Qualitative Exploration in Exit Interviews of Changes Observed in Clinical Trials for Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder Without Intellectual Disability.

Purpose: To explore, from the perspective of Study Partners (SPs; eg, caregivers) of clinical trial participants with autism spectrum disorder (ASD), any changes experienced in socialization and communication over the clinical trial, how these changes manifested, and the impact these changes had on the autistic individual, the SP, and family. This helps interpret whether changes in trial outcomes were meaningful. Patients and Methods: Interviews were conducted with the SPs of individuals with ASD, without intellectual disability, from 2 clinical trials: 86 children (aged 5-12 years) or adolescents (aged 13-17 years) who took part in the aV1ation trial (83.7% male), and 41 adults (aged 18+ years) who took part in the V1aduct trial (80.5% male). The primary endpoint for both trials was change from baseline in the VinelandTM-II two-domain composite, consisting of the mean of the Socialization and Communication domains. In these interviews the participants verbally indicated level of change for each of these key domains on 7-point change scales. Results: Improvements in the Socialization domain enabled greater awareness of the feelings of others and allowed for stronger empathy and kindness. Improvements in the Communication domain allowed for the autistic individual to be better at listening and better at self-expression. Together, changes in these two domains, which were considered most important, allowed for richer, deeper relationships. Study Partners noted that improvements in these domains allowed for better integration within the family unit, decreased stress, and increased optimism about the autistic individual's future. Conclusions: The impacts of changes in either domain were synergistic, combining together to create positive experiences which in turn led to further positive impacts in other skills. These qualitative insights provide context to the changes that were observed during the clinical trial and captured using the VinelandTM-II, illustrating the meaning of these changes to the individuals with ASD without intellectual disability and their families, and the impact that they have on people's everyday lives and overall health-related quality of life.

Quantitative and Qualitative Exploration of Meaningful Change on the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (Vineland™-II) in Children and Adolescents with Autism Without Intellectual Disability Following Participation in a Clinical Trial.

Purpose: The VinelandTM Adaptive Behavior Scale is often used in autism spectrum disorder (ASD) trials. The Adaptive Behavior Composite Score (VABS-ABC) is the standardized overall score (the average of the Socialization, Communication and Daily Living skills domains), and the standardized 2-Domain Composite Score (VABS-2DC) is a novel outcome measure (average of the Socialization and Communication domains). A within-person meaningful change threshold (MCT) has not been established for the VABS-2DC. This paper presents a quantitative and qualitative interpretation of what constitutes a meaningful change in these scores to individuals with ASD without Intellectual Disability (ID; IQ≥70) and their families, as reported by their study partners (SPs). Participants and Methods: Data were obtained from the aV1ation clinical trial in children and adolescents with ASD and associated exit interviews. The intent-to-treat (ITT) clinical trial population included 308 individuals with autism (85.4% male; average age: 12.4 years [standard deviation (SD)=2.97]); 124 in the child cohort (aged 5 to 12 years; average age: 9.4 years [SD=1.86]), and 184 in the adolescent cohort (aged 13 to 17 years; average age: 14.5 years [SD=1.39]). Study partners of 86 trial participants were included in the Exit Interview Population (EIP): participants represented were 83.7% male, average age: 12.3 years [SD=2.98]). Anchor and distribution-based methods were used to estimate within-person change to support a responder definition, to aid interpretation of the clinical trial data; qualitative data were used to contextualize the meaning of changes observed. Results: A within-person MCT range of 4 to 8 points was proposed for both VABS-ABC and VABS-2DC, which was associated with at least a 1-point improvement on 4 different anchors. Evidence for this within-person MCT was further supported by qualitative data, which suggested any change was considered meaningful to the individual with ASD, as reported by their SP, no matter what the magnitude. Conclusion: A change in standardized score of 4 to 8 points constitutes a within-person MCT on both VABS-ABC and novel VABS-2DC in those with ASD and no ID. A change of this, or more, was reported by the SPs in this trial to be meaningful and highly impactful upon the individuals with ASD and their family.

Co-creation of the Global Patient Experience Data Navigator: a multi-stakeholder initiative to ensure the patient voice is represented in health decision-making.

BACKGROUND: Putting patients' needs and priorities at the forefront of healthcare initiatives and medical product development is critical to achieve outcomes that matter most to patients. This relies on the integration of early, meaningful patient engagement (PE) to learn what is important to patients, and collection of representative patient experience data (PXD). The increased number of PE/PXD efforts across global regulatory, health technology assessment, and healthcare systems is an important step forward to deliver improved health outcomes for patients. However, these initiatives are fragmented and lack integration, which is necessary to maximize efforts and reduce burden on patients. To overcome these challenges, the Global Patient Experience Data Navigator has been co-created by Patient Focused Medicines Development to provide practical resources that can facilitate and optimize PXD generation, collection, analysis, and dissemination for patient benefit and aims to be applicable across all therapeutic areas for all stakeholders. METHODS: Co-creation of the Navigator took place through an iterative process of validation and formalization driven by a diverse, multi-stakeholder working group with individuals who have varying knowledge/experience in PE/PXD. RESULTS: A series of workshops took place to conduct a gap analysis, develop a taxonomy model, and integrate existing frameworks. The collective insights led to the development of the Navigator consisting of four specific tools in the form of downloadable templates, which can be used to: (1) prioritize outcomes that matter most to patients and their caregivers; (2) select appropriate measurement methods for these outcomes; (3) identify when and why PXD is used throughout the product development cycle for each stakeholder; (4) identify when and why PXD is used throughout the healthcare process for each stakeholder. A public consultation was carried out to collect user feedback before the Navigator was made publicly available in December 2022. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, the Global Patient Experience Data Navigator is the only publicly available toolkit developed with a multi-stakeholder and disease-agnostic approach providing taxonomically grouped resources to optimize the collection and collation of PXD for patient benefit. Future work will aim to further engage patients by adding a PE dimension to the Navigator.

Engaging patients at the start of healthcare and medical product development projects can help better understand their experiences and what is most important to them. Ultimately this will achieve the best outcomes. However, if not carefully planned, projects that engage patients can lead to inefficiencies, such as patients being asked for the same information repeatedly. The collection of patient experience data­information related to patients' experiences, needs, and priorities­also needs to be carefully managed. To help solve this problem, Patient Focused Medicines Development developed a publicly available "toolkit" called the Global Patient Experience Data Navigator. The Navigator has downloadable templates that can be filled in and used for projects in any disease area and by anyone collecting patient experience data. To represent different perspectives, individuals with a range of experiences and understanding of patient engagement projects worked together to co-create the toolkit. Several meetings took place to understand what the toolkit needed to do and to help provide a structure for the templates. There are four templates in the toolkit. These can be used to: (1) prioritize outcomes that matter most to patients and their caregivers; (2) select the best ways of measuring these outcomes; (3) identify when, why, and by whom patient experience data is used throughout the product development cycle; and (4) identify when, why and by whom patient experience data is used throughout the healthcare process. Future work will utilize public feedback to make the toolkit more user-friendly and provide education on how the Navigator can be used.

Recommendations for the Electronic Migration and Implementation of Clinician-Reported Outcome Assessments in Clinical Trials.

OBJECTIVES: Although best practices from electronic patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are transferable, the migration of clinician-reported outcome (ClinRO) assessments to electronic modes requires recommendations that address their unique properties, such as the user (eg, clinician), and complexity associated with programming of clinical content. Faithful migration remains essential to ensuring that the content and psychometric properties of the original scale (ie, validated reference) are preserved, such that clinicians completing the ClinRO assessments interpret and respond to the items the same way regardless of data collection mode. The authors present a framework for how to "faithfully" migrate electronic ClinRO assessments for successful deployment in clinical trials. METHODS: Critical Path Institute's Electronic PRO Consortium and PRO Consortium convened a consensus panel of representatives from member firms to develop recommendations for electronic migration and implementation of ClinRO assessments in clinical trials based on industry standards, regulatory guidelines where available, and relevant literature. The recommendations were reviewed and approved by all member firms from both consortia. CONSENSUS RECOMMENDATIONS: Standard, minimal electronic modifications for ClinRO assessments are described. This article also outlines implementation steps, including planning, startup, electronic clinical outcome assessment system development, training, and deployment. The consensus panel proposes that functional clinical testing by a clinician or clinical outcome assessment expert, as well as copyright holder review of screenshots (if possible) are sufficient to support minimal modifications during migration. Additional evidence generation is proposed for modifications that deviate significantly from the validated reference.

A Patient-Centered Evaluation of Meaningful Change on the 32-Item Motor Function Measure in Spinal Muscular Atrophy Using Qualitative and Quantitative Data.

The 32-item Motor Function Measure (MFM32) is an assessment of motor function used to evaluate fine and gross motor ability in patients with neuromuscular disorders, including spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). Reliability and validity of the MFM32 have been documented in individuals with SMA. Through semi-structured qualitative interviews (N = 40) and an online survey in eight countries (N = 217) with individuals with Types 2 and 3 SMA aged 2-59 years old and caregivers, the meaning of changes on a patient-friendly version of the MFM32 was explored. In an independent analysis of clinical trial data, anchor- and distribution-based analyses were conducted in a sample of individuals with Type 2 and non-ambulant Type 3 SMA to estimate patient-centered quantitative MFM32 meaningful change thresholds. The results from this study demonstrate that, based on patient and caregiver insights, maintaining functional ability as assessed by a patient-friendly version of the MFM32 is an important outcome. Quantitative analyses using multiple anchors (median age range of 5-8 years old across anchor groups) indicated that an ~3-point improvement in MFM32 total score represents meaningful change at the individual patient level. Overall, the qualitative and quantitative findings from this study support the importance of examining a range of meaningful change thresholds on the MFM32 including ≥0 points change reflecting stabilization or improvement and ≥3 points change reflecting a higher threshold of improvement. Future research is needed to explore quantitative differences in meaningful change on the MFM32 based on age and functional subgroups.

Measuring What Matters to Individuals with Angelman Syndrome and Their Families: Development of a Patient-Centered Disease Concept Model.

Angelman syndrome (AS) is a complex, heterogeneous, and life-long neurodevelopmental disorder. Despite the considerable impact on individuals and caregivers, no disease-modifying treatments are available. To support holistic clinical management and the development of AS-specific outcome measures for clinical studies, we conducted primary and secondary research identifying the impact of symptoms on individuals with AS and their unmet need. This qualitative research adopted a rigorous step-wise approach, aggregating information from published literature, then evaluating it via disease concept elicitation interviews with clinical experts and caregivers. We found that the AS-defining concepts most relevant for treatment included: impaired expressive communication, seizures, maladaptive behavior, cognitive impairment, motor function difficulties, sleep disturbance, and limited self-care abilities. We highlight the relevance of age in experiencing these key AS concepts, and the difference between the perceptions of clinicians and caregivers towards the syndrome. Finally, we outline the impact of AS on individuals, caregivers, and families.

Correction to: Psychometric Validation of the Autism Impact Measure (AIM).

The article Psychometric Validation of the Autism Impact Measure (AIM), written by Richard Houghton, Brigitta Monz, Kiely Law, Georg Loss, Stephanie Le Scouiller, Frank de Vries and Tom Willgoss was originally published electronically on the publisher's internet portal (currently SpringerLink) on 09 April 2019 without open access.With the author(s)' decision to opt for Open Choice the copyright of the article changed on May 2019 to © The Author(s) 2019 and the article is forthwith distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, duplication, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

Psychometric Validation of the Autism Impact Measure (AIM).

The Autism impact measure (AIM) is a caregiver-reported questionnaire assessing autism symptom frequency and impact in children, previously shown to have good test-retest reliability, convergent validity and structural validity. This study extended previous work by exploring the AIM's ability to discriminate between 'known-groups' of children, and estimating thresholds for clinically important responses. Data were collected online and electronically on computer and mobile devices; hence, it was also possible to confirm other psychometric properties of the AIM in this format. This study provides confirmatory and additional psychometric validation of the AIM. The AIM offers a valid, quick and inexpensive method for caregivers to report core symptoms of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) including communication deficits, difficulties with social interactions and repetitive behaviors.

An overview of using qualitative techniques to explore and define estimates of clinically important change on clinical outcome assessments.

Establishing meaningful change thresholds for Clinical Outcome Assessments (COA) is critical for score interpretation. While anchor- and distribution-based statistical methods are well-established, qualitative approaches are less frequently used. This commentary summarizes and expands on a symposium presented at the International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) 2017 annual conference, which provided an overview of qualitative methods that can be used to support understanding of meaningful change thresholds on COAs. Further published literature and additional examples from multiple disease areas which have also qualitatively explored the concept of meaningful change are presented.Semi-structured interviews conducted independently from a clinical trial, exit interviews conducted in the context of a clinical trial, focus groups, vignettes and the Delphi panel method can be used to obtain data regarding meaningful change thresholds, with advantages and disadvantages to each method. Semi-structured interviews using concept elicitation (CE) or cognitive debriefing (CD) methods conducted independently from a clinical trial can be an efficient way to gain in-depth patient/caregiver insights. However, there can be challenges with reconciling heterogeneous data across diverse samples and in interpreting the qualitative insights in the context of quantitative score changes. Semi-structured qualitative interviews using CE/CD methods embedded as exit interviews in a clinical trial context with patients/caregivers can provide insights which can augment quantitative findings based on analysis of clinical trial data. However, there are logistical challenges relating to embedding the interviews in a clinical trial.Focus groups and the Delphi panel method can be valuable for reaching consensus regarding meaningful change thresholds; however, for face-to-face interactions, social desirability bias can affect responses. Finally, using vignettes and taking a mixed methods approach can aid in achieving consensus on the minimum score change endorsed by respondents as a meaningful improvement/decrement. However, the approach can be cognitively challenging for participants and reaching a consensus is not guaranteed.Anchor- and distribution- based methods remain critical in establishing responder definitions. Nonetheless, qualitative data has the potential to provide complementary support that a certain level of change on the target COA, which has been statistically supported, is truly important and meaningful for the target population.

Psychometric Validation of the Hepatitis C Symptom and Impact Questionnaire (HCV-SIQv4) in a Diverse Sample of Adults with Chronic Hepatitis C Virus Infection Treated with an Interferon-free Simeprevir-containing Regimen.

BACKGROUND: Hepatitis C virus (HCV) infection and its treatments are associated with significant symptoms, side effects and impact on patients functioning. The Hepatitis C Symptom and Impact Questionnaire version 4 (HCV-SIQv4) was developed according to FDA Patient Reported Outcomes (PRO) Guidance, for evaluating chronic HCV infection and its treatment. OBJECTIVES: This study evaluated the psychometric properties and clinically important change (CIC) thresholds of the measure. METHODS: PRO data were pooled from three Phase IIb and III trials evaluating interferon-free simeprevir-containing regimens for treatment of chronic HCV infection. Scale range adequacy, reliability, validity, responsiveness and CIC thresholds were assessed incorporating knowledge of the appropriate measurement model. RESULTS: Data from 437 patients were analyzed. Stage of liver disease was associated with symptom severity and functioning at baseline. Reliability was acceptable (test-retest ICC ≥0.7) for most scores except the Gastrointestinal and Integumentary domains. Convergent validity was observed between HCV-SIQv4 scores and concurrent measures of conceptual similarity. Greater symptom severity and worse impact scores were associated with liver cirrhosis, depression, severe fatigue and health limitations. Patients who achieved SVR12 had better outcomes than those failing to. HCV-SIQv4 symptom and domain scores were responsive to changes in health state (effect sizes ≥0.5). Exploratory thresholds for change in scores indicating a clinically important improvement and worsening were HCV-SIQv4 Overall Body System Score (BSS), 8 and 8; Constitutional BSS, 10 and 10; Gastrointestinal BSS, 5 and 5; Psychiatric BSS, 8 and 8; Neurocognitive BSS, 8 and 8; and Integumentary BSS, 5 and 5. CONCLUSIONS: The HCV-SIQv4 offers reliable, responsive assessments within HCV clinical development. CIC thresholds are now available to aid score interpretation.

Towards the use of mixed methods inquiry as best practice in health outcomes research.

Mixed methods research (MMR) has found an increased interest in the field of health outcomes research. Consideration for both qualitative and quantitative perspectives has become key to contextualising patient experiences in a clinically meaningful measurement framework. The purpose of this paper is to outline a process for incorporating MMR in health outcomes research to guide stakeholders in their understanding of the essence of mixed methods inquiry. In addition, this paper will outline the benefits and challenges of MMR and describe the types of support needed for designing and conducting robust MMR measurement studies. MMR involves the application of a well-defined and pre-specified research design that articulates purposely and prospectively, qualitative and quantitative components to generate an integrated set of evidence addressing a single research question. Various methodological design options are possible depending on the research question. MMR designs allow a research question to be studied thoroughly from different perspectives. When applied, it allows the strengths of one approach to complement the restrictions of another. Among other applications, MMR can be used to enhance the creation of conceptual models and development of new instruments, to interpret the meaningfulness of outcomes in a clinical study from the patient perspective, and inform health care policy. Robust MMR requires research teams with experience in both qualitative and quantitative research. Moreover, a thorough understanding of the underlying principles of MMR is recommended at the point of study conception all the way through to implementation and knowledge dissemination. The framework outlined in this paper is designed to encourage health outcomes researchers to apply MMR to their research and to facilitate innovative, patient-centred methodological solutions to address the complex challenges of the field.