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.

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.

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.

Intestinal Guanylate Cyclase-C mRNA Expression in Duodenum and Colon of Children.

OBJECTIVES: Guanylate cyclase-C (GC-C) agonists, which increase intestinal secretion and accelerate transit, are used to treat chronic constipation and constipation-predominant irritable bowel syndrome and are being evaluated for pediatric use. Prior studies suggest GC-C receptor density may be higher in young children, potentially amplifying GC-C agonism with treatment implications. We aimed to quantitate duodenal and colonic GC-C mRNA expression in children. METHODS: Mucosal biopsies were obtained from subjects aged 6 months to 18 years during clinically indicated upper, that is, esophago-gastro-duodenal, and/or colonic endoscopy. Tissue samples without histologic abnormalities were grouped by subject age (<24 months, 24 months to <6 years, 6 to <12 years, and 12 to <18 years) and analyzed for GC-C mRNA expression by qPCR. The relationship between GC-C mRNA levels and age was modeled using regression analyses. RESULTS: Ninety-nine subjects underwent upper endoscopy/colonoscopy; 93 had evaluable samples. Mean relative GC-C mRNA expression was 2.36 (range 2.21-2.46) for duodenal samples and 1.56 (range 1.22-1.91) for colonic samples. Predicted and observed normalized GC-C mRNA expression in each region were comparable among age groups. Pooled expression by region demonstrated lower expression in colonic versus duodenal samples. CONCLUSIONS: Uniform levels of GC-C mRNA expression were detected in children aged >6 months in the duodenum and >12 months in the colon. Higher expression was observed in all age groups in duodenal versus colonic samples, indicating regional variability in GC-C receptor density. These data are reassuring for further studies of GC-C agonists in children.

Randomized Trial of 2 Delayed-Release Formulations of Linaclotide in Patients With Irritable Bowel Syndrome With Constipation.

INTRODUCTION: Immediate-release (IR) formulation of linaclotide 290 µg improves abdominal pain and constipation (APC) in patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) with constipation. Delayed-release (DR) formulations were developed on the premise that targeting the ileum (delayed-release formulation 1 [DR1]) or ileocecal junction and cecum (MD-7246, formerly DR2) would modulate linaclotide's secretory effects while preserving pain relief effects. METHODS: This phase 2b study randomized patients with IBS with constipation to placebo or 1 of 7 once-daily linaclotide doses (DR1 30, 100, or 300 µg; MD-7246 30, 100, or 300 µg; or IR 290 µg) for 12 weeks. Key efficacy endpoints were change from baseline in abdominal pain and complete spontaneous bowel movement frequency, and 6/12-week combined APC+1 responder rate. RESULTS: Overall, 532 patients were randomized; mean age was 45.1 years, and most were women (83.3%) and White (64.7%). All linaclotide DR1 and MD-7246 groups experienced greater improvements in abdominal pain from baseline and vs placebo throughout treatment. Linaclotide DR1 and IR led to numerically greater improvements from baseline in complete spontaneous bowel movement frequency and higher APC+1 responder rates compared with placebo; MD-7246 results were similar to placebo. Diarrhea was the most common adverse event with DR1 and IR; rates were similar between MD-7246 and placebo. DISCUSSION: Altering the site of drug delivery in the intestine might uncouple linaclotide's pain relief from secretory effects. Persistent, modest abdominal pain improvement with limited impact on bowel symptom parameters, as seen across MD-7246 doses, warrants further study of MD-7246 as a novel treatment for abdominal pain, regardless of IBS subtype.

Comprehensive assessment of patients with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation and chronic idiopathic constipation using deterministically linked administrative claims and patient-reported data: the Chronic Constipation and IBS-C Treatment and Outcomes Real-World Research Platform (CONTOR).

AIMS: To characterize a US population of patients with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C) or chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC) using CONTOR, a real-world longitudinal research platform that deterministically linked administrative claims data with patient-reported outcomes data among patients with these conditions. METHODS: Patients with IBS-C or CIC were identified using diagnosis and treatment codes from administrative claims. Potential respondents received a mailed survey followed by 12 monthly online follow-up surveys and 2 mailed diaries. Surveys collected symptom severity, treatment use, quality of life, productivity, and condition/treatment history. Comorbidities and healthcare costs/utilization were captured from claims data. Diaries collected symptoms, treatments, and clinical outcomes at baseline and 12 months. Data were linked to create a patient-centric research platform. RESULTS: Baseline surveys were returned by 2,052 respondents (16.8% response rate) and retention rates throughout the study were high (64.8%-70.8%). Most participants reported burdensome symptoms despite having complex treatment histories that included multiple treatments over many years. More than half (55.3%) were dissatisfied with their treatment regimen; however, a higher proportion of those treated with prescription medications were satisfied. LIMITATIONS: The study sample may have been biased by patients with difficult-to-treat symptoms as a result of prior authorization processes for IBS-C/CIC prescriptions. Results may not be generalizable to uninsured or older populations because all participants had commercial insurance coverage. CONCLUSIONS: By combining administrative claims and patient-reported data over time, CONTOR afforded a deeper understanding of the IBS-C/CIC patient experience than could be achieved with 1 data source alone; for example, participants self-reported burdensome symptoms and treatment dissatisfaction despite making few treatment changes, highlighting an opportunity to improve patient management. This patient-centric approach to understanding real-world experience and management of a chronic condition could be leveraged for other conditions in which the patient experience is not adequately captured by standardized data sources.

Efficacy and safety of linaclotide for opioid-induced constipation in patients with chronic noncancer pain syndromes from a phase 2 randomized study.

Constipation is the most common adverse event (AE) of opioid therapy. This multicenter, phase 2 study evaluated the efficacy and safety of linaclotide in treating opioid-induced constipation (OIC) in patients with chronic noncancer pain syndromes (NCT02270983). Adults with OIC (<3 spontaneous bowel movements [SBMs]/week) related to chronic noncancer pain were randomized 1:1:1 to receive linaclotide 145 µg, linaclotide 290 µg, or placebo once daily for 8 weeks. The primary endpoint was change from baseline in 8-week SBM frequency rate (SBMs/week). Secondary efficacy endpoints included 6/8-week SBM 3 + 1 responders, time to first SBM, and changes from baseline in 8-week stool consistency, abdominal bloating, and straining. Additional endpoints included treatment satisfaction and adequate relief responders. In total, 254 patients were randomized: 87, 88, and 79 received linaclotide 145 µg, linaclotide 290 µg, and placebo, respectively. The mean changes from baseline in SBMs/week during the treatment period were 2.9 and 3.5 in the linaclotide 145 and 290 µg groups (P < 0.01 for both doses), respectively, vs 1.6 in the placebo group. Diarrhea, the most common AE, was generally mild, resulting in 1.1%, 5.7%, and 1.3% of patients discontinuing in the linaclotide 145 µg, linaclotide 290 µg, and placebo groups, respectively. No serious AEs related to diarrhea were reported in any treatment group. Compared with placebo, linaclotide-treated patients had significant improvements in stool consistency, straining, abdominal bloating, and treatment satisfaction scores (P < 0.05). Linaclotide significantly improved OIC symptoms and was well tolerated in patients with chronic noncancer pain.

Psychometric Analysis of the Abdominal Score From the Diary for Irritable Bowel Syndrome Symptoms-Constipation Using Phase IIb Clinical Trial Data.

OBJECTIVES: The Diary for Irritable Bowel Syndrome Symptoms-Constipation (DIBSS-C) has been developed to assess the core signs and symptoms of irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C). This article presents the psychometric evaluation of the DIBSS-C abdominal score. METHODS: Data for these analyses are from a multicenter phase IIb study in IBS-C patients (NCT02559206). Subjects completed a number of assessments via handheld electronic diary throughout the study. The analyses used the intent-to-treat population and were blinded to randomized treatment group. The analyses evaluated the reliability, validity, and responsiveness of the DIBSS-C abdominal score; identified an appropriate scoring algorithm; and determined thresholds for interpreting clinically meaningful changes at the individual level. RESULTS: The correlations between the DIBSS-C abdominal symptom items (ie, abdominal pain, discomfort, and bloating) were strong (>0.75). Cronbach's alpha for the abdominal symptom severity items was very strong (.94), indicating that the 3 abdominal symptom items produce a reliable score. The intraclass correlation coefficient for the abdominal score was 0.82, exceeding the threshold of 0.70 and indicating good test-retest reliability. Guyatt's responsiveness statistic values all exceeded the threshold for a large effect of 0.80, so the DIBSS-C abdominal score can be considered highly responsive to change. Triangulation across 3 sets of anchor-based analyses indicated that a threshold of -2.0 points on the abdominal score is an appropriate threshold for identifying meaningful change. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, this study provides evidence that the DIBSS-C abdominal score is valid, reliable, responsive to change, and interpretable for assessing treatment benefit in patients with IBS-C.

IW-3718 Reduces Heartburn Severity in Patients With Refractory Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease in a Randomized Trial.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Refractory gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD) reduces quality of life and creates significant financial burden on the health care system. Approximately 30% of patients with GERD who receive label-dose proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) still have symptoms. We performed a trial to evaluate the efficacy and safety of IW-3718, a bile acid sequestrant, as an adjunct to PPI therapy. METHODS: We performed a multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, from March 2016 through April 2017, of 280 patients with confirmed GERD. The patients, stratified by esophagitis status, were randomly assigned (1:1:1:1) to groups given placebo or IW-3718 (500, 1000, or 1500 mg) twice daily, with ongoing label-dose PPI. The primary endpoint was percent change from baseline to week 8 in weekly heartburn severity score. We also analyzed percent change from baseline to week 8 in weekly regurgitation frequency score. RESULTS: Mean changes from baseline to week 8 in weekly heartburn severity scores were reductions of 46.0% in the placebo group, 49.0% in the 500 mg group, 55.1% in the 1000 mg group, and 58.0% in the 1500 mg IW-3718 group (dose-response P = .02). The treatment difference was 11.9% between the 1500 mg IW-3718 and placebo groups (P = .04, analysis of covariance). The mean change in weekly regurgitation frequency score from baseline to week 8 in the 1500 mg IW-3718 vs placebo groups was a reduction of 17.5% (95% confidence interval, reductions of 31.4% to 3.6%). The most common adverse event was constipation (in 8.1% of patients receiving IW-3718 and 7.1% of patients receiving placebo). There were no drug-related serious adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: In a randomized trial of patients with refractory GERD, adding 1500 mg IW-3718 to label-dose PPIs significantly reduced heartburn symptoms compared with adding placebo. Regurgitation symptoms also decreased. IW-3718 was well tolerated. (ClinicalTrials.gov, Number: NCT02637557).

The Impact of Stool Consistency on Bowel Movement Satisfaction in Patients With IBS-C or CIC Treated With Linaclotide or Other Medications: Real-World Evidence From the CONTOR Study.

GOALS: This study aimed to characterize the impact of stool consistency on patient-reported bowel movement (BM) satisfaction in patients with irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C) or chronic idiopathic constipation, with a focus on linaclotide. BACKGROUND: As new medications for constipation become available, understanding patients' perceptions of treatment effects may help clinicians manage patient expectations and inform clinical decision-making. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Data were derived from the Chronic Constipation and IBS-C Treatment and Outcomes Real-world Research Platform (CONTOR) study from 2 patient-reported 7-day daily BM diaries to create a dataset of 2922 diaries representing 26,524 BMs for 1806 participants. Binary variables were created for: medication(s) used in the past 24 hours and categorization of BMs as loose or watery stools (LoWS), hard or lumpy stools (HoLS), or intermediate (neither LoWS nor HoLS). The relationship between stool consistency, medication use, and BM satisfaction was analyzed using logistic regression with SEs corrected for repeated observations. RESULTS: BMs characterized as intermediate stools and LoWS were satisfactory more often (61.2% and 51.2%, respectively) than HoLS (19.4%). Participants who reported taking linaclotide rated a similar proportion of BMs as satisfactory when described as LoWS (65.6%) or intermediate (64.1%). Linaclotide use was associated with higher odds of BMs being reported as satisfactory compared with nonlinaclotide use (odds ratio: 1.23, P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Overall, CONTOR participants were more likely to report BMs classified as LoWS or intermediate as satisfactory, versus HoLS. Participants taking linaclotide were more likely to be satisfied, particularly those reporting LoWS, versus those not taking linaclotide.

Linaclotide in irritable bowel syndrome with constipation: A Phase 3 randomized trial in China and other regions.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Linaclotide is a guanylate cyclase-C agonist approved in multiple countries to treat irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (IBS-C). China has unmet need for well-tolerated therapy that is effective in treating both bowel and abdominal symptoms of IBS-C. This trial evaluated linaclotide's efficacy and safety in IBS-C patients in China and other regions. METHODS: This Phase 3, double-blind trial randomized IBS-C patients to once-daily oral 290-µg linaclotide or placebo at centers in China, North America, and Oceania. Patients reported bowel and abdominal symptoms daily; adverse events were monitored. Co-primary and secondary endpoints were tested using a predefined three-step serial gatekeeping multiple comparisons procedure. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population included 839 patients (mean age = 41 years; 82% female; 81% Asian). The trial met all co-primary and secondary endpoints. Co-primary responder criteria were met by 60.0% of linaclotide patients versus 48.8% of placebo patients for abdominal pain/discomfort (≥ 30% decrease for ≥ 6/12 weeks; P < 0.05), and 31.7% of linaclotide versus 15.4% of placebo patients for IBS degree of relief (score ≤ 2 for ≥ 6/12 weeks; P < 0.0001). Secondary 12-week change-from-baseline endpoints (spontaneous bowel movement/complete spontaneous bowel movement frequency, stool consistency, straining, abdominal pain, abdominal discomfort, and abdominal bloating) were significantly improved with linaclotide versus placebo (all P < 0.0001). Diarrhea was the most common adverse event (9.4% linaclotide, 1.2% placebo). Discontinuation rates due to diarrhea were low (0.7% linaclotide, 0.2% placebo). CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily 290-µg linaclotide improved bowel habits, abdominal symptoms, and global measures in a predominantly Chinese IBS-C population.

Development of a Symptom-Focused Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for Functional Dyspepsia: The Functional Dyspepsia Symptom Diary (FDSD).

OBJECTIVES: The Functional Dyspepsia Symptom Diary (FDSD) was developed to address the lack of symptom-focused, patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures designed for use in functional dyspepsia (FD) patients and meeting Food and Drug Administration recommendations for PRO instrument development. METHODS: Concept elicitation interviews were conducted with FD participants to identify symptoms important and relevant to FD patients. A preliminary version of the FDSD was constructed, then completed by FD participants on an electronic device in cognitive interviews to evaluate the readability, comprehensibility, relevance, and comprehensiveness of the FDSD, and to preliminarily evaluate its measurement properties. RESULTS: During concept elicitation interviews, 45 participants spontaneously reported 19 symptom concepts. Of those, seven symptoms were selected for assessment by the eight-item FDSD. Cognitive interviews with 57 participants confirmed that participants were able to comprehend and provide meaningful responses to the FDSD, and that the handheld electronic FDSD format was suitable for use in the target population. Scores of the FDSD were well-distributed among response options, item discrimination indices suggested that the FDSD items differentiate among patients with varying degrees of FD severity, and inter-item correlations suggested that no items of the FDSD were capturing redundant information. Internal consistency estimates (0.87) and construct-related validity estimates using known-groups methods were within acceptable ranges. CONCLUSIONS: The FDSD is a content-valid PRO measure, with preliminary psychometric evidence providing support for the FDSD's items and total score. Further psychometric evaluations are recommended to more fully test the FDSD's score performance and other measurement properties in the target patient population.

Low-Dose Linaclotide (72 µg) for Chronic Idiopathic Constipation: A 12-Week, Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Linaclotide is a guanylate cyclase-C agonist approved in the United States, Canada, and Mexico at a once-daily 145-µg dose for the treatment of chronic idiopathic constipation (CIC); a once-daily 72-µg dose for CIC recently received FDA approval. The trial objective was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of a 72-µg linaclotide dose in CIC patients. METHODS: This double-blind, placebo-controlled trial randomized patients with CIC (Rome III criteria) to once-daily linaclotide 72 µg or 145 µg, or placebo for 12 weeks. The primary endpoint, 12-week complete spontaneous bowel movement (CSBM) overall responder, required patients to have ≥3 CSBMs and an increase of ≥1 CSBM per week from baseline in the same week for ≥9 of 12 weeks of the treatment period. Secondary endpoints included 12-week change from baseline in bowel (SBM and CSBM frequency, stool consistency, straining) and abdominal (bloating, discomfort) symptoms, monthly CSBM responders, and 12-week CSBM responders among patients who averaged >1 SBM/week at baseline. Sustained response (12-week CSBM overall responders who met weekly criteria for 3 of the 4 final weeks (weeks 9-12) of treatment) was evaluated as an additional endpoint. Adverse events (AEs) were monitored. RESULTS: The intent-to-treat population included 1,223 patients (mean age=46 years, female=77%, white=71%). The primary endpoint was met by 13.4% of linaclotide 72-µg patients vs. 4.7% of placebo patients (P<0.0001, odds ratio=3.0; statistically significant controlling for multiplicity). Sustained response was achieved by 12.4% of linaclotide 72-µg patients vs. 4.2% of placebo patients (nominal P<0.0001). Linaclotide 72-µg patients met 9-of-10 secondary endpoints vs. placebo (P<0.05; abdominal discomfort, P=0.1028). Patients treated with linaclotide 145 µg also improved CIC symptoms for the primary (12.4%) and sustained responder endpoint parameters (11.4%) and for all 10 of the secondary endpoint parameters including abdominal discomfort (P<0.05). Diarrhea, the most common AE, was mild in most instances and resulted in discontinuation of 0, 2.4%, and 3.2% of patients in the placebo, linaclotide 72-µg, and linaclotide 145-µg groups, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Once-daily linaclotide 72 µg significantly improved CIC symptoms in both men and women with a low rate of discontinuation due to diarrhea over 12 weeks of treatment.

Exploring the Diabetic Gastroparesis Patient Experience: Patient Exit Interviews.

INTRODUCTION: To improve understanding of the diabetic gastroparesis (DGP) patient experience and inform the patient-reported outcome measurement strategy for future trials in DGP, qualitative interviews were conducted with participants in a phase 2 clinical trial of a novel DGP treatment. METHODS: Trial participants were invited to participate in interviews at both the pretreatment visit (PTV) and the end-of-treatment visit (EOTV). The interviews were conducted by experienced qualitative researchers and followed a semistructured interview guide. The PTV interviews focused on patients' DGP symptoms and the impact of DGP on their lives, and the EOTV interviews focused on any symptom changes patients experienced during the trial. RESULTS: Of 90 enrolled trial participants, 78 (86.7%) opted to participate in the interview study. Bloating, stomach fullness, upper abdominal pain, vomiting, constipation, and heartburn or reflux were each reported spontaneously by a majority of the 73 PTV interview participants with evaluable data. These patients commonly reported bloating (n = 20), upper abdominal pain (n = 12), and nausea (n = 11) as their most bothersome DGP symptom. Of 51 EOTV interview participants, 44 (86.3%) reported improvement in at least one DGP symptom either spontaneously or when asked about specific symptoms reported during their PTV interview. CONCLUSION: Bloating, abdominal pain, nausea, constipation, stomach fullness, vomiting, and heartburn were frequently reported by patients as the most bothersome and important-to-treat symptoms. These results support the assessment of these symptoms in future DGP clinical trials, whether for symptom improvement or worsening. FUNDING: Ironwood Pharmaceuticals. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT02289846.

Development of a Symptom-Based Patient-Reported Outcome Instrument for Functional Dyspepsia: A Preliminary Conceptual Model and an Evaluation of the Adequacy of Existing Instruments.

OBJECTIVES: The aim was to document, from the perspective of the empirical literature, the primary symptoms of functional dyspepsia (FD), evaluate the extent to which existing questionnaires target those symptoms, and, finally, identify any missing evidence that would impact the questionnaires' use in regulated clinical trials to assess treatment efficacy claims intended for product labeling. METHODS: A literature review was conducted to identify the primary symptoms of FD and existing symptom-based FD patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments. Following a database search, abstracts were screened and articles were retrieved for review. The primary symptoms of FD were organized into a conceptual model and the PRO instruments were evaluated for conceptual coverage as well as compared against evidentiary requirements presented in the FDA's PRO Guidance for Industry. RESULTS: Fifty-six articles and 16 instruments assessing FD symptoms were reviewed. Concepts listed in the Rome III criteria for FD (n = 7), those assessed by existing FD instruments (n = 34), and symptoms reported by patients in published qualitative research (n = 6) were summarized in the FD conceptual model. Except for vomiting, all of the identified symptoms from the published qualitative research reports were also specified in the Rome III criteria. Only three of the 16 instruments, the Dyspepsia Symptom Severity Index (DSSI), Nepean Dyspepsia Index (NDI), and Short-Form Nepean Dyspepsia Index (SF-NDI), measure all seven FD symptoms defined by the Rome III criteria. Among these three, each utilizes a 2-week recall period and 5-point Likert-type scale, and had evidence of patient involvement in development. Despite their coverage, when these instruments were evaluated in light of regulatory expectations, several issues jeopardized their potential qualification for substantiation of a labeling claim. CONCLUSIONS: No existing PRO instruments that measured all seven symptoms adhered to the regulatory principles necessary to support product labeling. As such, the development of a new FD symptom PRO instrument is supported.

Comparison of Site-Based Versus Central Ratings in a Study of Generalized Anxiety Disorder.

Lack of standardization across sites and raters, poor interrater reliability, and possible scoring bias affecting the primary outcome measure contribute to a high failure rate in anxiety trials. Remote centralized raters who are blinded to protocol inclusion and exclusion criteria as well as visit number may standardize assessments across raters and eliminate scoring bias, decreasing placebo response and thereby increasing signal detection. The purpose of the primary study was to test the safety and efficacy of an anxiolytic in a double-blind, placebo-controlled (no active comparator), multicenter trial. However, there was an additional prospective objective to explore site ratings compared with remote centralized ratings in the cohort of subjects on placebo. Site raters assessed subjects 6 times over an 8-week period. The primary outcome measure was the week 8 site-rated Hamilton Anxiety Scale (HAM-A). Remote centralized raters by telephone independently rated these subjects on the HAM-A at baseline and week 6. Of the 122 subjects selected by site raters and therefore randomized, remote centralized raters would have admitted 59 (48%) and excluded 63 (52%), based on their HAM-A ratings. The mean change from baseline in HAM-A total score in the placebo group admitted to the study by site raters was 9.3, significantly higher than the 5.9 point mean change on placebo as measured by the remote centralized raters.The data are consistent with the potential for qualification bias at baseline when rated by sites. The results make a strong case for using strategies to ensure that baseline scoring is truly independent of the pressure to enroll.

Catechol-O-methyltransferase genotype as modifier of superior responses to venlafaxine treatment in major depressive disorder.

Responses to venlafaxine treatment in major depressive disorder were stratified by COMT genotypes (Val158Met, rs4680) in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Improvements in depression scores among subjects with Val/Val genotypes were larger than those in Met/Met genotypes, suggesting that venlafaxine may alter noradrenergic flux differentially according to COMT activity.