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

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

Experience and impact of stigma in people with chronic hepatitis B: a qualitative study in Asia, Europe, and the United States.

BACKGROUND: People with chronic hepatitis B (CHB) commonly experience social and self-stigma. This study sought to understand the impacts of CHB-related stigma and a functional cure on stigma. METHODS: Adults with CHB with a wide range of age and education were recruited from 5 countries and participated in 90-minute qualitative, semi-structured interviews to explore concepts related to CHB-associated stigma and its impact. Participants answered open-ended concept-elicitation questions regarding their experience of social and self-stigma, and the potential impact of reduced CHB-related stigma. RESULTS: Sixty-three participants aged 25 to 71 years (15 from the United States and 12 each from China, Germany, Italy, and Japan) reported emotional, lifestyle, and social impacts of living with CHB, including prejudice, marginalization, and negative relationship and work experiences. Self-stigma led to low self-esteem, concealment of CHB status, and social withdrawal. Most participants stated a functional cure for hepatitis B would reduce self-stigma. CONCLUSIONS: CHB-related social and self-stigma are widely prevalent and affect many aspects of life. A functional cure for hepatitis B may reduce social and self-stigma and substantially improve the health-related quality of life of people with CHB. Incorporating stigma into guidelines along with infectivity considerations may broaden the patient groups who should receive treatment.

The value of co-creating a clinical outcome assessment strategy for clinical trial research: process and lessons learnt.

BACKGROUND: In support of UCB pharmaceutical research programs, the aim of this research was to implement a novel process for patient involvement in a multidisciplinary research group to co-create a clinical outcome assessment strategy to accurately reflect the experience of people living with early-stage Parkinson's. Patient experts were an integral part of the decision-making process for patient-reported outcome (PRO) research and instrument development. METHODS: In partnership with two patient organizations (Parkinson's UK and the Parkinson's Foundation), 6 patient experts were recruited into a multidisciplinary research group alongside clinical, patient engagement and involvement, regulatory science, and outcome measurement experts. The group was involved across two phases of research; the first phase identified what symptoms are cardinal to the experience of living with early-stage Parkinson's and the second phase involved the development of PRO instruments to better assess the symptoms that are important to people living with early-stage Parkinson's. Patient experts were important in performing a variety of roles, in particular, qualitative study protocol design, conceptual model development, and subsequent co-creation of two PRO instruments. RESULTS: Involving people with Parkinson's in PRO research ensured that the expertise of these representatives from the Parkinson's community shaped and drove the research; as such, PRO instruments were being developed with the patient at the forefront. Working with patient experts required considerable resource and time allocation for planning, communication, document development, and organizing meetings; however, their input enriched the development of PRO instruments and was vital in developing PRO instruments that are more meaningful for people with Parkinson's and clinicians. CONCLUSIONS: Conducting PRO research, in the context of clinical development involving pharmaceutical companies, requires balancing regulatory and scientific rigor with tight time constraints. Incorporating a multi-stakeholder perspective, which included patient experts as joint investigators, had a strong positive impact on our research, despite the logistical complexities of their involvement. Due to the input of patient experts, the innovative clinical outcome assessment strategy and the co-created novel PRO instruments were more relevant and holistic to the patient experience of early-stage Parkinson's.

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments allow people living with a disease and participating in a clinical study to describe the symptoms and experiences that they consider meaningful. PRO instruments use tools such as questionnaires and scales to capture patient perspectives on a treatment that might not be captured by a clinical measurement. It is recommended that the patient community and patient experts are included in the development of PRO instruments to accurately capture information that is important to them. Building on the experience of a recent PRO research project in support of UCB pharmaceutical programs, this article provides recommendations on how pharmaceutical companies can partner with patient organizations and involve patient experts as joint investigators in the co creation of PRO instruments. Despite the additional resource and time required, involving patient experts and patient organizations into the research collaboration had a strong positive impact and ensured that the PROs were meaningful to patients (in this instance, people living with early-stage Parkinson's). Patient organizations facilitated patient engagement and recruitment in research activities, maintained communication with the pharmaceutical company's research team, and built trust between collaborators by implementing patient engagement tools and best practices. Patient experts contributed to several parts of the PRO instrument development process: study design, identifying key symptoms and experiences, and developing individual PRO questions. Co-creation between the pharmaceutical company, patient experts, and patient organizations resulted in considerable improvements to typical PRO instrument development for use in clinical trials and is thus recommended.

An Updated Review of Food and Drug Administration Warning and Untitled Letters for Clinical Outcome Assessment Claims Between 2013 and 2021.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to ascertain the frequency and types of Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-identified clinical outcome assessment (COA) violations in US pharmaceutical promotional materials from 2013 to 2021 by updating the review by Symonds et al (covering the period 2006-2012 for patient-reported outcomes [PRO] measures), expanding to infringements across all types of COAs, and grouping by efficacy or overall patient experience. METHODS: Warning letters (WLs) and untitled letters (ULs) issued by the FDA's Office of Prescription Drug Promotion were reviewed for COA violations and classified by their type: (1) COA measure not fit for purpose, (2) issue with study design or interpretation of results, and (3) inadequate statistical analysis. RESULTS: From 2013 to 2021, the FDA issued 22 WLs and 65 ULs. Year 2013 showed the highest number of letters issued (n = 24). Of the total 87 letters reviewed, 22 (25%) contained a COA violation, consisting of 6 WLs (27%) and 16 ULs (25%), including 20 (23%) with a PRO-related violation. The most common violations cited "study design or interpretation of results" (21 of 22 [95%]). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the absolute number of WLs and ULs issued declined when comparing 2006 to 2012 with 2013 to 2021. Despite the overall reduction, this review still identified 25% of letters citing COA infringements (23% with PRO issues), which was similar to the prior review (19% PRO infringements). This may be due to increased FDA attention to patient-focused drug development.

Recommendations on the Selection, Development, and Modification of Performance Outcome Assessments: A Good Practices Report of an ISPOR Task Force.

In evaluating the clinical benefit of new therapeutic interventions, it is critical that the treatment outcomes assessed reflect aspects of health that are clinically important and meaningful to patients. Performance outcome (PerfO) assessments are measurements based on standardized tasks actively undertaken by a patient that reflect physical, cognitive, sensory, and other functional skills that bring meaning to people's lives. PerfO assessments can have substantial value as drug development tools when the concepts of interest being measured best suit task performance and in cases where patients may be limited in their capacity for self-report. In their development, selection, and modification, including the evaluation and documentation of validity, reliability, usability, and interpretability, the good practice recommendations established for other clinical outcome assessment types should continue to be followed, with concept elicitation as a critical foundation. In addition, the importance of standardization, and the need to ensure feasibility and safety, as well as their utility in patient groups, such as pediatric populations, or those with cognitive and psychiatric challenges, may enhance the need for structured pilot evaluations, additional cognitive interviewing, and evaluation of quantitative data, such as that which would support concept confirmation or provide ecological evidence and other forms of construct evidence within a unitary approach to validity. The opportunity for PerfO assessments to inform key areas of clinical benefit is substantial and establishing good practices in their selection or development, validation, and implementation, as well as how they reflect meaningful aspects of health is critical to ensuring high standards and in furthering patient-focused drug development.

Psychometric Validation and Meaningful Change Thresholds of the New Nasal Polyposis Symptom Diary.

OBJECTIVES: The Nasal Polyposis Symptom Diary (NPSD) is a novel and short patient-reported outcome (PRO) tool specifically developed to assess important and relevant symptoms reported by patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (CRSwNP). We evaluated the psychometric properties of 4 predefined NPSD-derived scores intended to support symptom-improvement assessments of investigational therapies for inclusion in product labeling. METHODS: Five hundred eighteen patients with severe CRSwNP from a Phase III clinical trial (NCT03401229) completed the NPSD, comprising 11 items: 8 symptom-specific, 2 symptom-impact, and 1 optional medication-compliance. The psychometric characteristics of 3 single-item symptom scores (Nasal Blockage Score [NBS], Nasal Congestion Score [NCS], and Difficulty with Sense of Smell Score [DSS]) and a Total Symptom Score (TSS, summary of the 8 symptom-specific items) were evaluated for reliability, validity, and ability to detect change. Within-patient meaningful change thresholds (MCTs) were established using anchor- and distribution-based methods. Comparative PROs included the 22-item Sino-Nasal Outcome Test (SNOT-22) and Patient Global Impression of Severity (PGI-S). RESULTS: The TSS exhibited strong internal consistency (Cronbach α = .88) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient >.80). Correlation between the TSS and SNOT-22 total score indicated good convergent validity (r = .70). All 4 NPSD scores demonstrated known-groups validity (significant differences among subgroups of patients with predetermined disease severity levels based on PGI-S categories) and were sensitive to detect change in patients' clinical status (significant differences among subgroups of patients with reported changes between 2 time-points in PGI-S and Patient Global Impression of Change scores). MCTs for improvement were established at 1.0 point for NBS, NCS, and DSS, and 4.0 points for TSS. CONCLUSION: These findings support the reliability, validity, and suitability of the 4 NPSD-derived scores for evaluating treatment effect on CRSwNP symptoms and their use in clinical trials with predetermined MCTs for improvement.

Psychometric evaluation of the Symptoms of Infection with Coronavirus-19 (SIC): results from a cross-sectional study and a phase 3 clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: The Symptoms of Infection with Coronavirus-19 (SIC) is a 30-item patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure scored by body system composites to assess signs/symptoms of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). In addition to cross-sectional and longitudinal psychometric evaluations, qualitative exit interviews were conducted to support the content validity of the SIC. METHODS: In a cross-sectional study, adults diagnosed with COVID-19 in the United States completed the web-based SIC and additional PRO measures. A subset was invited to participate in phone-based exit interviews. Longitudinal psychometric properties were assessed in ENSEMBLE2, a multinational, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial of the Ad26.COV2.S COVID-19 vaccine. Psychometric properties evaluated included structure, scoring, reliability, construct validity, discriminating ability, responsiveness, and meaningful change thresholds of SIC items and composite scores. RESULTS: In the cross-sectional study, 152 participants completed the SIC (mean age, 51.0 ± 18.6 years) and 20 completed follow-up interviews. Fatigue (77.6%), feeling unwell (65.8%), and cough (60.5%) were symptoms most frequently reported. SIC inter-item correlations were all positive and mostly moderate (r ≥ 0.3) and statistically significant. SIC items and Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System-29 (PROMIS-29) scores correlated as hypothesized (all r ≥ 0.32). Internal consistency reliabilities of all SIC composite scores were satisfactory (Cronbach's alpha, 0.69-0.91). SIC composite scores correlated moderately (r = 0.30-0.49) to strongly (r ≥ 0.50) with PROMIS-29 scores and Patient Global Impression of Severity (PGIS) ratings (all P < 0.01). A variety of signs/symptoms were cited in exit interviews, and participants considered the SIC straightforward, comprehensive, and easy to use. From ENSEMBLE2, 183 participants with laboratory-confirmed moderate to severe/critical COVID-19 were included (51.5 ± 14.8 years). Strong test-retest reliabilities were observed for most SIC composite scores (intraclass correlations ≥ 0.60). Statistically significant differences across PGIS severity levels were found for all but 1 composite score, supporting known-groups validity. All SIC composite scores demonstrated responsiveness based on changes in PGIS. CONCLUSIONS: The psychometric evaluations provided strong evidence for the reliability and validity of the SIC for measuring COVID-19 symptoms, supporting its use in vaccine and treatment trials. In exit interviews, participants described a broad range of signs/symptoms consistent with previous research, further supporting the content validity and format of the SIC.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a serious disease that continues to evolve globally. Researchers developed the Symptoms of Infection with Coronavirus-19 (SIC), a 30-item questionnaire designed for patients to report signs and symptoms of COVID-19. In this study, the researchers formally analyzed how well the SIC measures the patient experience with COVID-19, using survey and clinical trial data as well as telephone interviews. Adults with COVID-19 and at least 2 bothersome symptoms completed the web-based survey, and some of these individuals also participated in in-depth interviews. Participants in a clinical trial for a COVID-19 vaccine also completed the SIC measure. The SIC was compared with other commonly used questionnaires that evaluate patient experience. The most commonly reported symptoms of COVID-19 were fatigue, feeling unwell, cough, weakness, and headache. The items for individual symptoms (e.g., "cough") and combined scores for body systems (e.g., "respiratory system") performed well in statistical analyses. Participants found the SIC to be straightforward, comprehensive, and easy to use. The SIC may prove useful in the future for vaccine and treatment trials for COVID-19.

Development and early qualitative evidence of two novel patient-reported outcome instruments to assess daily functioning in people with early-stage Parkinson's.

BACKGROUND: Previous research on concepts that are important to people living with early-stage Parkinson's indicated that 'functional' slowness, fine motor skills, and subtle gait abnormalities are cardinal concepts that are not comprehensively captured by existing patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments that are used in clinical practice and research to assess symptoms and daily functioning within this patient population. We sought to develop novel PRO instruments to address this unmet need. METHODS: PRO instrument development was led by a multidisciplinary research group, including people living with Parkinson's (termed 'patient experts'), as well as patient engagement and involvement, regulatory science, clinical, and outcome measurement experts. A first set of PRO instruments, termed Early Parkinson's Function Slowness (42 items) and Early Parkinson's Mobility (26 items), were drafted to capture 'functional' slowness, fine motor skills, and subtle gait abnormalities. These PRO instruments were used in cognitive debriefing interviews with people living with early-stage Parkinson's (who were not involved with the multidisciplinary research group) to identify issues with relevance, clarity, ease of completion, conceptual overlap, or missing concepts. RESULTS: Sixty people living with early-stage Parkinson's were interviewed, which led to refining the items to 45 for the Early Parkinson's Functional Slowness and 23 for the Early Parkinson's Mobility PRO instruments. Refinement included rewording items to address clarity issues, merging or splitting items to address overlap issues, and adding new items to address missing concepts. The Early Parkinson's Function Slowness PRO instrument resulted in a multidimensional instrument covering upper limb, complex/whole body, general activity, and cognitive functional slowness. The Early Parkinson's Mobility PRO instrument resulted in comprehensive coverage of everyday mobility tasks, with a focus on gait concepts, plus complex/whole body, balance, and lower limb mobility. CONCLUSIONS: The Early Parkinson's Function Slowness and Early Parkinson's Mobility PRO instruments aim to address gaps in existing PRO instruments to measure meaningful symptoms and daily functioning in people living with early-stage Parkinson's. Utilizing a meticulous study design led by a multidisciplinary research group that included patient experts helped to ensure that the PRO instruments were patient-centric, content valid, and meaningful from a clinical and measurement perspective.

Patient Experience in Early-Stage Parkinson's Disease: Using a Mixed Methods Analysis to Identify Which Concepts Are Cardinal for Clinical Trial Outcome Assessment.

INTRODUCTION: Qualitative research on patient experiences in early-stage Parkinson's disease (PD) is limited. It is increasingly acknowledged that clinical outcome assessments used in trials do not fully capture the range of symptoms/impacts that are meaningful to people with early-stage PD. We aimed to conceptualize the patient experience in early-stage PD and identify, from the patient perspective, those cardinal symptoms/impacts which might be more useful to measure in clinical trials. METHODS: In a mixed-methods analysis, 50 people with early-stage PD and nine relatives were interviewed. Study design and results interpretation were led by a multidisciplinary group of patient, clinical, regulatory, and outcome measurements experts, and patient organization representatives. Identification of the cardinal concepts was informed by the relative frequency of reported concepts combined with insights from patient experts and movement disorder specialists. RESULTS: A conceptual model of the patient experience of early-stage PD was developed. Concept elicitation generated 145 unique concepts mapped across motor and non-motor symptoms, function, and impacts. Bradykinesia/slowness (notably in the form of "functional slowness"), tremor, rigidity/stiffness, mobility (particularly fine motor dexterity and subtle gait abnormalities), fatigue, depression, sleep/dreams, and pain were identified as cardinal in early-stage PD. "Functional slowness" (related to discrete tasks involving the upper limbs, complex mobility tasks, and general activities) was deemed to be more relevant than "difficulty" to patients with early-stage PD, who report being slower at completing tasks rather than encountering significant impairment with task completion. CONCLUSION: Patient experiences in early-stage PD are complex and wide-ranging, and the currently available patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments do not evaluate many early-stage PD concepts such as functional slowness, fine motor skills, and subtle gait abnormalities. The development of a new PRO instrument, created in conjunction with people with PD, that fully assesses symptoms and the experience of living with early-stage PD, is required.

We conducted research to find out about the experiences and symptoms that have the greatest impact on everyday living for people with early-stage Parkinson's disease. This research also looked at which symptoms patients think are important to be tracked in clinical trials. The research team running this study included people living with Parkinson's disease (called "patient experts"). The team also included technical experts and representatives of patient organizations. To begin with, people living with early-stage Parkinson's disease and relatives were interviewed. The interviews collected their thoughts on the impact of early-stage Parkinson's disease on their daily lives. These insights revealed which experiences and symptoms were most important. The research team analyzed ideas and quotes from the interviews to create a picture of early-stage Parkinson's disease. The symptoms that mattered the most to people living with early-stage Parkinson's disease were tremor, rigidity/stiffness, fatigue, depression, sleep/dreams, and pain. Another important symptom was slowness of movement (which is called "bradykinesia/slowness"), and in particular "functional slowness," which included tasks involving the upper limbs, complicated movement tasks, and general activities. Effects on mobility were also important, particularly fine motor skills and subtle walking abnormalities. This research shows the wide-ranging effects that early-stage Parkinson's disease has on patients from their perspective. It also shows which effects are important to capture in trials of therapies aimed at this patient group.

Development of a novel patient-reported outcome measure to assess signs and symptoms of COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: Given the urgent need for vaccines and treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the Symptoms of Infection with Coronavirus-19 (SIC), a comprehensive, patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure of signs and symptoms associated with COVID-19, was developed in full alignment with current US regulatory guidance to support evaluations of vaccines and treatments in development. METHODS: An initial version of the SIC was developed to address concepts identified through a targeted literature review and consultation with experts in infectious diseases and clinicians routinely managing COVID-19 in a hospital setting. A qualitative study was conducted in sites in the United States among 31 participants aged ≥ 18 years who were English-speaking and willing and able to provide informed consent and a self-reported history by telephone or online method. The measure was refined based on additional feedback from the clinicians and three iterative rounds of combined concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing interviews conducted with patients, caregivers, and healthy volunteers. RESULTS: Among 39 scientific articles identified in the literature review, 35 COVID-19 signs and symptoms were reported and confirmed during interviews with clinicians, patients, and caregivers. Patients and healthy participants suggested changes for refining the draft SIC to ensure consistent interpretation and endorsed both the 24-h recall period and use of an 11-point numeric rating scale (NRS) for capturing change in symptom severity. The final version of the SIC captures the daily presence or absence of 30 symptoms and a rating of severity for 25 of the 30 symptoms using an NRS for those symptoms reported as present. CONCLUSIONS: The SIC comprehensively addresses observations described in the literature, by clinicians, and by patients, and captures patients' experiences with COVID-19 in a manner that minimizes complexity and facilitates completion for both patients and healthy volunteers. This measure is thus appropriate for use in clinical trials of both therapeutics and vaccines for COVID-19.

Developing a conceptual model of symptoms and impacts in progressive fibrosing interstitial lung disease to evaluate patient-reported outcome measures.

Background: An understanding of the experience of patients with progressive fibrosing interstitial lung disease (PF-ILD) is needed to select appropriate patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) to evaluate treatment effect in clinical trials. Methods: A systematic literature review was conducted to develop a preliminary conceptual model of the symptoms experienced by patients with PF-ILD and the impacts the disease has on them. An online survey and consensus meetings were then conducted with 12-14 stakeholders (patients, clinicians, regulatory and payer advisors) to refine the conceptual model and critically appraise how key concepts should be measured by PROMs. PROMs assessed included Living with Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis, Living with Pulmonary Fibrosis, the King's Brief Interstitial Lung Disease questionnaire, Cough and Sputum Assessment Questionnaire, Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms, Leicester Cough Questionnaire, Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy (Dyspnoea/Fatigue) and St George's Respiratory Questionnaire for Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis. Results: The literature review identified 36 signs/symptoms and 43 impacts directly or indirectly related to pulmonary aspects of PF-ILD. The most relevant symptoms identified by participants included shortness of breath on exertion, fatigue and cough; relevant impacts included effects on physical functioning, activities of daily living and emotional wellbeing. These are presented in a conceptual model. Consensus opinion was that existing PROMs need further modification and validation before use in clinical trials. Conclusions: The conceptual model improves understanding of the symptoms and impacts that living with PF-ILD has on patients' wellbeing. It can help to inform the choice of PROMs in clinical trials and highlight aspects to assess in the clinical care of patients with PF-ILD.

Measuring the patient experience of chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis: qualitative development of a novel symptom diary.

BACKGROUND: This qualitative study assessed the experience of patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis (NP) to inform the development of a novel symptom diary for clinical study use. METHODS: Concept elicitation and cognitive interviews were conducted with patients who had a physician-verified diagnosis of NP and a history of intranasal corticosteroid use. Concepts were identified via open-ended and follow-up questions. Relative symptom/impact disturbance level was assessed using a scale of 0 (not at all disturbing) to 10 (extremely disturbing). RESULTS: Patients (n = 30) attributed numerous symptoms and impacts to NP; the most prevalent and disturbing were nasal congestion (identified by 100% of patients; average disturbance rating = 7.9), nasal blockage/obstruction (97%; 8.2), difficulty with sense of smell (97%; 7.6), facial pressure (90%; 6.2), postnasal drip (87%; 6.5), runny nose (87%; 6.2), facial pain (80%; 6.3), and headache (77%; 6.5). These symptoms, along with the impact of NP on sleep and daily activities, were included in the Nasal Polyposis Symptom Diary (NPSD). Cognitive interviews confirmed that patients understood the NPSD items and could select a response reflective of their experience at its worst over the past 24 hours using a four-point scale (none, mild, moderate, or severe). CONCLUSION: The most relevant and disturbing symptoms, according to patients with NP, were included in the NPSD. Interviews confirmed the suitability of NPSD in capturing the daily experience of patients. These findings support the content validity of the NPSD as a suitable tool for capturing NP symptoms and impacts.

Development and content validation of a symptom assessment for eosinophilic gastritis and eosinophilic gastroenteritis in adults and adolescents.

BACKGROUND: A patient reported outcome (PRO) instrument with evidence of validity and reliability for assessing symptoms of eosinophilic gastritis (EG) and eosinophilic gastroenteritis (EGE) is needed to measure treatment benefit in clinical trials. The aim of this research is to develop an EG/EGE symptom PRO instrument for patients aged 12 and above. METHODS: The Symptom Assessment for Gastrointestinal Eosinophilic Diseases (SAGED) was developed through a literature review, discussions with expert clinicians, and concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing interviews with patients. Patients (n = 28) were recruited based on confirmed diagnosis and self-reported symptoms. The final instrument was translated and linguistically validated with additional cognitive debriefing interviews (n = 105). RESULTS: SAGED is a 24-h recall questionnaire consisting of eight items evaluating the core symptoms of EG and EGE (abdominal pain, nausea, bloating, early satiety, loss of appetite, vomiting, and diarrhea). Seven of the eight items are evaluated on an 11-point numerical rating scale ranging from 'none' to 'worst imaginable'. Cognitive debriefing interviews showed that adults and adolescents understand the content and are able to select a response that reflects their experience. The linguistic validation process produced 21 translations that are understandable to patients and conceptually equivalent to the source version. CONCLUSIONS: SAGED is suitable for measuring symptom improvement in adult and adolescent patients with EG and/or EGE. The content validity of SAGED has been established through best practices in qualitative research for PRO instrument development. The psychometric properties of SAGED will be evaluated in a future study.

Measurement Equivalence of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures Migrated to Electronic Formats: A Review of Evidence and Recommendations for Clinical Trials and Bring Your Own Device.

A growing number of clinical trials employ electronic media, in particular smartphones and tablets, to collect patient-reported outcome data. This is driven by the ubiquity of the technology, and an increased awareness of associated improvements in data integrity, quality and timeliness. Despite this, there remains a lingering question relating to the measurement equivalence of an instrument when migrated from paper to a screen-based format. As a result, researchers often must provide evidence demonstrating the measurement equivalence of paper and electronic versions, such as that recommended by the ISPOR ePRO Good Research Practices Task Force. In the last decade, a considerable body of work has emerged that overwhelmingly supports the measurement equivalence of instruments using screen-based electronic formats. Our review of key works derives recommendations on evidence needed to support electronic implementation. We recommend application of best practice recommendations is sufficient to conclude measurement equivalence with paper PROMs. In addition, we recommend that previous usability evidence in a representative group is sufficient, as opposed to per-study testing. Further, we conclude that this also applies to studies using multiple screen-based devices, including bring-your-own-device, if a minimum device specification can be ensured and the instrument is composed of standard response scale types.

Fit for purpose and modern validity theory in clinical outcomes assessment.

PURPOSE: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), as part of its regulatory mission, is charged with determining whether a clinical outcome assessment (COA) is "fit for purpose" when used in clinical trials to support drug approval and product labeling. In this paper, we will provide a review (and some commentary) on the current state of affairs in COA development/evaluation/use with a focus on one aspect: How do you know you are measuring the right thing? In the psychometric literature, this concept is referred to broadly as validity and has itself evolved over many years of research and application. REVIEW: After a brief introduction, the first section will review current ideas about "fit for purpose" and how it has been viewed by FDA. This section will also describe some of the unique challenges to COA development/evaluation/use in the clinical trials space. Following this, we provide an overview of modern validity theory as it is currently understood in the psychometric tradition. This overview will focus primarily on the perspective of validity theorists such as Messick and Kane whose work forms the backbone for the bulk of high-stakes assessment in areas such as education, psychology, and health outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: We situate the concept of fit for purpose within the broader context of validity. By comparing and contrasting the approaches and the situations where they have traditionally been applied, we identify areas of conceptual overlap as well as areas where more discussion and research are needed.

Clinician-Reported Outcome Assessments of Treatment Benefit: Report of the ISPOR Clinical Outcome Assessment Emerging Good Practices Task Force.

A clinician-reported outcome (ClinRO) assessment is a type of clinical outcome assessment (COA). ClinRO assessments, like all COAs (patient-reported, observer-reported, or performance outcome assessments), are used to 1) measure patients' health status and 2) define end points that can be interpreted as treatment benefits of medical interventions on how patients feel, function, or survive in clinical trials. Like other COAs, ClinRO assessments can be influenced by human choices, judgment, or motivation. A ClinRO assessment is conducted and reported by a trained health care professional and requires specialized professional training to evaluate the patient's health status. This is the second of two reports by the ISPOR Clinical Outcomes Assessment-Emerging Good Practices for Outcomes Research Task Force. The first report provided an overview of COAs including definitions important for an understanding of COA measurement practices. This report focuses specifically on issues related to ClinRO assessments. In this report, we define three types of ClinRO assessments (readings, ratings, and clinician global assessments) and describe emerging good measurement practices in their development and evaluation. The good measurement practices include 1) defining the context of use; 2) identifying the concept of interest measured; 3) defining the intended treatment benefit on how patients feel, function, or survive reflected by the ClinRO assessment and evaluating the relationship between that intended treatment benefit and the concept of interest; 4) documenting content validity; 5) evaluating other measurement properties once content validity is established (including intra- and inter-rater reliability); 6) defining study objectives and end point(s) objectives, and defining study end points and placing study end points within the hierarchy of end points; 7) establishing interpretability in trial results; and 8) evaluating operational considerations for the implementation of ClinRO assessments used as end points in clinical trials. Applying good measurement practices to ClinRO assessment development and evaluation will lead to more efficient and accurate measurement of treatment effects. This is important beyond regulatory approval in that it provides evidence for the uptake of new interventions into clinical practice and provides justification to payers for reimbursement on the basis of the clearly demonstrated added value of the new intervention.

Focusing on Core Patient-Reported Outcomes in Cancer Clinical Trials: Symptomatic Adverse Events, Physical Function, and Disease-Related Symptoms.

Cancer clinical trials have relied on overall survival and measures of tumor growth or reduction to assess the efficacy of a drug. However, benefits are often accompanied by significant symptomatic toxicities. The degree to which a therapy improves disease symptoms and introduces symptomatic toxicity affects how patients function in their daily lives. These concepts are important contributors to health-related quality of life (HRQOL). In this article, we discuss patient-reported outcome (PRO) assessment in cancer trials and challenges relying solely on static multi-item HRQOL instruments. We propose focusing on three separate measures of well-defined concepts: symptomatic adverse events, physical function, and disease-related symptoms, which are key contributors to the effect of a therapy on HRQOL. Separate measures of these three concepts may facilitate the incorporation of emerging contemporary instruments that can tailor the PRO assessment strategy to different trial contexts. Irrespective of the PRO measures used, continued improvement in trial design and conduct is crucial to decrease missing data and optimize the quality of PRO information. International stakeholder collaboration and continued research into optimal practices for PRO and other clinical outcome assessments are necessary to advance a common framework for generating and reporting rigorous patient-centered data from cancer clinical trials.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Cancer Drug Development and US Regulatory Review: Perspectives From Industry, the Food and Drug Administration, and the Patient.

Data reported directly by patients about how they feel and function are rarely included in oncology drug labeling in the United States, in contrast to Europe and to nononcology labeling in the United States, where this practice is more common. Multiple barriers exist, including challenges unique to oncology trials, and industry's concerns regarding cost, logistical complexities, and the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) rigorous application of its 2009 guidance on the use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. A panel consisting of representatives of industry, FDA, the PRO Consortium, clinicians, and patients was assembled at a 2014 workshop cosponsored by FDA to identify practical recommendations for overcoming these barriers. Key recommendations included increasing proactive encouragement by FDA to clinical trial sponsors for including PROs in drug development programs; provision of comprehensive PRO plans by sponsors to FDA early in drug development; promotion of an oncology-specific PRO research agenda; development of an approach to existing ("legacy") PRO measures, when appropriate (focused initially on symptoms and functional status); and increased FDA and industry training in PRO methodology. FDA has begun implementing several of these recommendations.