeks (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.79) were satisfactory. NSCLC-SAQ items, domains, and total score correlated moderately to highly with patient-reported outcome measures capturing similar content, and the total score differentiated among patient global impression of severity groups (p < 0.001). The total score detected improvement over time and the estimated clinically meaningful within-person change threshold for improvement ranged from three to five points on the 0 to 20 scale. Few participants exhibited symptom worsening (n = 38), limiting inferences in this group. Conclusions: The NSCLC-SAQ was found to be reliable, valid, responsive, and interpretable for assessing symptom improvement in NSCLC. Further evaluation is recommended in trial participants whose symptoms worsen over time.

Asthma Daytime Symptom Diary (ADSD) and Asthma Nighttime Symptom Diary (ANSD): Measurement Properties of Novel Patient-Reported Symptom Measures.

BACKGROUND: The Asthma Daytime Symptom Diary (ADSD) and the Asthma Nighttime Symptom Diary (ANSD) were developed to meet the need for standardized patient-reported measures of asthma symptoms to assess treatment trial outcomes in adults and adolescents. OBJECTIVE: To determine scoring and evaluate the measurement properties of the ADSD/ANSD. METHODS: Adolescents (12-17 years) and adults (18+ years) with asthma completed draft 8-item electronic versions of the ADSD/ANSD for 10 days alongside the Adult Asthma Symptom Daily Scales (AASDS) and a Patient Global Impression of Severity (PGIS). Using classical and modern psychometric methods, initial analyses evaluated the performance of ADSD/ANSD items to inform scoring. Subsequent analyses evaluated the reliability and validity of ADSD/ANSD scores. RESULTS: A demographically and clinically diverse sample (n = 130 adolescents; n = 89 adults) was recruited. Item performance was generally strong. However, items assessing chest pressure and mucus/phlegm demonstrated redundancy and poorer performance and were removed. Principal-components analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and item response theory supported combining items to form 6-item total ADSD/ANSD scores. Internal consistency (α = 0.94-0.95) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.86-0.95) were strong. Strong correlations (r = 0.72-0.80) were observed between ADSD scores and AASDS items assessing asthma symptom frequency, bother, and impact on activities. Significant differences (P < .001) in mean ADSD/ANSD scores were observed between groups categorized by asthma severity (PGIS), asthma control, inhaler use, nebulizer use, activity limitations, and nighttime awakenings. CONCLUSIONS: The ADSD/ANSD items and scores demonstrated strong reliability and validity. Implementation of the measures in interventional studies will enable the evaluation of responsiveness and meaningful within-patient change.