Search

An increasing interest in the identification of optimal dosage for oncology therapies has prompted key opinion leaders and regulators to encourage the integration of patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessments in phase I oncology clinical trials. Although the potential benefits of assessing PROs in early-phase studies have been acknowledged, the difficulties that arise from such a radical shift have been largely overlooked in the public discussion. In this commentary, the authors provide insight into the challenges that industry sponsors face in integrating PRO assessments into phase I oncology trials, with the ultimate goal of facilitating conversations that may help to resolve some of these issues. • Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are rarely assessed in phase I oncology studies, although recent initiatives from Food and Drug Administration encourage their use. • There are both benefits and challenges associated with assessing PROs in early-phase oncology trials. • To be successful, integration of PRO assessments in phase I oncology clinical trials requires an acknowledgment of the challenges industry sponsors face and realistic approaches to resolve these issues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A review of new oncology indications approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for 2012-2016 showed that 33% of new drugs had labeling based on patient-reported outcomes (PROs). We reviewed labeling text based on PRO endpoints for new oncology indications approved during 2017-2021. New oncology drugs approved by EMA to treat indications of cancers during 2017-2021 were identified from the EMA website. PRO-related language reported in EMA summaries of product characteristics (SmPCs) were summarized and compared with similar findings reported for oncology indications approved during 2012-2016. Review documents by the EMA during 2017-2021 were available for 49 new oncology drugs for 70 cancer indications. Submissions for 52 (74.3%) of the 70 indications included PRO data for EMA review. Of all submissions, 14 (20.0%) approvals contained PRO-related language in the SmPC. Broad concepts such as health-related quality of life were most common and found in 8 of 14 (57.1%) PRO-related labels. PRO-related language appeared in SmPCs for 20% of all indications of new oncology drugs approved by EMA during 2017-2021 compared with approximately 33% of EMA approvals during 2012-2016. PRO-related labeling during the same periods showed a greater decline (from 47% to 27%) for indications of new oncology drugs that also included PRO data. One possible reason for this decline may be the increase in open-label studies from 62% between 2012 and 2016 to approximately 79% between 2017 and 2021. • A previous review of new oncology indications approved by the European Medicines Agency for 2012 to 2016 showed that 33% of indications had labeling based on patient-reported outcomes (PROs). Of these, the most commonly included concepts were related to symptoms. • The current review, undertaken for 2017 to 2021, shows that PRO-related labeling was included in only 20% of new oncology indications approved by the European Medicines Agency—a decline of approximately 13%. In this period, broad concepts such as health-related quality of life represented the concepts most commonly included in labeling with PRO language. • One possible reason for the discrepancy observed during these 2 periods may be related to the more frequent use of open-label studies seen in the current review. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: A review of new drug approvals (NDAs) by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for 2006 to 2015 showed that approximately 20% of new drugs had labeling based on patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The purpose of this study was to review labeling text based on PRO endpoints for NDAs from 2016 to 2020, with a special focus on the comprehensibility of such statements when included.Methods: We reviewed drug approval reports on the Drugs@FDA web page of the FDA website to determine the number of NDAs from 2016 to 2020. For all identified NDAs, drug approval package and product labels were reviewed. NDAs from 2016 to 2020 were grouped by disease category as per International Classification of Diseases 10th Revision. Data were summarized for diseases that traditionally rely on PROs for evaluating treatment benefit (PRO dependent) and for diseases that traditionally do not rely on PROs (non-PRO dependent). Results were compared with NDAs from 2006 to 2010.Results: NDAs amounting to 228 were identified from 2016 to 2020, 26.3% of which had labeling statements based on PRO endpoints. From 2006 to 2015 and from 2016 to 2020, PRO labeling statements were included in 46.5% (46 of 99) and 50.0% (47 of 94), respectively, of NDAs for PRO-dependent new molecular entities and in 6.0% (12 of 199) and 9.7% (13 of 199), respectively, of NDAs for non-PRO-dependent new molecular entities. Comprehensibility of labeling statements based on PRO endpoints was judged to be complex in 56.7% of product labels.Conclusions: The increase in labeling text based on PRO endpoints in product labels is encouraging. However, there is room for improvement on the comprehensibility of labeling statements based on PRO endpoints. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Identify disease categories in which single-item global impression (GI) scales were included in product labeling of new drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in January 2009-December 2019 and review the characteristics of GIs included in product labeling of new FDA-approved drugs (January 2017-December 2019).Methods: FDA Clinical Outcome Assessment (COA) Compendium was reviewed for drug labels that included GIs for drugs approved in 2009-2016. The indication, year of approval, ICD-10 code, and GI respondent were noted. A manual review of labels of FDA-approved drugs (2017-2019) was undertaken to identify GIs included in the labels. Corresponding drug approval packages were reviewed to identify details of any regulatory reviewer comments related to GIs. GI characteristics were noted from the drug label or the review documents, including the respondent, type of measure (static or dynamic), item wording, concept assessed, and response options.Results: Product labeling containing GIs was most common in diseases related to the skin, nervous system, behavioral disorders, and the musculoskeletal system. GIs were included in 30/77 (39.0%) drug labels in the four disease categories.Conclusion: In the past 10 years, GIs have been included as endpoint measures in confirmatory clinical trials and have generated evidence of treatment benefit in diseases related to the skin, nervous system, behavioral disorders, and the musculoskeletal system. GIs frequently provide important insights into the patient experience. Before GIs are included in clinical trials to assess treatment benefit, it is important to ensure that they are valid, reliable, and responsive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: To compare US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) labeling for evidence based on patient-reported outcomes (PROs) of new oncology treatments approved by both agencies.Methods: Oncology drugs and indications approved between 2012 and 2016 by both the FDA and the EMA were identified. PRO-related language and analysis reported in US product labels and drug approval packages and EMA summaries of product characteristics were compared for each indication.Results: In total, 49 oncology drugs were approved for a total of 64 indications. Of the 64 indications, 45 (70.3%) included PRO data in either regulatory submission. No FDA PRO labeling was identified. PRO language was included in the summary of product characteristics for 21 (46.7%) of 45 indications. European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer and Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy measures were used frequently in submissions. FDA's comments suggest that aspects of study design (eg, open labels) or the validity of PRO measures was the primary reason for the lack of labeling based on PRO endpoints. Both agencies identified missing PRO data as problematic for interpretation.Conclusions: During this time period, the FDA and the EMA used different evidentiary standards to assess PRO data from oncology studies, with the EMA more likely to accept data from open-label studies and broad concepts such as health-related quality of life. An understanding of the key differences between the agencies may guide sponsor PRO strategy when pursuing labeling. Patient-focused proximal concepts are more likely than distal concepts to receive positive reviews. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background A review of new drug approvals (NDAs) by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for 2006 to 2010 showed that 24.1% of new drugs had patient-reported outcome (PRO) labeling. Objectives To review PRO labeling for NDAs for 2011 to 2015 and to compare key findings reported previously. Methods A review of the FDA drug approval reports for NDAs was conducted using the FDA Web site to determine the number of NDAs for the period 2011 to 2015. For all identified NDAs, drug approval package and product labeling were reviewed to identify PRO end-point status and PRO labeling. NDAs for the period 2006 to 2015 were grouped by disease category as per the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision . Data were summarized for all NDAs and for approvals in diseases that traditionally rely on PROs for evaluating treatment benefit (PRO-dependent). Results were compared with NDAs for the period 2006 to 2010. Results In the period 2011 to 2015, 16.5% of the 182 NDAs had PRO labeling. For PRO-dependent NDAs, this figure was 46.9% and 46.0% for the period 2006 to 1010 and the period 2011 to 2015, respectively. Most of the PRO labeling for the period 2011 to 2015 was based on primary end points (76.7%). Almost all PRO labeling was for concepts proximal to the disease. Conclusions There is potential for increased PRO labeling, especially for drug approvals in diseases that traditionally rely on PROs for evaluating treatment benefit to satisfy regulatory needs. Less PRO labeling based on secondary end points may be indicative of drug manufacturers’ reluctance to aid and enhance the value propositions of their products to all stakeholders, including patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) encourages the assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in oncology clinical trials. A 2015 review showed that approximately 26% of industry-sponsored oncology trials included assessment of PROs. However, the proportion of recent trials that supported new oncology drug approvals and assessed PROs is unknown. This review found that assessment of PROs was included in about 75% of registration trials that supported 55 new FDA drug approvals during 2014–2018. Patient-reported outcome assessment was included more in randomized controlled trials than in open-label trials (88% vs. 69%, respectively) and more in phase 3 than in phase 2 trials (89% vs. 66%, respectively). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The purpose of this research was to fully explore the impact of endpoint type (primary vs. nonprimary) on decisions related to patient-reported outcome (PRO) labeling claims supported by PRO measures and to determine if nonprimary PRO endpoints are being fully optimized. This review examines the use of PROs as both primary and nonprimary endpoints in support of demonstration of treatment benefit of new molecular entities (NMEs) and biologic license applications (BLAs) in the United States in the years 2000 to 2012. Methods: All NMEs and BLAs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between January 2000 and June 2012 were identified using the FDA Drug Approval Reports Web page. Generic products granted tentative approvals were excluded. For all identified products, medical review sections from publicly available drug approval packages were reviewed to identify PRO endpoint status. Product labels (indication, clinical trials sections) were reviewed to determine the number and type of PRO claim. Results: A total of 308 NMEs/BLAs were identified. Of these, 70 NMEs/BLAs (23%) were granted PRO claims. The majority of product claims were for disease- or condition-specific signs and symptoms. Of the 70 products with PRO claims, a PRO was a primary endpoint for the vast majority (57 [81%]). A total of 19 of the 70 products were granted a PRO claim based on a nonprimary endpoint. While nonprimary endpoints were used most often to support claims of improved signs or symptoms, nonprimary endpoints were much more likely to support claims of higher order impacts. Conclusions: Successful PRO labeling claims are typically based on primary endpoints assessing signs and symptoms. Based on this research, studies with PROs as primary endpoints are far more likely to facilitate positive regulatory review and acceptance of PROs in support of labeling claims. Although inclusion of PROs as nonprimary endpoints in clinical trials has its challenges, recent PRO labels granted by the FDA show that they can indeed be candidates for PRO labeling claims as long as they are supported by evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Introduction: The increasing complexities of conducting multiregional trials and an evolving regulatory environment contribute to unprecedented new challenges for use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) 1 [1] Patient-reported outcome measures. within clinical trials. This paper presents these challenges and potential solutions. Methods: Real-world examples and situations are reviewed from an industry and patient-reported outcome (PRO) 2 [2] Patient-reported outcome. expert position. Conclusions: An increase in the pursuit of new therapeutic targets, changes to the regulatory environment, and business pressures to expand clinical trials to more countries have significantly increased the complexity of confirmatory clinical studies that incorporate PROMs. Decisions to participate in collaborative efforts for endpoint development or proceed independently are made in the context of competing priorities of drug development timelines, drug differentiation strategies, the need for patient-related value messages, and the depth of a sponsor pipeline within specific disease areas. Study logistics are critically important; factors such as concept cultural relevancy, respondent literacy level, and quality of cross-cultural adaptation of PROMs must be evaluated when integrating into confirmatory clinical trials. Awareness of the issues relating to PROs in multiregional studies will enable companies to better plan studies and interpret results. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Objective: In 2004, Willke and colleagues reviewed the efficacy endpoints reported in the labels of new drugs approved in the United States from 1997 through 2002 to evaluate the use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) endpoints. Of the labels reviewed, 30% included PROs. Our study aimed to build on this work by describing the current state of PRO label claims granted for new molecular entities (and biologic license applications since February 2006 after the release of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) draft PRO guidance. Methods: All new molecular entities and biologic license applications approved by the FDA from January 2006 through December 2010 were identified by using the Web page of the FDA Drug Approval Reports. For all identified products, drug approval packages and approved product labels were reviewed to identify PRO endpoint status and to determine the number and type of PRO claims. Results: Of the 116 products identified, 28 (24%) were granted PRO claims; 24 (86%) were for symptoms, and, of these, 9 (38%) claims were pain related. Of the 28 products with PRO claims, a PRO was a primary endpoint for 20 (71%), all symptom related. Conclusions: The FDA continues to approve PRO claims, with 24% of new molecular entities and biologic license applications being granted. Successful PRO label claims over the past 5 years have generally supported treatment benefit for symptoms specified as primary endpoints. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: The patient''s perspective of treatment outcomes is increasingly important to consumers and providers of healthcare. Recent studies have shown that traditional clinical endpoints may not accurately reflect the patient experience with treatment. Often patients'' experience of their disease and associated treatment differs from the perspective of their physicians. When implemented with a clear and effective assessment strategy, patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures can be used to collect data directly from patients in the clinical setting. These data can be applied to a range of outcomes, such as treatment efficacy, safety, and patient satisfaction. Such information is valuable at various stages of drug development and can be used to understand the patient''s perspective of the treatment for evaluating the treatment benefit of new products and to engage patients to make decisions about treatment options and ultimately to support commercialization of pharmaceutical products. Recognizing the value of these data, various regulatory agencies have recently released guidelines on how to best implement these measures in clinical trials to support label claims. The purpose of this paper is to discuss the benefits of collecting PRO data for evaluating the outcomes of treatments in clinical trials, through the product life cycle. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The use of patient reported outcome scales in clinical trials conducted by the pharmaceutical industry has become more widespread in recent years. The use of such outcomes is particularly common for products developed to treat chronic, disabling conditions where the intention is not to cure but to ameliorate symptoms, facilitate functioning or, ultimately, to improve quality of life. In such cases, patient reported evidence is increasingly viewed as an essential complement to traditional clinical evidence for establishing a product's competitive advantage in the marketplace. In a commercial setting, the value of patient reported outcomes is viewed largely in terms of their potential for securing a labelling claim in the USA or inclusion in the summary of product characteristics in Europe. Although, the publication of the recent US Food and Drug Administration guidance makes it difficult for companies to make claims in the USA beyond symptom improvements, the value of these outcomes goes beyond satisfying requirements for a label claim. The European regulatory authorities, payers both in the US and Europe, clinicians and patients all play a part in determining both the availability and the pricing of medicinal products and all have an interest in patient-reported data that go beyond just symptoms. The purpose of the current paper is to highlight the potential added value of patient reported outcome data currently collected and held by the industry for these groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMEA) are willing to consider including information on patient reported outcomes (PROs) in product labeling and advertising. Pharmaceutical industry researchers must provide sufficient evidence supporting PRO benefit before an approval may be granted. This report describes the purpose and content of a PRO Evidence Dossier, which consists of important information supporting PRO claims. The dossier should be completed by pharmaceutical industry or other researchers to document the planning of the PRO assessment strategy, psychometric evidence, desired target labeling statements, and the clinical trial evidence of PRO benefits. The systematic reporting and documentation of information on the rationale for including PROs, rationale for the selection of specific PRO instruments, evidence on the psychometric qualities of the PRO measures, and guidelines for interpreting PRO findings will facilitate achieving a PRO labeling or promotional claim. Combining all the relevant information into a single document will facilitate the review and evaluation process for clinical and regulatory reviewers. The PRO Evidence Dossier may also be helpful to industry and academic researchers in identifying further information that will need to be developed to support the clinical development program and the PRO endpoints. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examined the inclusion of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data in new drug applications (NDAs) submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and approved from 2018 to 2021. The importance of assessing PROs, which capture patients' perspectives on the disease and treatment experience, has been underscored by many stakeholders, including regulatory authorities. Despite the increasing inclusion of PRO assessments in registration trials, inclusion of language related to PRO results in approved product labeling varies widely. This study examined FDA submission packages for NDAs approved by the FDA from 2018 to 2021 to identify critical reviewer comments related to PROs. Comments were identified and categorized by the type of criticism. Reviewers considered both oncology and nononcology indications. Assessment of PROs was included in 66.2% of the 210 submissions reviewed. Critical comments were identified in 45.3% of these applications; comments most commonly related to statistical analysis considerations, fit for purpose, and study design. Other categories of critical comment included data quality, lack of treatment benefit, administrative considerations, and miscellaneous issues. Differences were observed between oncology and nononcology NDAs with regard to the number and type of comments included in each of these categories. The findings highlight the importance of planning statistical analyses, establishing content validity, carefully considering study design, maximizing data quality, and demonstrating treatment benefit, among other issues. Overall, this study offers insight into the landscape of PRO data included in recently approved NDAs, along with recommendations for improving the quality and reporting of PROs in clinical trials. • This article examined patient-reported outcome (PRO)-related reviewer comments included in approved new drug applications (2018-2021). The insights from this review shed light on the quality of contemporary PRO strategy and implementation and on regulatory consideration for these data. • This study identifies comments on the differences in the quality of PRO data, including administration, analysis, and interpretation. Differences were particularly notable between oncology and nononcology submissions. • These findings help advance our understanding of the value of PRO data to support regulatory decision making, offering valuable guidance on improving the incorporation of the patient experience into clinical trials through the assessment of PROs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The purpose of this research was to fully explore the impact of endpoint type (primary vs. nonprimary) on decisions related to patient-reported outcome (PRO) labeling claims supported by PRO measures and to determine if nonprimary PRO endpoints are being fully optimized.This review examines the use of PROs as both primary and nonprimary endpoints in support of demonstration of treatment benefit of new molecular entities (NMEs) and biologic license applications (BLAs) in the United States in the years 2000 to 2012.Methods: All NMEs and BLAs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between January 2000 and June 2012 were identified using the FDA Drug Approval Reports Web page. Generic products granted tentative approvals were excluded. For all identified products, medical review sections from publicly available drug approval packages were reviewed to identify PRO endpoint status. Product labels (indication, clinical trials sections) were reviewed to determine the number and type of PRO claim.Results: A total of 308 NMEs/BLAs were identified. Of these, 70 NMEs/BLAs (23%) were granted PRO claims. The majority of product claims were for disease- or condition-specific signs and symptoms. Of the 70 products with PRO claims, a PRO was a primary endpoint for the vast majority (57 [81%]). A total of 19 of the 70 products were granted a PRO claim based on a nonprimary endpoint. While nonprimary endpoints were used most often to support claims of improved signs or symptoms, nonprimary endpoints were much more likely to support claims of higher order impacts.Conclusions: Successful PRO labeling claims are typically based on primary endpoints assessing signs and symptoms. Based on this research, studies with PROs as primary endpoints are far more likely to facilitate positive regulatory review and acceptance of PROs in support of labeling claims. Although inclusion of PROs as nonprimary endpoints in clinical trials has its challenges, recent PRO labels granted by the FDA show that they can indeed be candidates for PRO labeling claims as long as they are supported by evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: To assess self-reported physical functioning in patients with sporadic inclusion body myositis (sIBM), the sIBM Physical Functioning Assessment (sIFA) was developed. This research establishes the validity, reliability, and responsiveness of the sIFA in patients with sIBM.Methods: Data from 3 small, noninterventional, observational studies were analyzed. Several measures of physical function were included to assess validity. Reliability (Cronbach alpha, test-retest intraclass correlations), construct validity (correlations, analyses of variance), and responsiveness (effect size estimates) were evaluated.Results: Cronbach alphas (range = 0.86-0.91) and test-retest reliability (0.91) were highly satisfactory. Correlations with other measures provided evidence of convergent validity. sIBM patients able to walk without assistive devices scored significantly better on the sIFA (means = 36.0-47.05) than those who required power mobility or wheelchairs (means = 54.9-71.5), demonstrating the discriminating ability of the sIFA. Effect size estimates of responsiveness suggested mild functional progression.Conclusions: Psychometric analyses of the sIFA demonstrate satisfactory reliability, validity, and responsiveness. Muscle Nerve 54: 658-665, 2016. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Bardet–Biedl syndrome is a rare genetic disease associated with hyperphagia and early-onset, severe obesity. There is limited evidence on how hyperphagia and obesity affect health-related quality of life in patients with Bardet–Biedl syndrome, and on how management of these symptoms may influence disease burden. This analysis evaluated changes in health-related quality of life in adults and children with Bardet–Biedl syndrome in a Phase 3 trial following 1 year of setmelanotide treatment (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03746522). Methods: Patients with Bardet–Biedl syndrome and obesity received 52 weeks of treatment with setmelanotide and completed various self-reported health-related quality of life measures. Patients aged < 18 years or their caregiver completed the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL; meaningful improvement, 4.4-point change); adults aged ≥ 18 years completed the Impact of Weight on Quality of Life Questionnaire-Lite (IWQOL-Lite; meaningful improvement range, 7.7–12-point change). Descriptive outcomes were reported in patients with data both at active treatment baseline and after 52 weeks of treatment. Results: Twenty patients (< 18 years, n = 9; ≥ 18 years, n = 11) reported health-related quality of life at baseline and 52 weeks. For children and adolescents, PedsQL score mean change from baseline after 52 weeks was + 11.2; all patients with PedsQL impairment at baseline (n = 4) experienced clinically meaningful improvement. In adults, IWQOL-Lite score mean change from baseline was + 12.0. Of adults with IWQOL-Lite impairment at baseline (n = 8), 62.5% experienced clinically meaningful improvement. In adults, IWQOL-Lite score was significantly correlated with changes in percent body weight (P = 0.0037) and body mass index (P = 0.0098). Conclusions: After 1 year of setmelanotide, patients reported clinically meaningful improvements across multiple health-related quality of life measures. This study highlights the need to address the impaired health-related quality of life in Bardet–Biedl syndrome, and supports utility of setmelanotide for reducing this burden. Trial Registration NCT03746522. Registered November 19, 2018, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03746522. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The primary aim of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment is to induce remission, the absence of disease activity. The objective of this study was to explore the association between clinical endpoints used to gauge RA treatment efficacy and patient-reported outcomes of healthrelated quality of life, fatigue, and physical function in RA patients treated with secukinumab in a phase 2 randomized controlled trial (RCT). Method Adult RA patients (n = 237) with incomplete responses to methotrexate were randomized equally to receive monthly s.c. injections of secukinumab 25 mg, 75 mg, 150 mg, 300 mg or placebo. Clinical endpoints used in this study included the ACR response criteria and its components and simplified disease activity score. Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) included Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 [SF-36] Survey, and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy- Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue). Patients were categorized into mutually exclusive groups according to the magnitude and direction of change from baseline to week 16 in each clinical endpoint. Definitions of minimal important differences [MID] in each clinical endpoint were used to categorize patients, as well as thresholds beyond MID. Mean changes from baseline to week 16 were computed for each PRO and analyses of variance to test the differences in PRO changes observed across groups of patients that differed in each clinical endpoint. Analyses were limited to patients randomized to secukinumab treatment. All dose groups were combined (n = 187). Results Mean changes from baseline in each PRO differed significantly across groups of patients in the expected direction. With few exceptions, there was considerable agreement between clinical endpoints and PROs concerning the magnitude of change defined as clinically meaningful. More importantly, results demonstrated that greater improvements in clinical endpoints were associated with incrementally better improvements in HRQoL, fatigue, and physical function. Conclusion Results of this study show considerable agreement between minimal thresholds of improvement established for PROs and clinical outcome measures used in RA treatment studies and provide thresholds to be considered in gauging the importance of a treatment effect that goes beyond what is considered as minimally important for PRO measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Individuals with proopiomelanocortin (POMC) or leptin receptor (LEPR) deficiency are young and experience severe obesity, hyperphagia, and comorbidities, which can impair quality of life (QOL).Methods: Two pivotal Phase 3 trials explored the effect of setmelanotide on body weight and hunger in individuals with obesity due to POMC (NCT02896192) or LEPR (NCT03287960) deficiency. QOL and depression were investigated in parallel using the disease-specific, age-appropriate Impact of Weight on Quality of Life-Lite (IWQOL-Lite), Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory (PedsQL), and Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9).Results: In total, the POMC and LEPR trials enrolled 21 patients. Adults (≥ 18 years old; n = 7) had moderate-to-severe impairment in QOL at baseline, with mean (standard deviation [SD]) IWQOL-Lite total score 60.3 (13.2; maximum IWQOL-Lite total score = 100). The effect of setmelanotide on IWQOL-Lite total score was observed as soon as Week 5. Among those with scores at Week 52, 5 of 6 adults experienced a clinically meaningful improvement, with mean (SD) total scores increased from baseline by 24.2 (12.1) points. Children (6-12 years old; n = 2) and adolescents (13-17 years old; n = 4) had impaired QOL at baseline, with mean (SD) self-reported PedsQL total scores 53.3 (6.2) and 63.3 (29.1), respectively (maximum PedsQL total score = 100). Three of 5 patients experienced clinically meaningful improvement in PedsQL, with 2 children whose PedsQL total score increased by 28.3 and 3.3 points and 3 adolescents whose mean (SD) total score increased from baseline by 5.8 (18.3) points. Baseline mean (SD) PHQ-9 score (in those ≥ 12 years old) was 5.3 (3.8) and was generally maintained through Week 52.Conclusions: Patients with POMC or LEPR deficiency had impaired, and in some cases severely impaired, QOL before setmelanotide treatment. Setmelanotide improved QOL in patients as early as Week 5, with some patients no longer experiencing impaired QOL at Week 52. Improvements in QOL may be related to a reduction in hunger and body weight associated with setmelanotide. Because of the highly complex psychological consequences of rare genetic diseases of obesity, some patients may require a long period of treatment to improve QOL and benefit from interdisciplinary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) is particularly important during maintenance therapy (MT) in newly diagnosed multiple myeloma post‐transplant, when disease symptoms are limited. Methods: We assessed HRQoL in patients randomised to 26 cycles of MT (ixazomib vs placebo) in TOURMALINE‐MM3 (NCT02181413). Results: The characteristics at study entry were well‐balanced between ixazomib (n = 386) and placebo (n = 251) arms. At study entry, EORTC QLQ‐C30 and MY20 scores were high for functional scales and low for symptom scales and were comparable with those of the general population. Changes in subscale scores across intervals, analysed over 30 four‐week intervals using a linear mixed‐effects model, were generally small and similar between arms for the EORTC QLQ‐C30 Global Health Status/QoL, Physical Functioning, and Pain subscales and EORTC QLQ‐MY20 Disease Symptoms subscale and Peripheral Neuropathy item. EORTC QLQ‐C30 Nausea/Vomiting and Diarrhoea subscales were consistently worse for ixazomib than for placebo, in line with the ixazomib toxicity profile. Even when least‐squares mean differences between arms were statistically significant, none reached the established minimal important clinical difference of 10 in multiple myeloma. Conclusions: In addition to improvement in progression‐free survival with ixazomib, HRQoL was maintained in both arms. Active treatment with ixazomib did not have an adverse impact on HRQoL. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background:The emergence of new biological therapies showing high and sustained level of Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 response has provided the possibility of both greater skin clearance and increased quality of life (QOL). Objective:To evaluate the association of greater response in skin clearance with improvements in skin-related QOL up to 52 weeks. Methods:Subjects achieving various levels of skin clearance (PASI 90–100 or PASI 75–89) and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) (0/1) response were compared using ERASURE and FIXTURE trial data. Similar analyses with IGA ratings of Clear or Almost Clear were performed. Results:Significantly more PASI 90–100 responders at week 12 had DLQI 0/1 response than PASI 75–89 (69.4% vs. 47.1%;p < .001) and sustained DLQI 0/1 response at week 52 (74.0% vs. 56.7%;p < .001). IGA results were similar. Conclusions:These results show that PASI 90–100 is a relevant therapeutic goal in moderate to severe psoriasis compared to PASI 75–89 when considering patients’ QOL. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Introduction: Sporadic inclusion body myositis (sIBM) is a progressive idiopathic inflammatory myopathy characterized by atrophy and weakness of proximal and distal muscle groups that results in a loss of independence and the need for assistive devices and supportive care. To assess treatment benefit of new therapies, a patient-reported outcome measure of physical function was developed.Methods: The tool was rigorously developed in accordance with the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) patient-reported outcomes (PRO) guidance. A single-visit, observational study was conducted. Standard qualitative analytical methods were employed to analyze interview data and generate questionnaire items.Results: Twenty concept elicitation and 19 cognitive debriefing interviews were conducted, and 6 expert physicians were consulted. The tool consists of 11 items scored on a 0-10 numerical rating scale. Subjects completed the questionnaire utilizing either paper or electronic administration.Conclusion: We have developed a PRO tool in alignment with FDA PRO guidance for use in the functional assessment of treatment benefit in sIBM. Muscle Nerve, 2016 Muscle Nerve 54: -, 2016 Muscle Nerve 54: 653-657, 2016. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives This analysis aimed to confirm the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the Psoriasis Symptom Diary (PSD) using data from two Phase III studies in patients with moderate to severe chronic plaque psoriasis. Methods Data from two randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, multicenter Phase III studies ( n = 820) assessing the efficacy and safety of secukinumab were used. The PSD (24-h recall; 0-10 numeric rating scale) was electronically administered each evening. Test-retest reliability was determined using intraclass correlations. Construct validity hypotheses were evaluated via correlations with the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI), Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA), Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI), EuroQoL 5-Dimension Health Status Questionnaire, and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGIC). Discriminating ability and responsiveness were evaluated by estimating mean differences and effect sizes between known groups (using the PASI and IGA). Phase II-derived, anchor-based PGIC thresholds and cumulative distribution function (CDF) plots described meaningful change. Results Items on the PSD yielded high intraclass coefficients (>0.90). Correlations were in the anticipated direction and by week 12 were moderate to strong (0.41-0.73) in magnitude, demonstrating construct validity. Average PSD item scores differed predictably and significantly between known groups. Responsiveness effect size estimates were moderate to large (0.6-1.5), and CDF plots showed the percentage of responders to be consistently higher in treatment than in placebo arms across the range of change in PSD scores. Conclusions The PSD is reliable, valid, and responsive, and represents a valid tool to enhance treatment decisions in patients with moderate to severe plaque psoriasis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Inattention and impulsivity symptoms are common among adults with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), which can lead to difficulty concentrating, restlessness, difficulty completing tasks, disorganization, impatience, and impulsiveness. Many adults with ADHD find it difficult to focus and prioritize. Resulting outcomes, such as missed deadlines and forgotten engagements, may ultimately impact the ability to function at work, school, home, or in a social environment. The European Medicines Agency guidelines for evaluating medicinal products for ADHD recommend inclusion of both functional outcomes, such as school, social, or work functioning, and outcomes related to symptoms of ADHD in clinical studies of novel medication primary efficacy endpoints. Due to its performance in other disease areas and the relevance of its items as evidenced by content validity analyses, the Sheehan Disability Scale (SDS) was chosen to assess functional impairment in ADHD. The aim of this study was to investigate the psychometric properties of the SDS, used as a brief measure of functional impairment in a number of psychiatric disorders, in adult patients with ADHD. To the authors' knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate the reliability of the SDS (based on Cronbach's coefficient alpha and test-retest reliability), its validity (construct and known-groups validity), and its ability to detect change in this patient population. This study also established a preliminary responder definition for the SDS in this study population to determine when change can be considered clinically beneficial in a clinical trial setting. The psychometric results support the use of the SDS subscales (items 1-3) and total score (sum of items 1-3) in an ADHD population. In addition, the evaluation provides evidence for a three-point preliminary responder definition for the SDS and further evidence of its responsiveness in adults with ADHD. Altogether, the results indicate that the SDS is a simple and easy-to-score scale that would have great utility in future clinical trials for monitoring functional impairment in adults with ADHD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The primary aim of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) treatment is to induce remission, the absence of disease activity. The objective of this study was to explore the association between clinical endpoints used to gauge RA treatment efficacy and patient-reported outcomes of health-related quality of life, fatigue, and physical function in RA patients treated with secukinumab in a phase 2 randomized controlled trial (RCT).Method: Adult RA patients (n = 237) with incomplete responses to methotrexate were randomized equally to receive monthly s.c. injections of secukinumab 25 mg, 75 mg, 150 mg, 300 mg or placebo. Clinical endpoints used in this study included the ACR response criteria and its components and simplified disease activity score. Patient-reported outcomes (PRO) included Health Assessment Questionnaire-Disability Index (HAQ-DI), Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 [SF-36] Survey, and Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue (FACIT-Fatigue). Patients were categorized into mutually exclusive groups according to the magnitude and direction of change from baseline to week 16 in each clinical endpoint. Definitions of minimal important differences [MID] in each clinical endpoint were used to categorize patients, as well as thresholds beyond MID. Mean changes from baseline to week 16 were computed for each PRO and analyses of variance to test the differences in PRO changes observed across groups of patients that differed in each clinical endpoint. Analyses were limited to patients randomized to secukinumab treatment. All dose groups were combined (n = 187).Results: Mean changes from baseline in each PRO differed significantly across groups of patients in the expected direction. With few exceptions, there was considerable agreement between clinical endpoints and PROs concerning the magnitude of change defined as clinically meaningful. More importantly, results demonstrated that greater improvements in clinical endpoints were associated with incrementally better improvements in HRQoL, fatigue, and physical function.Conclusion: Results of this study show considerable agreement between minimal thresholds of improvement established for PROs and clinical outcome measures used in RA treatment studies and provide thresholds to be considered in gauging the importance of a treatment effect that goes beyond what is considered as minimally important for PRO measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract: Background: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) provides formal guidance for the use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in support of labeling claims, whereas the European Medicines Agency (EMA) offers insight in a reflection paper relating to health-related quality of life in lieu of formal guidance. Objectives: PRO label claims granted for new molecular entities and biologic license applications from 2006 through 2010 were reviewed to evaluate consistencies and discrepancies in PRO label claims granted by the FDA and the EMA and to highlight trends in the acceptance of PRO claims across agencies. Methods: Products approved by both the FDA and the EMA were identified. By using US Drug Approval Packages and European Public Assessment Reports packages, any PRO label claims made for the same product by the same company were compared. Results: Both agencies approved a total of 75 products. Of these, 35 (47%) had at least one EMA-granted PRO label claim compared with 14 (19%) by the FDA. Most FDA-grated claims focused on symptoms; however, EMA-granted claims were more likely to include higher order concepts. Few (~12%) were granted the same label claims. Despite this discordance between the two agencies, where PRO label claims were granted by both the FDA and the EMA, there was similarity in the type of label claim. Conclusions: The EMA is more likely than the FDA to grant PRO claims and for higher order constructs. On a macro level, there appears to be poor concordance between claims granted by both agencies. On close examination, however, there appears to be greater concordance than previously recognized, which may be instructive in formulating future PRO strategies. Further research to create strategic alignment across agencies may be beneficial. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Abstract: Objectives: Previous analyses of patient-reported outcome (PRO) label claims concentrated only on successful label claims. The goal of this research was to explore the reasons why PRO label claims were denied and to compile regulatory feedback regarding the use of PROs in clinical trials. Methods: By using the Food and Drug Administration''s Drug Approval Report Web page, all new molecular entities and biologic license applications approved between January 2006 and December 2010 were identified. For identified drug products, medical review sections from publicly available drug approval packages were reviewed to identify PRO end-point status and any Study Endpoints and Label Development team comments. Results: Of the 116 new molecular entities and biologic license applications with accompanying drug approval packages identified and reviewed, 44.8% of the products included PROs as part of the pivotal studies; however, only 24.1% received PRO label claims. Primary reasons for denial included issues of fit for purpose, issues of study design, data quality or interpretation, statistical issues, administrative issues, and lack of demonstrated treatment benefit. Conclusions: Based on drug approval packages, nearly half (45%) of new molecular entitity/biologic license application products in the years 2006 to 2010 included PROs in the clinical trials supporting their approval, yet this rate is not reflected by claims granted. Understanding the nature of PRO claims granted under the current regulatory guidance is important. In addition, a clear understanding of denied claims yields valuable insight into where sponsors may improve implementation of PROs in clinical trials and submission of PRO evidence to increase the likelihood of obtaining PRO label claims. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

The interpretation of health-related quality of life (HRQL) data from clinical trials can be enhanced by understanding the degree of change in HRQL scores that is considered meaningful. Our objectives were to combine distribution-based and two anchor-based approaches to identify minimally important differences (MIDs) for the 27-item Trial Outcome Index (TOI), the seven-item Social Well-Being (SWB) subscale, and the six-item Emotional Well-being (EWB) subscale from the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Biological Response Modifiers (FACT-BRM) instrument.Distribution-based MIDs were based on the standard error of measurement. Anchor-based approaches utilized patient-reported global rating of change (GRC) and change in physician-reported performance status rating (PSR). Correlations and weighted kappa statistics were used to assess association and agreement between the two anchors. FACT-BRM changes were evaluated for three time periods: baseline to month 1, month 2 to month 3, and month 5 to month 6.Association between GRC and change in PSR was poor. Correlation between the anchors and HRQL change scores was largest at month 1 and decreased through month 6. Combining results from all approaches, the MIDs identified were 5–8 points for the TOI, 2 points for the SWB subscale, and 2–3 points for the EWB subscale.We combined patient-reported estimates, physician-reported estimates, and distribution-based estimates to derive MIDs for HRQL outcomes from the FACT-BRM. These results will enable interpretation of treatment group effects in a clinical trial setting, and they can be used to estimate sample size or power when designing future studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of patient reported outcome scales in clinical trials conducted by the pharmaceutical industry has become more widespread in recent years. The use of such outcomes is particularly common for products developed to treat chronic, disabling conditions where the intention is not to cure but to ameliorate symptoms, facilitate functioning or, ultimately, to improve quality of life. In such cases, patient reported evidence is increasingly viewed as an essential complement to traditional clinical evidence for establishing a product's competitive advantage in the marketplace. In a commercial setting, the value of patient reported outcomes is viewed largely in terms of their potential for securing a labelling claim in the USA or inclusion in the summary of product characteristics in Europe. Although, the publication of the recent US Food and Drug Administration guidance makes it difficult for companies to make claims in the USA beyond symptom improvements, the value of these outcomes goes beyond satisfying requirements for a label claim. The European regulatory authorities, payers both in the US and Europe, clinicians and patients all play a part in determining both the availability and the pricing of medicinal products and all have an interest in patient-reported data that go beyond just symptoms. The purpose of the current paper is to highlight the potential added value of patient reported outcome data currently collected and held by the industry for these groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]