Physicians' use of and preferences for FDA-approved prescribing information.

BACKGROUND: The Prescribing Information (PI) is the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s primary tool for communicating a summary of the essential scientific information needed for the safe and effective use of a prescription drug to healthcare providers.[1] One challenge with this type of communication is balancing the need to be thorough with the need to be concise. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to explore physicians' preferences for and understanding of specific content and formatting in the PI. This study also explored physicians' use of and perceptions of the PI. METHODS: Seventy semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with primary care physicians (n = 35) and physicians from a wide range of specialties (n = 35) using web conferencing technology. Using fictitious PI examples, the guide assessed physicians' interpretation of language and preferences for how certain information is organized and communicated in select sections of the PI. The interview guide also included questions about the resources physicians use to find information about prescription drugs, when and how physicians access the PI, and their perceptions of the PI. RESULTS: The findings suggest that of the content and formatting items surveyed, physicians had the greatest preference for: (1) uniformly specifying the age group for which the drug is indicated in the INDICATIONS AND USAGE section, even for medical conditions that are highly associated with only one particular age group (e.g., adult patients), and (2) uniformly including administration information in relation to food (e.g., "with or without food") in the DOSAGE AND ADMINISTRATION section for drugs with oral dosing. The findings also suggest that including a long list of interacting drug examples in the DRUG INTERACTIONS section may be misinterpreted to be a comprehensive list. CONCLUSION: This qualitative research suggests physicians may prefer more clarity in some sections of the PI.

FDA Approval Summary: Rucaparib for the Treatment of Patients with Deleterious BRCA-Mutated Metastatic Castrate-Resistant Prostate Cancer.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval to rucaparib in May 2020 for the treatment of adult patients with deleterious BRCA mutation (germline and/or somatic)-associated metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) who have been treated with androgen receptor-directed therapy and a taxane. This approval was based on data from the ongoing multicenter, open-label single-arm trial TRITON2. The primary endpoint, confirmed objective response rate, in the 62 patients who met the above criteria, was 44% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 31%-57%). The median duration of response was not estimable (95% CI: 6.4 to not estimable). Fifty-six percent of patients had a response duration of >6 months and 15% >12 months. The safety profile of rucaparib was generally consistent with that of the class of poly-(ADP-ribose) polymerase enzyme inhibitors and other trials of rucaparib in the treatment of ovarian cancer. Deaths due to adverse events (AEs) occurred in 1.7% of patients, and 8% discontinued rucaparib because of an AE. Grade 3-4 AEs occurred in 59% of patients. No patients with prostate cancer developed myelodysplastic syndrome or acute myeloid leukemia. The trial TRITON3 in patients with mCRPC is ongoing and is planned to verify the clinical benefit of rucaparib in mCRPC. This article summarizes the FDA thought process and data supporting this accelerated approval. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The accelerated approval of rucaparib for the treatment of adult patients with deleterious BRCA mutation (germline and/or somatic)-associated metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer who have been treated with androgen receptor-directed therapy and a taxane represents the first approved therapy for this selected patient population. This approval was based on a single-arm trial demonstrating a confirmed objective response rate greater than that of available therapy with a favorable duration of response and an acceptable toxicity profile. The ongoing trial TRITON3 is verifying the clinical benefit of this drug.

Pain palliation measurement in cancer clinical trials: the US Food and Drug Administration perspective.

BACKGROUND: Pain palliation resulting from antitumor therapy provides direct evidence of treatment benefit when combined with evidence of antitumor activity. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) previously issued guidance regarding the use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures to support labeling claims. The purpose of this article is to identify common challenges and key design strategies when measuring pain palliation in antitumor therapy clinical trials that are consistent with PRO Guidance principles. METHODS: Antitumor clinical protocols submitted to the FDA between 1995 and 2012 that included pain palliation as a primary or secondary endpoint were reviewed. Challenges in critical trial design components were identified. Design strategies consistent with PRO Guidance principles are proposed. RESULTS: The challenges identified were measurement of pain intensity and analgesic use, enrollment eligibility criteria, data collection methods, responder definitions, missing data, and blinding. Strategies included the use of well-defined, reliable, PRO assessments of pain intensity and analgesics; ensuring that enrollment criteria define patients with clinically significant pain attributable to cancer on an optimal analgesic regimen; defining responders using both pain and analgesic use criteria; incorporating an analysis of tumor response to support evidence of pain response; and minimizing missing data and inadvertent unblinding. CONCLUSIONS: Improvement in cancer-related pain resulting from antitumor therapy is an important treatment benefit that can support drug approval and labeling claims when adequately measured if study results demonstrate statistically and clinically significant findings. Sponsors are encouraged to discuss pain palliation assessment methods with the FDA early in and throughout product development.

Considerations for improving assay sensitivity in chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations.

A number of pharmacologic treatments examined in recent randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have failed to show statistically significant superiority to placebo in conditions in which their efficacy had previously been demonstrated. Assuming the validity of previous evidence of efficacy and the comparability of the patients and outcome measures in these studies, such results may be a consequence of limitations in the ability of these RCTs to demonstrate the benefits of efficacious analgesic treatments vs placebo ("assay sensitivity"). Efforts to improve the assay sensitivity of analgesic trials could reduce the rate of falsely negative trials of efficacious medications and improve the efficiency of analgesic drug development. Therefore, an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials consensus meeting was convened in which the assay sensitivity of chronic pain trials was reviewed and discussed. On the basis of this meeting and subsequent discussions, the authors recommend consideration of a number of patient, study design, study site, and outcome measurement factors that have the potential to affect the assay sensitivity of RCTs of chronic pain treatments. Increased attention to and research on methodological aspects of clinical trials and their relationships with assay sensitivity have the potential to provide the foundation for an evidence-based approach to the design of analgesic clinical trials and expedite the identification of analgesic treatments with improved efficacy and safety.

Stakeholder perspectives on implementing the National Cancer Institute's patient-reported outcomes version of the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (PRO-CTCAE).

The National Cancer Institute (NCI) is developing a patient-reported version of its Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events, called the "PRO-CTCAE." The PRO-CTCAE consists of a library of patient-reported items which can be administered in clinical trials to directly capture the patient experience of adverse events during cancer treatment, as well as a software platform for administering these items via computer or telephone. In order to better understand the impressions of stakeholders involved in cancer clinical research about the potential value of the PRO-CTCAE approach to capturing adverse event information in clinical research, as well as their perspectives about barriers and strategies for implementing the PRO-CTCAE in NCI-sponsored cancer trials, a survey was conducted. A survey including structured and open-ended questions was developed to elicit perceptions about the use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) for adverse event reporting, and to explore logistical considerations for implementing the PRO-CTCAE in cancer trials. The survey was distributed electronically and by paper to a convenience sample of leadership and committee members in the NCI's cooperative group network, including principal investigators, clinical investigators, research nurses, data managers, patient advocates, and representatives of the NCI and Food and Drug Administration. Between October, 2008 through February, 2009, 727 surveys were collected. Most respondents (93%) agreed that patient reporting of adverse symptoms would be useful for improving understanding of the patient experience with treatment in cancer trials, and 88%, 80%, and 76%, respectively, endorsed that administration of PRO-CTCAE items in clinical trials would improve the completeness, accuracy, and efficiency of symptom data collection. More than three fourths believed that patient reports would be useful for informing treatment dose modifications and towards FDA regulatory evaluation of drugs. Eighty-eight percent felt that patients in clinical trials would be willing to self-report adverse symptoms at clinic visits via computer, and 68% felt patients would self-report weekly from home via the internet or an automated telephone system. Lack of computers and limited space and personnel were seen as potential barriers to in-clinic self-reporting, but these were judged to be surmountable with adequate funding. The PRO-CTCAE items and software are viewed by a majority of survey respondents as a means to improve adverse event data quality and comprehensiveness, enhance clinical decision-making, and foster patient-clinician communication. Research is ongoing to assess the measurement properties and feasibility of implementing this measure in cancer clinical trials.

Evolution of clinical trials for irritable bowel syndrome: issues in end points and study design.

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) involves a broad range of physiological and psychological alterations that may affect brain-gut dysregulation, gut function, visceral perception, and mucosal integrity and function. Despite advances in our understanding of basic neuroenteric mechanisms and the role of effectors and transmitters in the brain-gut axis, a reliable biologic marker of IBS has yet to be identified. IBS diagnosis and status depend entirely on an assessment of IBS signs and symptoms. This has made development of optimal end points and study design for evaluation of efficacy of IBS drugs a challenge. This article addresses three main topics: the evolution of primary end points for IBS clinical trials; a potential path forward for IBS end points in new clinical trials; and recommendations for the future development of patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments for use in IBS clinical trials.