Evaluation of the Content Validity and Cross-Cultural Validity of the Study Participant Feedback Questionnaire (SPFQ).

OBJECTIVES: The Study Participant Feedback Questionnaire (SPFQ) is a patient-completed tool designed to assess patient experiences and satisfaction with aspects associated with being involved in a clinical trial. Originally developed in oncology and among English-speaking participants, the aim of the current study was to evaluate the content and cross-cultural validity of the SPFQ in other indications and non-English-speaking countries. METHODS: Semi-structured qualitative telephone interviews were conducted with 80 participants across eight non-English-speaking countries (in Europe, South America and Asia) who had received an investigational medicinal product as part of a clinical trial in the past three years. Interviews comprised concept elicitation to identify concepts of importance to participants' trial experiences, and cognitive debriefing to assess understanding and perceived importance of SPFQ instructions, items and response options. RESULTS: Concept elicitation findings supported the content validity of the SPFQ. During cognitive debriefing, SPFQ instructions and the majority of items were well understood by participants. Participants generally considered the SPFQ items important to their clinical trial experience, albeit a handful of items assessed concepts that had not been experienced by trial participants or were redundant with other SPFQ items. The instructions, response options and recall period of the SPFQ were generally well understood. No country-level differences in understanding or importance were apparent. CONCLUSION: Study findings provide evidence for the content and cross-cultural validity of the SPFQ and support implementation of the SPFQ as a means of obtaining participant feedback across global development programmes in a variety of indications.

Amplifying the Voice of the Patient in Clinical Research: Development of Toolkits for Use in Designing and Conducting Patient-Centered Clinical Studies.

Incorporating patient perspectives into clinical studies is recognized as important to the development of high-quality, safe, and effective fit-for-patient medicines. However, no widely accepted methodology to help design more patient-centered studies has been established systematically. TransCelerate Biopharma Inc., a non-profit organization promoting collaboration across biopharmaceutical companies, organized a Patient Experience (PE) Initiative to create tools to intentionally include the patient perspective into the design and implementation of clinical studies. The resulting tools include the Patient Protocol Engagement Toolkit (P-PET), to engage patients early in protocol development, and the Study Participant Feedback Questionnaire (SPFQ), to assess patient experiences during clinical studies. To develop these toolkits, TransCelerate conducted a literature review and identified aspects of clinical studies that patients find either valuable or burdensome, or that affect participation, adherence, and engagement in a clinical study. The concepts identified were refined through elicitation of feedback from patient advisors, clinical study site advisors, and subject matter experts from member companies (MCs) of TransCelerate. This feedback was considered in identifying gaps, defining scientific methodology to understand how to evaluate patients' needs, and developing and refining the P-PET and the SPFQ. As part of the development process, descriptions/drafts of the tools were shared with patients, clinical site advisory groups, MCs, and the US Food and Drug Administration, and then revised. MCs simulated use of the tools, and feedback was incorporated into the final versions of the P-PET and SPFQ prior to public release. The P-PET and SPFQ are available free on the TransCelerate website.

Increasing Diversity in Clinical Trials: Overcoming Critical Barriers.

Clinical trial results provide the critical evidence base for evaluating the safety and efficacy of new medicines and medical products. Efficacy and safety may differ among population subgroups depending on intrinsic/extrinsic factors, including sex, age, race, ethnicity, lifestyle, and genetic background. Racial and ethnic minorities continue to be underrepresented in cardiovascular and other clinical trials. Although barriers to diversity in trials are well recognized, sustainable solutions for overcoming them have proved elusive. We investigated barriers impacting minority patients' willingness to participate in trials and-based on literature review and evaluation, and input from key stakeholders, including minority patients, referring physicians, investigators who were minority-serving physicians, and trial coordinators-formulated potential solutions and tested them across stakeholder groups. We identified key themes from solutions that resonated with stakeholders using a transtheoretical model of behavior change and created a communications message map to support a multistakeholder approach for overcoming critical participant barriers.

The oral neurokinin-1 antagonist aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting: a multinational, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in patients receiving high-dose cisplatin--the Aprepitant Protocol 052 Study Group.

PURPOSE: In early clinical trials with patients receiving highly emetogenic chemotherapy, the neurokinin antagonist aprepitant significantly enhanced the efficacy of a standard antiemetic regimen consisting of a type-three 5-hydroxytryptamine antagonist and a corticosteroid. This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study was performed to establish definitively the superiority of the aprepitant regimen versus standard therapy in the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients receiving cisplatin > or = 70 mg/m2 for the first time were given either standard therapy (ondansetron and dexamethasone on day 1; dexamethasone on days 2 to 4) or an aprepitant regimen (aprepitant plus ondansetron and dexamethasone on day 1; aprepitant and dexamethasone on days 2 to 3; dexamethasone on day 4). Patients recorded nausea and vomiting episodes in a diary. The primary end point was complete response (no emesis and no rescue therapy) on days 1 to 5 postcisplatin, analyzed by a modified intent-to-treat approach. Treatment comparisons were made using logistic regression models. Tolerability was assessed by reported adverse events and physical and laboratory assessments. RESULTS: The percentage of patients with complete response on days 1 to 5 was significantly higher in the aprepitant group (72.7% [n = 260] v 52.3% in the standard therapy group [n = 260]), as were the percentages on day 1, and especially on days 2 to 5 (P <.001 for all three comparisons). CONCLUSION: Compared with standard dual therapy, addition of aprepitant was generally well tolerated and provided consistently superior protection against CINV in patients receiving highly emetogenic cisplatin-based chemotherapy.

Establishing the dose of the oral NK1 antagonist aprepitant for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

BACKGROUND: The neurokinin-1 antagonist aprepitant (EMEND; Merck Research Laboratories, West Point, PA) has been shown to reduce chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting when it is given with a 5-hydroxytryptamine-3 receptor antagonist and dexamethasone. The current study sought to define the most appropriate dose regimen of oral aprepitant. METHODS: This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study was conducted in patients with cancer who were receiving initial cisplatin (> or = 70 mg/m(2)) and standard antiemetic therapy (intravenous ondansetron plus oral dexamethasone). Patients were randomized to receive standard therapy plus either aprepitant 375 mg on Day 1 and 250 mg on Days 2-5, aprepitant 125 mg on Day 1 and 80 mg on Days 2-5, or placebo. Due to an apparent interaction with dexamethasone suggested by pharmacokinetic data obtained while the study was ongoing, the aprepitant 375/250 mg dose was discontinued and replaced with aprepitant 40 mg on Day 1 and 25 mg on Days 2-5, and a new randomization schedule was generated. Patients recorded nausea and emesis in a diary. The primary endpoint was complete response (no emesis and no rescue therapy), which was analyzed using an intent-to-treat approach with data obtained after the dose adjustment. Treatment comparisons were made using logistic regression models. Tolerability was assessed by reported adverse events and physical and laboratory assessments, and included all available data. RESULTS: The percentages of patients who achieved a complete response in the overall study period were 71.0% for the aprepitant 125/80-mg group (n = 131 patients), 58.8% for the aprepitant 40/25-mg group (n = 119 patients), and 43.7% for the standard therapy group (n = 126 patients; P < 0.05 for either aprepitant regimen vs. standard therapy). Rates for Day 1 were 83.2% for the aprepitant 125/80-mg group, 75.6% for aprepitant 40/25-mg group, and 71.4% for the standard therapy group (P < 0.05 for aprepitant 125/80 mg vs. standard therapy), and rates on Days 2-5 were 72.7% for the aprepitant 125/80-mg group, 63.9% for the aprepitant 40/25-mg group, and 45.2% for the standard therapy group (P < 0.01 for either aprepitant group vs. standard therapy). The efficacy of the aprepitant 375/250-mg regimen was similar to that of the aprepitant 125/80-mg regimen. The overall incidence of adverse events was generally similar across treatment groups: 85% in the aprepitant 375/250-mg group (n = 34 patients), 76% in the aprepitant 125/80-mg group (n = 214 patients), 71% in the aprepitant 40/25-mg group (n = 120 patients), and 72% in the standard therapy group (n = 212 patients), with the exception of a higher incidence of infection in the aprepitant 125/80-mg group (13%) compared with the standard therapy group (4%). CONCLUSIONS: When it was added to a standard regimen of intravenous ondansetron and oral dexamethasone in the current study, aprepitant reduced chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting and was generally well tolerated, although increases in infection were noted that were assumed to be due to elevated dexamethasone levels as a result of the pharmacokinetic interaction. The aprepitant 125/80-mg regimen had the most favorable benefit:risk profile.