Psychometric Evaluation of the Diary for Irritable Bowel Syndrome Symptoms-Constipation in a Prospective Observational Study.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the psychometric properties of the Diary for Irritable Bowel Syndrome Symptoms-Constipation (DIBSS-C), which was developed to support primary and secondary endpoints in irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) with predominant constipation (IBS-C) clinical trials. METHODS: Observational data were collected from 108 adults with IBS-C using a smartphone-type device for 17 days. DIBSS-C data regarding bowel movements (BMs) were collected for each event (along with the Bristol Stool Form Scale); abdominal symptoms were rated each evening. Global status items and the Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale-IBS were completed on day 10 and day 17 and the IBS-Symptom Severity Scale on day 17. Item-level performance, internal consistency reliability, test-retest reliability, and construct validity were evaluated. RESULTS: The Abdominal Symptoms Domain score demonstrated high internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's alpha week 1 = 0.98; week 2 = 0.96) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.93). Test-retest reliability was stronger for abdominal symptoms (ICC = 0.91-0.94) than for the frequency-based BM-related outcomes (ICC = 0.54-0.66). Key construct validity hypotheses were supported by moderate to strong correlations with the corresponding Gastrointestinal Symptom Rating Scale-IBS, IBS-Symptom Severity Scale, and Bristol Stool Form Scale items. All known-groups comparisons were statistically significant for the abdominal symptom items and domain score; evidence for known-groups validity of BM-related outcomes was supportive when based on constipation severity. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study provided key psychometric evidence for the DIBSS-C, ultimately contributing to its qualification by the US Food and Drug Administration for use in IBS-C clinical trials.

Assessing asthma symptoms in children: qualitative research supporting the development of the Pediatric Asthma Diary-Child (PAD-C) and Pediatric Asthma Diary-Observer (PAD-O).

BACKGROUND: Pediatric asthma has been identified by regulators, clinicians, clinical trial sponsors, and caregivers as an area in need of novel fit-for-purpose clinical outcome assessments (COAs) developed in accordance with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA's) regulatory guidance for evaluating clinical benefit in treatment trials. To address this gap, the Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Consortium's Pediatric Asthma Working Group has continued development of 2 COAs to assess asthma signs and symptoms in pediatric asthma clinical trials to support efficacy endpoints: a PRO measure, the Pediatric Asthma Diary-Child (PAD-C) for children 8-11 years old (y.o.) and an observer-reported outcome measure, the Pediatric Asthma Diary-Observer (PAD-O) for caregivers of children 4-11 y.o. This qualitative research aimed to generate evidence regarding the content validity of the PAD-C and PAD-O. METHODS: Semi-structured combined concept elicitation and cognitive interviews were conducted with a diverse sample of U.S. participants (15 children 8-11 y.o. and 30 caregivers of children 4-11 y.o.). All children had clinician-diagnosed mild to severe asthma. Interviews explored the experience of pediatric asthma and assessed the understanding and relevance of both measures. Interviews were conducted across 3 iterative rounds to allow for modifications. RESULTS: Concept elicitation findings demonstrated that the core sign/symptom and impact concepts assessed in the PAD-C (cough, hard to breathe, out of breath, wheezing, chest tightness, and nighttime awakenings/symptoms) and PAD-O (cough, difficulty breathing, short of breath, wheezing, and nighttime awakenings/signs) correspond to those most frequently reported by participants; concept saturation was achieved. All PAD-C and PAD-O instructions and core items were well understood and considered relevant by most participants. Feedback from participants, the Pediatric Asthma Working Group, advisory panel, and FDA supported modifications to the measures, including addition of 1 new item to both measures and removal of 1 caregiver item. CONCLUSIONS: Findings provide strong support for the content validity of both measures. The cross-sectional measurement properties of both measures and their user experience and feasibility in electronic format will be assessed in a future quantitative pilot study with qualitative exit interviews, intended to support the reliability, construct validity, final content, and, ultimately, FDA qualification of the measures.

Pediatric asthma is one of the most common chronic diseases in children. However, there are problems of underdiagnosis, poor disease management, and undertreatment for many pediatric asthma patients, pressuring healthcare systems worldwide. Evaluating asthma symptoms is an important part of the development of treatments for pediatric asthma. However, there are few clinical outcome assessments (COAs) developed in line with regulatory guidance to directly assess symptom severity and evaluate the benefit of new treatments in children with asthma. In this study, we continued the development of the Pediatric Asthma Diary­Child (PAD-C) and the Pediatric Asthma Diary­Observer (PAD-O), according to regulatory guidance, to assess asthma signs and symptoms in children 4 through 11 years old and address this unmet need. The study aimed to explore the experience of pediatric asthma and assess how well-understood and relevant the measures are. Three rounds of qualitative interviews were conducted with 15 children 8 through 11 years old and 30 caregivers of children 4 through 11 years old with asthma. Results show that both measures are well-understood and assess the relevant and important aspects of pediatric asthma reported by children and caregivers. Findings provide evidence supporting the PAD-C and PAD-O as measures of symptom severity and their future use in pediatric asthma treatment trials. Further research is underway to evaluate their measurement properties and assess the user experience and feasibility of electronic completion, to ultimately support the PAD-C and PAD-O in an ongoing COA qualification process by the United States Food and Drug Administration.

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.

Updated Recommendations on Evidence Needed to Support Measurement Comparability Among Modes of Data Collection for Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: A Good Practices Report of an ISPOR Task Force.

The ISPOR Task Force on measurement comparability between modes of data collection for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) has updated the good practice recommendations from the 2009 ISPOR electronic patient-reported outcome and 2014 patient-reported outcome mixed modes Good Research Practices Task Force reports in light of accumulated evidence of measurement comparability among different modes of PROM data collection. Furthermore, with the increasing use of electronic formats of clinical outcome assessments in clinical trials and the US Food and Drug Administration's encouragement of electronic data collection, this new task force report provides stakeholders with best practice recommendations reflecting the current body of evidence and enables them to respond to future developments in research and technology. This task force recommends an evidence-based approach to determine whether new research is needed to evaluate measurement comparability for a given questionnaire or technology. The suitability of existing evidence depends upon whether it satisfactorily demonstrates that the change in data collection mode has not affected the PROM's measurement properties. In cases where sufficient evidence of measurement comparability exists and best practices for faithful migration are followed, this task force concludes that further testing of measurement comparability among the data collection modes is unnecessary, including cases of "mixing modes" within clinical trials such as bring your own device designs.

Best Practice Recommendations for Electronic Patient-Reported Outcome Dataset Structure and Standardization to Support Drug Development.

The electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) Dataset Structure and Standardization Project is a multistakeholder initiative formed by Critical Path Institute's PRO Consortium and Electronic Clinical Outcome Assessment (eCOA) Consortium to address issues related to ePRO dataset structure and standardization and to provide best practice recommendations for clinical trial sponsors and eCOA providers. Given the many benefits of utilizing electronic modes to capture PRO data, clinical trials are increasingly using these methods, yet there are challenges to using data generated by eCOA systems. Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium (CDISC) standards are used in clinical trials to ensure consistency in data collection, tabulation, and analysis and to facilitate regulatory submission. Currently, ePRO data are not required to follow a standard model, and the data models used often vary by eCOA provider and sponsor. This lack of consistency creates risks for programming and analysis and difficulties for analytics functions generating the required analysis and submission datasets. There is a disconnect between data standards used for study data submission and those used for data collection via case report forms and ePRO forms, which would be mitigated through the application of CDISC standards for ePRO data capture and transfer. The project was formed to collate and examine the issues arising from the lack of adoption of standardized approaches and this paper details recommendations to address those issues. Recommendations to address issues with ePRO dataset structure and standardization include adopting CDISC standards in the ePRO data platform, timely involvement of key stakeholders, ensuring ePRO controls are implemented, addressing issues of missing data early in development, ensuring quality control and validation of ePRO datasets, and use of read-only datasets.

Approaches to the Assessment of Clinical Benefit of Treatments for Conditions That Have Heterogeneous Symptoms and Impacts: Potential Applications in Rare Disease.

OBJECTIVES: Evaluating the clinical benefit of interventions for conditions with heterogeneous symptom and impact presentations is challenging. The same condition can present differently across and within individuals over time. This occurs frequently in rare diseases. The purpose of this review was to identify (1) assessment approaches used in clinical trials to address heterogeneous manifestations that could be relevant in rare disease research and (2) US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved labeling claims that used these approaches. METHODS: A targeted literature review was conducted examining peer-reviewed publications and FDA-approved labeling claims from January 2002 to July 2020, focusing on claims incorporating clinical outcome assessments. Approaches were then assessed for their potential application in rare diseases. RESULTS: A total of 6 assessment approaches were identified: composite or other multicomponent endpoints, multidomain responder index, most bothersome symptom (MBS), goal attainment scaling, sliding dichotomy, and adequate relief. A total of 59 FDA-approved labeling claims associated with these approaches were identified: composite or other multicomponent endpoints (n=49), MBS (n=9), and adequate relief (n=1). A total of 10 FDA-approved labeling claims, all using multicomponent endpoints, were identified for rare diseases. CONCLUSIONS: Multicomponent, MBS, and adequate relief have been included in FDA-approved labeling claims. Multicomponent endpoints, including composite endpoints, were the most frequent way to address heterogeneous manifestations of both common and rare diseases. MBS may be acceptable to regulators, whereas multidomain responder index is unlikely to be. The goal attainment scaling and adequate relief approaches may have potential utility in rare disease trials, assuming the theoretical and statistical challenges inherent in each approach are managed.

Comparability of a provisioned device versus bring your own device for completion of patient-reported outcome measures by participants with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: quantitative study findings.

OBJECTIVE: To quantitatively compare equivalence and compliance of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data collected via provisioned device (PD) versus bring your own device (BYOD). METHODS: Participants with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) completed the EXAcerbations of Chronic Pulmonary Disease Tool (EXACT®) daily and COPD Assessment Test™ (CAT) and Patient Global Impression of Severity (PGIS) of COPD weekly on either PD or BYOD for 15 days, then switched device types for 15 days. EXACT was scored using the Evaluating Respiratory Symptoms in COPD (E-RS®: COPD) algorithm and equivalence assessed using intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) adjusting for cross-over sequence, period, and time. Two one-sided tests (TOSTs) used ICC adjusted means with 10%, 20%, and 40% of total score tested as equivalence margins. Compliance and comfort with technology were assessed. Equivalence across 3 device screen sizes was assessed following the second completion period. RESULTS: Participants (N = 64) reported high comfort with technology, with 79.7% reporting being "quite a bit" or "very" comfortable. Weekly compliance was high (BYOD = 89.7-100%; PD = 76.9-100%). CAT and E-RS: COPD scores correlated well with PGIS (r > 0.50) and demonstrated equivalence between PD and BYOD completion (ICC = 0.863-0.908). TOST equivalence was achieved within 10% of the total score (p > 0.05). PRO measure scores were equivalent across 3 different screen sizes (ICC = 0.972-0.989). CONCLUSIONS: Measure completion was high and scores equivalent between PD and BYOD, supporting use of BYOD in addition to PD for collecting PRO data in COPD studies and in demographically diverse patient populations.

Comparability of a provisioned device versus bring your own device for completion of patient-reported outcome measures by participants with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: qualitative interview findings.

BACKGROUND: There is interest in participants using their own smartphones or tablets ("bring your own device"; BYOD) to complete patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in clinical studies. Our study aimed to qualitatively evaluate participants' experience using a provisioned device (PD) versus their own smartphone (BYOD) for this purpose. METHODS: Participants with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) were recruited for this observational, cross-over study and completed PRO measures daily on one device type for 15 days, then switched to the other device type to complete the same measures for another 15 days. After each 15-day period, semi-structured interviews were conducted about their experience with the device. RESULTS: Of 64 participants enrolled, the final qualitative analysis populations comprised those who participated in an interview without protocol violations. Thus, the qualitative longitudinal population (LP) included n = 57 (89%), while the qualitative cross-sectional population (CSP) included n = 60 (94%). CSP participants found both device types easy to use. Twenty CSP participants (33%) reported missing data entry on at least one day when using PD, and 24 (40%) reported missing at least one day when using BYOD. In the LP, preference for one of the device types was somewhat evenly split; 45.6% (n = 26) preferred PD and 50.9% (n = 29) preferred BYOD. The most common reason for preferring PD was that it was "dedicated" to the study; the "convenience" of carrying a single device was the main reason for preferring BYOD. CONCLUSION: The findings from the interviews demonstrated few differences in participants' experience completing PRO measures on a PD versus BYOD. Our study supports the use of BYOD as a potential addition to PD for collecting PRO data and contributes evidence that BYOD may be employed to collect PRO data in demographically diverse patient populations.

Comparing patient global impression of severity and patient global impression of change to evaluate test-retest reliability of depression, non-small cell lung cancer, and asthma measures.

PURPOSE: Score reproducibility is an important measurement property of fit-for-purpose patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. It is commonly assessed via test-retest reliability, and best evaluated with a stable participant sample, which can be challenging to identify in diseases with highly variable symptoms. To provide empirical evidence comparing the retrospective (patient global impression of change [PGIC]) and current state (patient global impression of severity [PGIS]) approaches to identifying a stable subgroup for test-retest analyses, 3 PRO Consortium working groups collected data using both items as anchor measures. METHODS: The PGIS was completed on Day 1 and Day 8 + 3 for the depression and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) studies, and daily for the asthma study and compared between Day 3 and 10. The PGIC was completed on the final day in each study. Scores were compared using an intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) for participants who reported "no change" between timepoints for each anchor. RESULTS: ICCs using the PGIS "no change" group were higher for depression (0.84 vs. 0.74), nighttime asthma (0.95 vs. 0.53) and daytime asthma (0.86 vs. 0.68) compared to the PGIC "no change" group. ICCs were similar for NSCLC (PGIS: 0.87; PGIC: 0.85). CONCLUSION: When considering anchor measures to identify a stable subgroup for test-retest reliability analyses, current state anchors perform better than retrospective anchors. Researchers should carefully consider the type of anchor selected, the time period covered, and should ensure anchor content is consistent with the target measure concept, as well as inclusion of both current and retrospective anchor measures.

Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (NSCLC-SAQ): Measurement Properties and Estimated Clinically Meaningful Thresholds From a Phase 3 Study.

Introduction: The NSCLC Symptom Assessment Questionnaire (NSCLC-SAQ) was developed to assess NSCLC symptom severity in accordance with Food and Drug Administration evidentiary expectations leading to Food and Drug Administration qualification in 2018. This study evaluated the NSCLC-SAQ's measurement properties within a clinical trial. Methods: The KEYNOTE-598 phase 3 study of participants with stage IV metastatic NSCLC with programmed death-ligand 1 tumor proportion score greater than or equal to 50% was used to assess the NSCLC-SAQ's reliability, construct validity, responsiveness, and estimate clinically meaningful within-person change. Other patient-reported outcome measures included patient global impression items of severity and change in lung cancer symptoms, and the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire core 30 and lung cancer module, LC13. Results: Participants (N = 560) were mostly men (70%), had a mean age of 64 years, and had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 1 (64%) or 0 (36%). Internal consistency at baseline (Cronbach's α = 0.74) and test-retest reliability after 3 weeks (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.79) were satisfactory. NSCLC-SAQ items, domains, and total score correlated moderately to highly with patient-reported outcome measures capturing similar content, and the total score differentiated among patient global impression of severity groups (p < 0.001). The total score detected improvement over time and the estimated clinically meaningful within-person change threshold for improvement ranged from three to five points on the 0 to 20 scale. Few participants exhibited symptom worsening (n = 38), limiting inferences in this group. Conclusions: The NSCLC-SAQ was found to be reliable, valid, responsive, and interpretable for assessing symptom improvement in NSCLC. Further evaluation is recommended in trial participants whose symptoms worsen over time.

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

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

Best Practice Recommendations: User Acceptance Testing for Systems Designed to Collect Clinical Outcome Assessment Data Electronically.

Implementing clinical outcome assessments electronically in clinical studies requires the sponsor and electronic clinical outcome assessment (eCOA) provider to work closely together to implement study-specific requirements and ensure consensus-defined best practices are followed. One of the most important steps is for sponsors to conduct user acceptance testing (UAT) using an eCOA system developed by the eCOA provider. UAT provides the clinical study team including sponsor or designee an opportunity to evaluate actual software performance and ensure that the sponsor's intended requirements were communicated clearly and accurately translated into the system design, and that the system conforms to a sponsor-approved requirements document based on the study protocol. The components of an eCOA system, such as the study-specific application, customization features, study portal, and custom data transfers should be tested during UAT. While the provider will perform their own system validation, the sponsor or designee should also perform their due diligence by conducting UAT. A clear UAT plan including the necessary documentation may be requested by regulatory authorities depending on the country. This paper provides the electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) Consortium's and patient-reported outcome (PRO) Consortium's best practice recommendations for clinical study sponsors or their designee for conducting UAT with support from eCOA providers to ensure data quality and enhance operational efficiency of the eCOA system. Following these best practice recommendations and completing UAT in its entirety will support a high quality eCOA system and ensure more reliable and complete data are collected, which are essential to the success of the study.

Measurement Comparability of Electronic and Paper Administration of Visual Analogue Scales: A Review of Published Studies.

BACKGROUND: Visual analogue scales (VASs) are used in a variety of patient-, observer- and clinician-reported outcome measures. While typically included in measures originally developed for pen-and-paper completion, a greater number of clinical trials currently use electronic approaches to their collection. This leads researchers to question whether the measurement properties of the scale have been conserved during the migration to an electronic format, particularly because electronic formats often use a different scale length than the 100 mm paper standard. METHODS: We performed a review of published studies investigating the measurement comparability of paper and electronic formats of the VAS. RESULTS: Our literature search yielded 26 studies published between 1997 and 2018 that reported comparison of paper and electronic formats using the VAS. After excluding 2 publications, 23 of the remaining 24 studies included in this review reported electronic formats of the VAS (eVAS) and paper formats (pVAS) to be equivalent. A further study concluded that eVAS and pVAS were both acceptable but should not be interchanged. eVAS length varied from 21 to 200 mm, indicating that 100 mm length is not a requirement. CONCLUSIONS: The literature supports the hypothesis that eVAS and pVAS provide comparable results regardless of the VAS length. When implementing a VAS on a screen-based electronic mode, we recommend following industry best practices for faithful migration to minimise the likelihood of non-comparability with pVAS.

Asthma Daytime Symptom Diary (ADSD) and Asthma Nighttime Symptom Diary (ANSD): Measurement Properties of Novel Patient-Reported Symptom Measures.

BACKGROUND: The Asthma Daytime Symptom Diary (ADSD) and the Asthma Nighttime Symptom Diary (ANSD) were developed to meet the need for standardized patient-reported measures of asthma symptoms to assess treatment trial outcomes in adults and adolescents. OBJECTIVE: To determine scoring and evaluate the measurement properties of the ADSD/ANSD. METHODS: Adolescents (12-17 years) and adults (18+ years) with asthma completed draft 8-item electronic versions of the ADSD/ANSD for 10 days alongside the Adult Asthma Symptom Daily Scales (AASDS) and a Patient Global Impression of Severity (PGIS). Using classical and modern psychometric methods, initial analyses evaluated the performance of ADSD/ANSD items to inform scoring. Subsequent analyses evaluated the reliability and validity of ADSD/ANSD scores. RESULTS: A demographically and clinically diverse sample (n = 130 adolescents; n = 89 adults) was recruited. Item performance was generally strong. However, items assessing chest pressure and mucus/phlegm demonstrated redundancy and poorer performance and were removed. Principal-components analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, and item response theory supported combining items to form 6-item total ADSD/ANSD scores. Internal consistency (α = 0.94-0.95) and test-retest reliability (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.86-0.95) were strong. Strong correlations (r = 0.72-0.80) were observed between ADSD scores and AASDS items assessing asthma symptom frequency, bother, and impact on activities. Significant differences (P < .001) in mean ADSD/ANSD scores were observed between groups categorized by asthma severity (PGIS), asthma control, inhaler use, nebulizer use, activity limitations, and nighttime awakenings. CONCLUSIONS: The ADSD/ANSD items and scores demonstrated strong reliability and validity. Implementation of the measures in interventional studies will enable the evaluation of responsiveness and meaningful within-patient change.

Good practices for the translation, cultural adaptation, and linguistic validation of clinician-reported outcome, observer-reported outcome, and performance outcome measures.

Within current literature and practice, the category of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures has been expanded into the broader category of clinical outcome assessments (COAs), which includes the subcategory of PRO, as well as clinician-reported outcome (ClinRO), observer-reported outcome (ObsRO), and performance outcome (PerfO) measure subcategories. However, despite this conceptual expansion, recommendations associated with translation, cultural adaptation, and linguistic validation of COAs remain focused on PRO measures, which has created a gap in specific process recommendations for the remaining types. This lack of recommendations has led to inconsistent approaches being implemented, leading to uncertainty in the scientific community regarding suitable methods. To address this gap, the ISOQOL Translation and Cultural Adaptation Special Interest Group (TCA-SIG) has developed recommendations specific to each of the three COA types currently lacking such documentation to support a standardized approach to their translation, cultural adaptation, and linguistic validation. The recommended process utilized to translate ObsRO, ClinRO and PerfO measures from one language to another aligns closely with the industry standard process for PRO measures. The substantial differences between respondent categories across COA types require targeted approaches to the cognitive interviewing procedures utilized within the linguistic validation process, including the use of patients for patient-facing text in ClinRO measures, and the need to interview the targeted observers for ObsROs measures.

Why Reinvent the Wheel? Use or Modification of Existing Clinical Outcome Assessment Tools in Medical Product Development.

Assessment of clinical benefit in treatment trials can be made through report by a clinician, a patient, or a nonclinician observer (eg, caregiver) or through a performance-based assessment. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a final guidance for industry for one type of clinical outcome assessment (COA)-patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures-in 2009 that described how FDA reviews PRO measures for their adequacy to support medical product-labeling claims. Many of the principles described in the PRO Guidance could be applicable to the other types of COAs, including instruments completed by clinicians (ie, clinician-reported outcome assessments) and nonclinician observers (ie, observer-reported outcome assessments). FDA guidance describing the regulatory expectations for all COA types including performance outcome assessments, which are based on the patient's performance of a defined task or activity, is in progress to meet requirements described within the 21st Century Cures Act and PDUFA VI. This communication highlights potential ways in which existing instruments might be modified or used "as is" to conform to good measurement principles. An industry and a regulatory perspective are described.

Development and Validation of the FSIQ-RMS: A New Patient-Reported Questionnaire to Assess Symptoms and Impacts of Fatigue in Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis.

OBJECTIVES: A new patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument to measure fatigue symptoms and impacts in relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS) was developed in a qualitative stage, followed by psychometric validation and migration from paper to an electronic format. METHODS: Adult patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) were interviewed to elicit fatigue-related symptoms and impacts. A draft questionnaire was debriefed in cognitive interviews with further RRMS patients, and revised. Content confirmation interviews were conducted with patients with progressive-relapsing multiple sclerosis (PRMS) and relapsing secondary-progressive multiple sclerosis (RSPMS). Psychometric analyses used data from adult patients with different RMS subtypes and matched non-RMS controls in a multicenter, observational study. After item reduction, the final instrument was migrated to a smartphone (eDiary) and usability was confirmed in interviews with additional adult RMS patients. RESULTS: The qualitative stage included 37 RRMS, 5 PRMS, and 5 RSPMS patients. Saturation of concepts was reached during concept elicitation. Cognitive interviews confirmed that participants understood the instructions, items, and response options of the instrument-named FSIQ-RMS-as intended. Psychometric validation included 164 RMS and 74 control patients. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability were demonstrated. The symptoms domain discriminated along the RMS symptom-severity continuum and between patients and controls. Patients were able to attribute fatigue-related symptoms to RMS. Usability and conceptual equivalence of the eDiary were confirmed (n = 10 participants). CONCLUSIONS: With 7 symptom items and 13 impact items (in 3 impacts subdomains: physical, cognitive and emotional, and coping) after item reduction, the FSIQ-RMS is a comprehensive, valid, and reliable measure of fatigue-related symptoms and impacts in RMS patients.

Training on the Use of Technology to Collect Patient-Reported Outcome Data Electronically in Clinical Trials: Best Practice Recommendations from the ePRO Consortium.

Electronic capture of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data has many advantages over paper-based data collection. Regulatory agencies have consistently supported the use of electronic PRO (ePRO) data capture and recommended participant and site staff training on the correct use of electronic data capture systems. The objective of this paper is to outline best practice recommendations for training end users, including site staff and study participants, on the use of ePRO technology in clinical trials to enable consistent, accurate, and complete data collection. Site personnel should be trained on study-specific as well as technology-specific topics and be given instructions on whom to contact to obtain technical support. Optimal training takes place over time using multiple modalities, including hands-on, face-to-face training at an investigator meeting or directly in the clinical site; remote training via webinar or teleconference; interactive on-demand self-paced-training via e-learning modalities; and supplemented by proxy training performed by study clinical research associates. Like site personnel training, study participants should be provided with individual, hands-on training by site staff at the initiation of the trial and in conjunction with interactive electronic training modules that can be accessed on-demand throughout the duration of the trial. The recommendations put forth in this paper provide a structured framework for the training that site personnel and study participants need to optimize the advantages trials can gain from using ePRO data collection systems.

Perceived Burden of Completion of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Clinical Trials:: Results of a Preliminary Study.

BACKGROUND: Understanding the perceived burden of clinical trial participation is an important element of patient-centric trial design and conduct. METHODS: We report the results of a study to gain preliminary insights into the perceived burden associated with patient-reported outcome (PRO) data collection among a sample (n = 61) of volunteers from the general population including people with various health conditions resulting in chronic pain. RESULTS: Participants identified morning completion as more burdensome than completion of PRO measures in the evening. Weekly completion was perceived as less burdensome than daily, and twice-a-day more burdensome than once-a-day. CONCLUSION: Our results, while not generalizable in isolation, provide a valuable starting point to understand the complex construct of subject burden. This preliminary work is intended to be a catalyst for more in-depth research to better understand and predict burden and acceptable burden thresholds in clinical trials. Understanding subject burden is a vital component of human subject research that will be valuable in helping to inform future clinical trial designs.

Best Practices for Avoiding Paper Backup When Implementing Electronic Approaches to Patient-Reported Outcome Data Collection in Clinical Trials.

Electronic data capture is fast becoming the preferred method of collecting patient-reported outcome (PRO) data in clinical trials. Data collection can be site-based (clinical study site), and typically collected on a tablet, or field-based (subject's typical environment such as home, school, or workplace), and most often accomplished with handheld devices, such as a smartphone. While site and study subject compliance with protocol-specific data collection procedures using these devices is critical to trial success, so is the robustness of the device hardware and the software these devices use to capture the trial data. Technology failures and/or site or subject resistance to the electronic data capture protocol may lead a subject to record data on paper, which can result in undesirable data challenges. As such, both site and subject compliance issues and technology-related factors must be anticipated to adhere to the ePRO data collection plan. The objective of this paper is to provide the technology industry's best practice recommendations for optimizing ePRO data collection in clinical trials by proposing the inclusion of a planned approach to data collection that includes viable electronic backup strategies so that defaulting to a paper-based backup becomes unnecessary.