Communicating medical device recalls: A rapid review of the literature.

OBJECTIVES: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) currently regulates more than 190,000 different medical devices. Like all products, these devices may be subject to manufacturing problems, flawed designs, or new and unexpected risks, which in some cases require devices to be recalled. In 2021, the FDA's Patient Engagement Advisory Committee (PEAC) recommended that the FDA consider changes to the communication approach used for medical device recalls to make them more patient-focused, timely, and action-oriented. METHODS: To support this recommendation, we conducted a rapid review of literature published from 2008-2022 to capture and examine information on risk communication approaches, methods, and best practices for recall-related communications about medical products. RESULTS: We identified 23 articles to include in our review. CONCLUSION: Our review found a lack of research-based studies as well as gaps in understanding about consumer perspectives, comprehension, and communication preferences related to recalls. Despite these limitations, we identified current communication approaches, numerous challenges, and recommendations for communicating medical products recall information to consumers. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Further research is needed to assess consumer attitudes, understanding, and preferences and to reach consensus on best practices for effectively communicating recall information to consumers of medical products.

Non-Fusion Versus Fusion Surgery in Pediatric Idiopathic Scoliosis: What Trade-Offs in Outcomes Are Acceptable for the Patient and Family?

BACKGROUND: Vertebral body tethering and other non-fusion techniques for the treatment of pediatric idiopathic scoliosis are increasing in popularity. There is limited physician consensus on this topic as the result of a paucity of published data regarding which patients most benefit from non-fusion strategies. Thus, much of the decision-making is left to patients and parents, who must select a treatment based on their goals and values and the information available from health-care providers, the internet, and social media. We sought to understand patient and family preferences regarding the attributes of fusion versus non-fusion surgery that drive these choices. METHODS: Patients and families were recruited from 7 pediatric spine centers and were asked to complete a survey-based choice experiment that had been jointly developed with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to evaluate patient preferences. Choices between experimentally designed alternatives were analyzed to estimate the relative importance of outcomes and requirements associated with the choice options (attributes). The attributes included appearance, confidence in the planned correction, spinal motion, device failure, reoperation, and recovery period. The inclusion criteria were (1) an age of 10 to 21 years and (2) a diagnosis of adolescent idiopathic scoliosis in patients who were considering, or who had already undergone, treatment with fusion or non-fusion surgery. Preference weights were estimated from the expected changes in choice given changes in the attributes. RESULTS: A total of 344 respondents (124 patients, 92 parents, and 128 parent/patient dyads) completed the survey. One hundred and seventy-three patients were enrolled prior to surgery, and 171 were enrolled after surgery. Appearance and motion were found to be the most important drivers of choice. For the entire cohort, fusion was preferred over non-fusion. For patients who were considering surgery, the most important attributes were preservation of spinal motion and appearance. CONCLUSIONS: Patients and families seeking treatment for idiopathic scoliosis value appearance and preservation of spinal motion and, to a lesser extent, reoperation rates when considering fusion versus non-fusion surgery.

Considerations for addressing bias in artificial intelligence for health equity.

Health equity is a primary goal of healthcare stakeholders: patients and their advocacy groups, clinicians, other providers and their professional societies, bioethicists, payors and value based care organizations, regulatory agencies, legislators, and creators of artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML)-enabled medical devices. Lack of equitable access to diagnosis and treatment may be improved through new digital health technologies, especially AI/ML, but these may also exacerbate disparities, depending on how bias is addressed. We propose an expanded Total Product Lifecycle (TPLC) framework for healthcare AI/ML, describing the sources and impacts of undesirable bias in AI/ML systems in each phase, how these can be analyzed using appropriate metrics, and how they can be potentially mitigated. The goal of these "Considerations" is to educate stakeholders on how potential AI/ML bias may impact healthcare outcomes and how to identify and mitigate inequities; to initiate a discussion between stakeholders on these issues, in order to ensure health equity along the expanded AI/ML TPLC framework, and ultimately, better health outcomes for all.

Usability and acceptability of virtual reality for chronic pain management among diverse patients in a safety-net setting: a qualitative analysis.

Objective: The aim of this study was to understand the usability and acceptability of virtual reality (VR) among a racially and ethnically diverse group of patients who experience chronic pain. Materials and Methods: Using the Technology Acceptance Model theory, we conducted semistructured interviews and direct observation of VR use with English-speaking patients who experience chronic pain treated in a public healthcare system (n = 15), using a commercially available VR technology platform. Interviews included questions about current pain management strategies, technology use, experiences and opinions with VR, and motivators for future use. Results: Before the study, none of the 15 participants had heard about or used VR for pain management. Common motivators for VR use included a previous history of substance use and having exhausted many other options to manage their pain and curiosity. Most participants had a positive experience with VR and 47% found that the VR modules distracted them from their pain. When attempting the navigation-based usability tasks, most participants (73%-92%) were able to complete them independently. Discussion: VR is a usable tool for diverse patients with chronic pain. Our findings suggest that the usability of VR is not a barrier and perhaps a focus on improving the accessibility of VR in safety-net settings is needed to reduce disparities in health technology use. Conclusions: The usability and acceptability of VR are rarely studied in diverse patient populations. We found that participants had a positive experience using VR, showed interest in future use, and would recommend VR to family and friends.

Integrating Patient-Generated Health Data Throughout the Total Product Life Cycle of Medical Devices.

Nearly ubiquitous use of personal electronics, wearable sensors, and other types of digital health technologies, along with wireless connectivity, makes the capture of health data directly from an individual easier, enabling the use of patient-generated health data (PGHD) as a potential bridge between a patient's home and the healthcare system. This type of real-world data may be a completely new type of information, or it may be a more frequent collection of traditional information over longer time periods to form a longitudinal view of a patient's health status that can inform decision-making in clinical, medical product regulatory, and coverage and reimbursement settings. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) has been exploring and advancing the collection and use of PGHD since 2016, hosting a public meeting on the topic in May 2021. This manuscript presents highlights from various discussions at this meeting including those on the importance of stakeholder engagement, characteristics of high data quality, and PGHD in practice in patient-driven registries, as well as a look forward to some of the opportunities in the field.

Patient Preferences Regarding Surgical Treatment Methods for Symptomatic Uterine Fibroids.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to rank the factors that are most and least important to patients with symptomatic uterine fibroids when considering surgical treatment options. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using a best worst scaling (BWS) preference elicitation approach, participants completed an online survey to rank factors associated with fibroid surgical treatments. Survey content was based on a literature review and included the following factors: symptom relief; surgical complications; repeat treatment; recovery time; cosmetic effects; risk of spreading undiagnosed cancer; sexual outcomes; maintenance of child-bearing; continuation of menses; unpredictable menses; and location of procedure. Participants completed 11 BWS tasks. For each task, we presented participants with a subset of 5 factors from the possible 11, and participants chose the most important and least important factor. Participants' responses were analyzed using conditional logistic regression to determine the relative importance of factors. Patient priorities were further explored via age and race. RESULTS: 285 respondents with symptomatic uterine fibroids (69 physician-confirmed and 216 self-reported) who had not undergone prior surgical treatment completed the survey. Respondents were enrolled from two clinical sites (clinical site cohort) and an online consumer panel (panel cohort). Both cohorts identified symptom relief, cancer risk, repeat treatment and complications as the most important factors in selecting surgical treatment options and location of procedure, return to normal activities after surgery, and cosmetic effects like presence of a scar after the surgical treatment as the least important factors. Of note, younger women (≤ 40) placed greater importance on the ability to have children after the procedure. CONCLUSION: Information regarding the factors most and least important to patients with symptomatic uterine fibroids might inform development and regulatory evaluation of new technologies and procedures. Study results may be useful in efforts to develop a set of outcomes to include in future fibroids clinical studies.

Symptoms and Satisfaction Levels Associated with Intraocular Lens Implants in the Monofocal and Premium IOL Patient-Reported Outcome Measure Study.

PURPOSE: To develop a questionnaire with standardized questions and images about visual symptoms and satisfaction administered before and after cataract surgery with monofocal and various (premium) intraocular lenses (IOLs). DESIGN: A prospective, observational study of cataract surgery patients completing a self-administered questionnaire preoperatively and postoperatively at 4 to 6 months. PARTICIPANTS: Five hundred fifty-four patients with plans to undergo implantation of the same IOL in both eyes on separate occasions in 20 ophthalmology practices. METHODS: An 86-item questionnaire with standardized images assessed the following 14 symptoms: glare, blurry vision, starbursts, hazy vision, snowballs, halos, floaters, double images, rings and spider webs, light flashes with eyes closed, distortion, light flashes with eyes open, shimmering images, and dark crescent-shaped shadows. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Symptom severity and level of symptom bother, satisfaction with vision, quality of vision, and ability to see without corrective lenses or eyeglasses. RESULTS: Except for dark crescent-shaped shadows, the report of visual symptoms significantly decreased postoperatively. Best uncorrected binocular visual acuity improved from 0.47 (20/59 Snellen visual acuity values) ± 0.35 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR) preoperatively to 0.12 (20/26 Snellen visual acuity values) ± 0.12 logMAR postoperatively. Patients' ratings of intermediate vision as good to excellent improved significantly from 12% preoperatively to 71% postoperatively, and patients' ratings of distance vision improved from 8% preoperatively to 85% postoperatively. After surgery, 84% reported that they were somewhat, very, or completely satisfied with their vision. Most patients (88%) reported that they could see pretty well, very well, or perfectly well without corrective lenses after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The Assessment of IntraOcular Lens Implant Symptoms questionnaire can be used across a wide variety of IOLs to evaluate visual symptoms and satisfaction with a growing segment of the market, premium IOLs, that target intermediate and near vision, in addition to distance vision. Compared to patients receiving monofocal IOLs, patients receiving premium IOLs appear to be more challenging to satisfy because of their requirements for distance, intermediate, and near vision, and their desire to be free of eyeglasses postoperatively. This instrument provides a structured, uniform tool for regulators, researchers, and ophthalmologists in everyday practice to gain insights into patients' experiences. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): The author(s) have no proprietary or commercial interest in any materials discussed in this article.

Patient-Centered Clinical Trial Design for Heart Failure Devices via Bayesian Decision Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The statistical significance of clinical trial outcomes is generally interpreted quantitatively according to the same threshold of 2.5% (in one-sided tests) to control the false-positive rate or type I error, regardless of the burden of disease or patient preferences. The clinical significance of trial outcomes-including patient preferences-are also considered, but through qualitative means that may be challenging to reconcile with the statistical evidence. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to apply Bayesian decision analysis to heart failure device studies to choose an optimal significance threshold that maximizes the expected utility to patients across both the null and alternative hypotheses, thereby allowing clinical significance to be incorporated into statistical decisions either in the trial design stage or in the post-trial interpretation stage. In this context, utility is a measure of how much well-being the approval decision for the treatment provides to the patient. METHODS: We use the results from a discrete-choice experiment study focusing on heart failure patients' preferences, questioning respondents about their willingness to accept therapeutic risks in exchange for quantifiable benefits with alternative hypothetical medical device performance characteristics. These benefit-risk trade-off data allow us to estimate the loss in utility-from the patient perspective-of a false-positive or false-negative pivotal trial result. We compute the Bayesian decision analysis-optimal statistical significance threshold that maximizes the expected utility to heart failure patients for a hypothetical two-arm, fixed-sample, randomized controlled trial. An interactive Excel-based tool is provided that illustrates how the optimal statistical significance threshold changes as a function of patients' preferences for varying rates of false positives and false negatives, and as a function of assumed key parameters. RESULTS: In our baseline analysis, the Bayesian decision analysis-optimal significance threshold for a hypothetical two-arm randomized controlled trial with a fixed sample size of 600 patients per arm was 3.2%, with a statistical power of 83.2%. This result reflects the willingness of heart failure patients to bear additional risks of the investigational device in exchange for its probable benefits. However, for increased device-associated risks and for risk-averse subclasses of heart failure patients, Bayesian decision analysis-optimal significance thresholds may be smaller than 2.5%. CONCLUSIONS: A Bayesian decision analysis is a systematic, transparent, and repeatable process for combining clinical and statistical significance, explicitly incorporating burden of disease and patient preferences into the regulatory decision-making process.

Development of a Patient-Reported Outcome Measure to Assess Symptoms Associated with Cataract Surgery and Intraocular Lens Implants.

PURPOSE: To develop a standardized patient-reported outcome measure of visual perceptions and symptoms for implanted premium and monofocal intraocular lenses (IOLs). DESIGN: Observational study before and after IOL implants to assess the measure and symptom experience. PARTICIPANTS: Adults scheduled for binocular implantation of the same IOL type completed the survey at baseline prior to surgery (n = 716) and postoperatively (n = 554). Most respondents were female (64%), White (81%), 61 or older (89%), and had some college or more education (62%). METHODS: Administration was by web survey with mail follow-up and phone reminders. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Frequency, severity, and level of symptom bother in the last 7 days for 14 symptoms: (1) glare, (2) hazy vision, (3) blurry vision, (4) starbursts, (5) halos, (6) snowballs, (7) floaters, (8) double images, (9) rings and spider webs, (10) distortion, (11) light flashes with eyes closed, (12) light flashes with eyes open, (13) shimmering images, and (14) dark shadows. RESULTS: The median correlation among having 14 symptoms at baseline was only 0.19. Mean uncorrected binocular visual acuity improved from a preoperative value of 0.47 logarithm of the minimum angle of resolution (logMAR; Snellen 20/59) to a postoperative value of 0.12 (20/26) and best-corrected binocular visual acuity improved from 0.23 logMAR (20/34) preoperative to 0.05 logMAR (20/22) postoperative. The most bothersome symptoms were reduced after surgery: preoperative/postoperative glare (84%/36%), blurry vision (68%/22%), starbursts (66%/28%), hazy vision (63%/18%), snowballs (55%/17%), and halos (52%/22%). All symptoms decreased significantly (P < 0.0001) from before to after surgery except for dark crescent-shaped shadows (4%/4%). The percentage of symptoms rated as quite a bit or extremely bothersome declined from before to after surgery except for dark crescent-shaped shadows (29%/32%): blurry vision (54%/15%), snowballs (52%/14%), glare (49%/15%), and halos (46%/14%). Having monofocal IOL implants was associated with significantly more reduction in halos, starbursts, glare, and rings and spider webs, but less improvement in self-reported general vision. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides support for the 37-item Assessment of IntraOcular Lens Implant Symptoms (AIOLIS) instrument for use to assess symptoms and general perceptions of vision in clinical studies and clinical care. FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE(S): Proprietary or commercial disclosure may be found after the references.

Integrating 4 Measures to Evaluate Physical Function in Patients with Cancer (In4M): Protocol for a prospective study.

Introduction: Accurate, patient-centered evaluation of physical function in patients with cancer can provide important information on the functional impacts experienced by patients both from the disease and its treatment. Increasingly, digital health technology is facilitating and providing new ways to measure symptoms and function. There is a need to characterize the longitudinal measurement characteristics of physical function assessments, including clinician-reported physical function (ClinRo), patient-reported physical function (PRO), performance outcome tests (PerfO) and wearable data, to inform regulatory and clinical decision-making in cancer clinical trials and oncology practice. Methods and analysis: In this prospective study, we are enrolling 200 English- and/or Spanish-speaking patients with breast cancer or lymphoma seen at Mayo Clinic or Yale University who will receive standard of care intravenous cytotoxic chemotherapy. Physical function assessments will be obtained longitudinally using multiple assessment modalities. Participants will be followed for 9 months using a patient-centered health data aggregating platform that consolidates study questionnaires, electronic health record data, and activity and sleep data from a wearable sensor. Data analysis will focus on understanding variability, sensitivity, and meaningful changes across the included physical function assessments and evaluating their relationship to key clinical outcomes. Additionally, the feasibility of multi-modal physical function data collection in real-world patients with cancer will be assessed, as will patient impressions of the usability and acceptability of the wearable sensor, data aggregation platform, and PROs. Ethics and dissemination: This study has received approval from IRBs at Mayo Clinic, Yale University, and the U.S. Food & Drug Administration. Results will be made available to participants, funders, the research community, and the public. Registration Details: The trial registration number for this study is NCT05214144. Strengths & Limitations: This study addresses an important unmet need by characterizing the performance characteristics of multiple patient-centered physical function measures in patients with cancerPhysical function is an important and undermeasured clinical outcome. Scientifically rigorous capture and measurement of physical function constitutes a key component of cancer treatment tolerability assessment both from a regulatory and clinical perspective.This study will include patients with lymphoma or breast cancer receiving a broad range of cytotoxic chemotherapy regimens. While recruitment will occur at two academic sites, patients who ultimately receive treatment at local community sites will be included.A patient-centered health data aggregating platform facilitates the delivery of patient-reported outcome measures and collection of wearable data to researchers, while reducing patient burden compared to traditional patient-generated data collection and aggregation methodsHeterogeneity in patient willingness or comfort engaging with mobile products including smartphones and wearables, enrollment primarily at large academic centers, and the modest sample size are potential limitations to the external validity of the study.

Focus Groups to Inform the Development of a Patient-Reported Outcome Measure (PROM) for Temporomandibular Joint Disorders (TMDs).

BACKGROUND: Understanding symptoms of temporomandibular joint disorders (TMDs) can help doctors and patients document, monitor, and manage the disease and help researchers evaluate interventions. Patients with TMDs experience symptoms ranging from mild to severe, primarily in the head and neck region. This study describes findings from formative patient focus groups to capture, categorize, and prioritize symptoms of TMDs towards the development of a patient-reported outcome measure (PROM). METHODS: We conducted ten focus groups with 40 men and women with mild, moderate, and severe TMD. Focus groups elicited descriptions of symptoms and asked participants to review a list of existing patient-reported outcomes (PROs) from the literature and patient advisor input and speak to how those PROs reflect their own experience, including rating their importance. RESULTS: We identified 52 distinct concepts across six domains: somatic, physical, social, sexual, affective, and sleep. Focus groups identified the ability to chew and eat; clicking, popping, and other jaw noises; jaw pain and headaches; jaw misalignment or dislocation; grinding, clenching, or chewing, including at night; and ear sensations as most important. Participants with severe TMDs more often reported affective concepts like depression and shame than did participants with mild or moderate TMDs. CONCLUSION: Findings support PROM item development for TMDs, including selecting existing PROMs or developing new ones that reflect patients' lived experiences, priorities, and preferred terminology. Such measures are needed to increase understanding of TMDs, promote accurate diagnosis and effective treatment, and help advance research on TMDs.

Patients with temporomandibular joint disorders, or TMDs, have pain and other problems in their jaw, and face and neck areas. We talked to 40 patients with mild, moderate, and severe TMDs to learn about their symptoms. We also asked patients to review a list of TMD symptoms. They then chose the most important ones based on their experience. The data showed 52 TMD symptoms and functions across six domains. The patients chose the ability to chew and eat; clicking, popping, and other jaw noises; and jaw pain and headaches as most important. They also chose jaw misalignment or dislocation; grinding, clenching, or chewing, including at night; and ear feelings as important. Findings support creating patient-reported outcome measures, or PROMs, for TMDs. These PROMs should reflect patients' experiences and what is most important to them. Such measures can help doctors treat TMDs and help advance research on TMDs.

Patient-reported outcome measures for individuals with temporomandibular joint disorders: a systematic review and evaluation.

OBJECTIVE: We used consensus-based, systematic protocols to evaluate the reliability and validity of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) for use in documenting treatment outcomes for temporomandibular disorders (TMDs). STUDY DESIGN: Following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines, we conducted a focused search of 5 literature databases resulting in a yield of 445 articles that qualified for full-text review. Our review identified 124 PROMs, from which we selected 19 directly related to symptoms of TMD including temporomandibular joint (TMJ) function. RESULTS: We abstracted data on 9 Consensus-based Standards of the selection of health Measurements INstruments (COSMIN) measurement properties and analyzed these data according to COSMIN criteria. Only 3 PROMs provided evidence for at least half of the COSMIN properties: Eight-item Jaw Function Limitations Scale, Oral Health Impact Profile (OHIP)-TMD (OHIP-TMD), and TMJ Ankylosis Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire. Only the OHIP-TMD provided evidence for properties essential to evaluating change over time: reliability, measurement error, and responsiveness. CONCLUSION: We believe these results can alert clinical practitioners to gaps in our knowledge about the most widely used PROMs in TMD practice, and identify topics requiring further study for clinical researchers.

Investigating gender-based differential item functioning on the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ) using qualitative content analysis.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to evaluate potential gender-based differences in interpreting the Kansas City Cardiomyopathy Questionnaire (KCCQ-23) and to explore if there are aspects of health-related quality of life (HRQOL) not captured by the KCCQ-23 that are important to assess in men and/or women with heart failure (HF). METHODS: Patients ≥ 22 years of age with clinician-diagnosed HF and left ventricular ejection fraction ≤ 40% were recruited from two academic medical centers to participate in semi-structured concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing interviews. Enrollment was stratified by patient-identified gender (half women/half men). All interviews were conducted over the phone/web and audio recorded. Interviews were transcribed and descriptive qualitative content analysis was used to summarize findings overall and by gender. RESULTS: Twenty-five adults (56% women) diagnosed with HF participated. The average age was 67 years (range: 25-88). Women attributed a wider variety of symptoms to HF than men. Some participants had difficulty differentiating whether their experiences were due to HF, side effects of their medications, or age. We found very little evidence that participants interpreted KCCQ-23 items differently based on gender. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, our findings indicate that interpretation of the KCCQ-23 items were similar in men and women. However, some modifications to items may improve clarity of interpretation for a wide range of patients.

Do PRO Measures Function the Same Way for all Individuals With Heart Failure?

Women diagnosed with heart failure report worse quality of life than men on patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. An inherent assumption of PRO measures in heart failure is that women and men interpret questions about quality of life the same way. If this is not the case, the risk then becomes that the PRO scores cannot be used for valid comparison or to combine outcomes by subgroups of the population. Inability to compare subgroups validly is a broad issue and has implications for clinical trials, and it also has specific and important implications for identifying and beginning to address health inequities. We describe this threat to validity (the psychometric term is differential item functioning), why it is so important in heart-failure outcomes, the research that has been conducted thus far in this area, the gaps that remain, and what we can do to avoid this threat to validity. PROs bring unique information to clinical decision making, and the validity of PRO measures is key to interpreting differences in heart failure outcomes.

Leveraging Patient Preference Information in Medical Device Clinical Trial Design.

Use of robust, quantitative tools to measure patient perspectives within product development and regulatory review processes offers the opportunity for medical device researchers, regulators, and other stakeholders to evaluate what matters most to patients and support the development of products that can best meet patient needs. The medical device innovation consortium (MDIC) undertook a series of projects, including multiple case studies and expert consultations, to identify approaches for utilizing patient preference information (PPI) to inform clinical trial design in the US regulatory context. Based on these activities, this paper offers a cogent review of considerations and opportunities for researchers seeking to leverage PPI within their clinical trial development programs and highlights future directions to enhance this field. This paper also discusses various approaches for maximizing stakeholder engagement in the process of incorporating PPI into the study design, including identifying novel endpoints and statistical considerations, crosswalking between attributes and endpoints, and applying findings to the population under study. These strategies can help researchers ensure that clinical trials are designed to generate evidence that is useful to decision makers and captures what matters most to patients.

Development of a Patient Preference Survey for Wearable Kidney Replacement Therapy Devices.

Background: Recent innovations have the potential to disrupt the current paradigm for kidney failure treatment. The US Food and Drug Administration is committed to incorporating valid scientific evidence about how patients weigh the benefits and risks of new devices into their decision making, but to date, premarket submission of patient preference information (PPI) has been limited for kidney devices. With input from stakeholders, we developed a survey intended to yield valid PPI, capturing how patients trade off the potential benefits and risks of wearable dialysis devices and in-center hemodialysis. Methods: We conducted concept elicitation interviews with individuals receiving dialysis to inform instrument content. After instrument drafting, we conducted two rounds of pretest interviews to evaluate survey face validity, comprehensibility, and perceived relevance. We pilot tested the survey with in-center hemodialysis patients to assess comprehensibility and usability further. Throughout, we used participant input to guide survey refinements. Results: Thirty-six individuals receiving in-center or home dialysis participated in concept elicitation (N=20) and pretest (N=16) interviews. Participants identified reduced fatigue, lower treatment burden, and enhanced freedom as important benefits of a wearable device, and many expressed concerns about risks related to device disconnection-specifically bleeding and infection. We drafted a survey that included descriptions of the risks of serious bleeding and serious infection and an assessment of respondent willingness to wait for a safer device. Input from pretest interviewees led to various instrument modifications, including treatment descriptions, item wording, and risk-level explanations. Pilot testing of the updated survey among 24 in-center hemodialysis patients demonstrated acceptable survey comprehensibility and usability, although 50% of patients required some assistance. Conclusions: The final survey is a 54-item web-based instrument that will yield estimates of the maximal acceptable risk for the described wearable device and willingness to wait for wearable devices with lower risk.

Patient-reported outcomes and medical device evaluation: from conception to implementation.

BACKGROUND: The insights gleaned from patient-reported outcomes (PROs) have implications across the healthcare ecosystem, from clinical investigations to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of medical devices to clinical care and reimbursement decisions. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) hosted a public meeting in September 2020 discussing how PROs can be used in medical device evaluation throughout the total product life cycle, as well as methods for developing and modifying PRO instruments to ensure they are fit-for-purpose. This commentary presents key points of discussion from the meeting, providing insight into the increased interest in PRO data to support medical product development while also exploring future opportunities of incorporating PRO data throughout healthcare. MAIN BODY: Thoughtful use of fit-for-purpose PRO instruments to integrate the patient's voice into clinical care paradigms, medical device development, regulatory decisions, and reimbursement and coverage decisions were emphasized throughout the meeting. Existing PRO instruments may be used if the context of use is appropriate. Modifications to an existing PRO instrument may also be explored to ensure the instrument is fit-for-purpose in a new context of use. Development of a novel PRO instrument may be necessary to capture attributes in a new patient population or application. Multi-stakeholder collaborations, of which patients are a key component, create efficiencies in the development and modification of PRO instruments. CONCLUSION: Continued multi-stakeholder collaborations bringing together researchers, clinicians, patients, regulators, and payers are critical to further advance the inclusion of the patient voice incorporating PRO instruments throughout the healthcare ecosystem in an efficient manner that is least burdensome to patients.

Inclusion of patient-reported outcome instruments in US FDA medical device marketing authorizations.

BACKGROUND: The U.S. Food and Drug Administration encourages the incorporation of the patient voice throughout the medical device total product lifecycle. This study examined the incorporation of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments in the evaluation of medical devices over a six-year period. PRO instruments used to inform study endpoints were extracted from the summary documents and clinical trial data of premarket authorizations posted on publicly available FDA databases between October 1, 2014-September 30, 2020. RESULTS: PROs were included in 53% of authorizations, with 34% using PROs as primary and secondary endpoints. This study found that PRO instruments were used in each type of marketing authorization and in all medical specialties examined in this study. CONCLUSIONS: Expanding the current collaborative efforts to develop and modify PRO instruments may help to improve use of PROs in medical device evaluations.