Leveraging sensor-based functional outcomes to enhance understanding of the patient experience: challenges and opportunities.

INTRODUCTION: Sensor-based digital health technology (DHT) has emerged as a promising means to assess patient functioning within and outside clinical trials. Sensor-based functional outcomes (SBFOs) provide valuable insights that complement other measures of how a patient feels or functions to enhance understanding of the patient experience to inform medical product development. AREAS COVERED: This perspective paper provides recommendations for defining SBFOs, discusses the core evidence required to support SBFOs to inform decision-making, and considers future directions for the field. EXPERT COMMENTARY: The clinical outcome assessment (COA) development process provides an important starting point for developing patient-centered SBFOs; however, given the infancy of the field, SBFO development may benefit from a hybrid approach to evidence generation by merging exploratory data analysis with patient engagement in measure development. Effective SBFO development requires combining unique expertise in patient engagement, measurement and regulatory science, and digital health and analytics. Challenges specific to SBFO development include identifying concepts of interest, ensuring measurement of meaningful aspects of health, and identifying thresholds for meaningful change. SBFOs are complementary to other COAs and, as part of an integrated evidence strategy, offer great promise in fostering a holistic understanding of patient experience and treatment benefits, particularly in real-world settings.

Considerations in the Assessment of Clinical Benefit with a Focus on Pain: a Regulatory Perspective.

In the USA, the regulatory standard for demonstration of efficacy of a drug is evidence of clinical benefit from adequate and well-controlled clinical trials. Understanding the natural history of disease and how treatment is expected to alter its course, and gathering input from relevant stakeholders, such as patients, caregivers, and clinicians, is essential to understand the best way to measure clinical benefit in a clinical trial. Though pain intensity has been the primary outcome measure in clinical trials for pain, an array of measures assessing clinical outcomes from multiple perspectives can allow for more comprehensive interpretation of how a treatment affects patients' lives. Careful consideration should be given to how pain affects the feeling and functioning of each distinct patient population and which outcome assessment, or combination of outcome assessments, may be necessary to provide a more comprehensive view of the patient experience. The early stages of medical product development are an important opportunity to engage with regulatory agencies to discuss potential approaches to clinical trial design and outcome measurement strategies.

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.

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 Mobile Devices to Measure Outcomes in Clinical Research, 2010-2016: A Systematic Literature Review.

BACKGROUND: The use of mobile devices in clinical research has advanced substantially in recent years due to the rapid pace of technology development. With an overall aim of informing the future use of mobile devices in interventional clinical research to measure primary outcomes, we conducted a systematic review of the use of and clinical outcomes measured by mobile devices (mobile outcomes) in observational and interventional clinical research. METHOD: We conducted a PubMed search using a range of search terms to retrieve peer-reviewed articles on clinical research published between January 2010 and May 2016 in which mobile devices were used to measure study outcomes. We screened each publication for specific inclusion and exclusion criteria. We then identified and qualitatively summarized the use of mobile outcome assessments in clinical research, including the type and design of the study, therapeutic focus, type of mobile device(s) used, and specific mobile outcomes reported. RESULTS: The search retrieved 2,530 potential articles of interest. After screening, 88 publications remained. Twenty-five percent of the publications (n = 22) described mobile outcomes used in interventional research, and the rest (n = 66) described observational clinical research. Thirteen therapeutic areas were represented. Five categories of mobile devices were identified: (1) inertial sensors, (2) biosensors, (3) pressure sensors and walkways, (4) medication adherence monitors, and (5) location monitors; inertial sensors/accelerometers were most common (reported in 86% of the publications). Among the variety of mobile outcomes, various assessments of physical activity were most common (reported in 74% of the publications). Other mobile outcomes included assessments of sleep, mobility, and pill adherence, as well as biomarkers assessed using a mobile device, including cardiac measures, glucose, gastric reflux, respiratory measures, and intensity of head-related injury. CONCLUSION: Mobile devices are being widely used in clinical research to assess outcomes, although their use in interventional research to assess therapeutic effectiveness is limited. For mobile devices to be used more frequently in pivotal interventional research - such as trials informing regulatory decision-making - more focus should be placed on: (1) consolidating the evidence supporting the clinical meaningfulness of specific mobile outcomes, and (2) standardizing the use of mobile devices in clinical research to measure specific mobile outcomes (e.g., data capture frequencies, placement of device). To that aim, this manuscript offers a broad overview of the various mobile outcome assessments currently used in observational and interventional research, and categorizes and consolidates this information for researchers interested in using mobile devices to assess outcomes in interventional research.

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.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Glomerular Disease.

Incorporation of the patient perspective into research and clinical practice will enrich our understanding of the status and management of patients with glomerular disease and may result in therapies that better address patient needs. In recent years, the importance of the patient experience of glomerular disease has become clear, and significant efforts have been undertaken to systematically capture and describe the patient's disease experience. Patient-reported outcome instruments provide a means to assess the patient's experience in a quantitative manner, thus enabling for comparisons within and between patients. Patient-reported outcome assessments are solely on the basis of a patient report about the status of their health without amendment or interpretation by a clinician or others. Patient-reported outcome assessments provide an opportunity to incorporate the patient perspective into clinical care, research, and clinical trials. Our paper provides an overview of terminology and development methods for patient-reported outcomes and reviews (1) currently available patient-reported outcome instruments appropriate for use in glomerular disease, (2) existing patient-reported outcome data in glomerular disease, and (3) opportunities for incorporating patient-reported outcome instruments into clinical care and research.

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.

Instruments to Identify Prescription Medication Misuse, Abuse, and Related Events in Clinical Trials: An ACTTION Systematic Review.

UNLABELLED: Measurement of inappropriate medication use events (eg, abuse or misuse) in clinical trials is important in characterizing a medication's abuse potential. However, no gold standard assessment of inappropriate use events in clinical trials has been identified. In this systematic review, we examine the measurement properties (ie, content validity, cross-sectional reliability and construct validity, longitudinal construct validity, ability to detect change, and responder definitions) of instruments assessing inappropriate use of opioid and nonopioid prescription medications to identify any that meet U.S. and European regulatory agencies' rigorous standards for outcome measures in clinical trials. Sixteen published instruments were identified, most of which were not designed for the selected concept of interest and context of use. For this reason, many instruments were found to lack adequate content validity (or documentation of content validity) to evaluate current inappropriate medication use events; for example, evaluating inappropriate use across the life span rather than current use, including items that did not directly assess inappropriate use (eg, questions about anger), or failing to capture information pertinent to inappropriate use events (eg, intention and route of administration). In addition, the psychometric data across all instruments were generally limited in scope. A further limitation is the heterogeneous, nonstandardized use of inappropriate medication use terminology. These observations suggest that available instruments are not well suited for assessing current inappropriate medication use within the specific context of clinical trials. Further effort is needed to develop reliable and valid instruments to measure current inappropriate medication use events in clinical trials. PERSPECTIVE: This systematic review evaluates the measurement properties of inappropriate medication use (eg, abuse or misuse) instruments to determine whether any meet regulatory standards for clinical trial outcome measures to assess abuse potential.

Can we use social media to support content validity of patient-reported outcome instruments in medical product development?

We report a panel designed to open a dialog between pharmaceutical sponsors, regulatory reviewers, and other stakeholders regarding the use of social media to collect data to support the content validity of patient-reported outcome instruments in the context of medical product labeling. Multiple stakeholder perspectives were brought together to better understand the issues encountered in pursuing social media as a form of data collection to support content validity. Presenters represented a pharmaceutical sponsor of clinical trials, a regulatory reviewer from the Food and Drug Administration, and an online data platform provider. Each presenter shared its perspective on the advantages and disadvantages of using social media to collect this type of information. There was consensus that there is great potential for using social media for this purpose. There remain, however, unanswered questions that need to be addressed such as identifying which type of social media is most appropriate for data collection and ensuring that participants are representative of the target population while maintaining the advantages of anonymity provided by online platforms. The use of social media to collect evidence of content validity holds much promise. Clarification of issues that need to be addressed and accumulation of empirical evidence to address these questions are essential to moving forward.

Steps toward harmonization for clinical development of medicines in pediatric ulcerative colitis-a global scientific discussion, part 1: efficacy endpoints and disease outcome assessments.

OBJECTIVES: There is a pressing need for drug development in pediatric ulcerative colitis (UC). Lack of scientific consensus on efficacy endpoints and disease outcome assessments presents a hurdle for global drug development in pediatric UC. Scientists from 4 regulatory agencies convened an International Inflammatory Bowel Disease Working Group (i-IBD Working Group) to harmonize present thinking about various aspects of drug development in pediatric UC globally. METHODS: The i-IBD Working Group was convened in 2012 by scientists from the US Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, Health Canada, and the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency of Japan. The members of this group considered reasons for differences in their acceptance of efficacy endpoints and disease activity indices used in pediatric UC, reviewed the available literature, and developed consensus opinions regarding approaches for evaluating outcomes in pediatric UC trials. RESULTS: There is lack of harmonization in using efficacy endpoint and outcome assessments including disease activity indices to assess clinical benefit in pediatric UC trials. Many disease activity indices have been developed, but their biometric properties, such as responsiveness, reliability, and validity, have not been properly validated. Biomarkers, such as fecal calprotectin and lactoferrin, are being investigated for their potential as noninvasive surrogate endpoints in UC. CONCLUSIONS: Consensus on the efficacy endpoints, disease activity indices, and outcome assessments is needed for globalization of pediatric UC trials. The i-IBD Working Group offers several perspectives to facilitate harmonization across regions. The development of noninvasive biomarkers as reliable surrogate endpoints needs to be explored further.

Alternate endpoints and clinical outcome assessments in pediatric ulcerative colitis registration trials.

OBJECTIVES: Presently, there is no consensus on endpoint measures to assess clinical outcomes for pediatric ulcerative colitis (UC). This study reviewed the endpoints used in the registration trials of approved drugs for pediatric UC. METHODS: The primary efficacy endpoints of all registration trials completed from 1950 to 2008 that led to Food and Drug Administration approval for indications in pediatric and adult UC were reviewed. RESULTS: Colazal and Remicade have been approved for pediatric UC indication, and clinical response was used as a primary endpoint in these registration trials. The clinical response in the adult Colazal trials was defined as a reduction of rectal bleeding and improvement in at least one of the other assessed symptoms (stool frequency, patient functional assessment, abdominal pain, sigmoidoscopic grade, and physician's global assessment) assessed by the Sutherland UC Activity Index. The pediatric Colazal trial defined clinical response using the Modified Sutherland UC Activity Index, which excluded abdominal pain and functional assessment. Both adult and pediatric Remicade trials used clinical response defined by the Mayo score as the primary endpoint. The Pediatric Ulcerative Colitis Activity Index was used to measure various secondary endpoints in the pediatric Remicade trial. CONCLUSIONS: Pediatric-specific endpoints were used, but outcome measures and definition of clinical response were not consistent in pediatric UC trials. Consensus on the definition of successful treatment outcome (clinical response and/or remission) and collaboration in the development of well-defined and reliable measures of signs and symptoms for use in conjunction with endoscopic parameters of mucosal healing will facilitate pediatric drug 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.