Andrew Yaworsky

Clinical Trial Patient-reported Outcomes Data: Going Beyond the Label in Oncology

PURPOSE Patient-reported outcome (PRO) data are increasingly being implemented in oncology clinical trial research to evaluate treatment benefit, such as disease-related symptoms, treatment-related adverse events, and health-related quality of life impacts. However, only a small amount of PRO data collected is used to support labeling claims, leaving a substantial amount of data that could be shared by sponsors to further convey treatment benefit from the patient perspective. METHODS This paper describes how pharmaceutical sponsors can realize the value of PRO data derived from oncology trials with regard to the following stakeholders: payers, health care providers (HCPs), and patient advocacy groups. Further, ideas are presented for integrating PRO data and implementing PRO assessments within oncology, by stakeholder type. Finally, a summary is provided to describe how PRO data can benefit the patient by facilitating better, more symptom-focused care and enhancing treatment decisions. FINDINGS With the goal of motivating further use of PRO assessments in oncology, we present examples of how payers utilize PRO data to inform reimbursement decisions (eg, PRO data inform decisions made by Germany׳s Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care and the United Kingdom׳s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence); how communication of results with patient advocacy groups can lead to a better understanding of what is important to patients; and how HCPs can use PRO instruments to inform patient treatment decisions through real-world application. IMPLICATIONS Integrating PRO data can enhance health care by allowing the patients voice to carry beyond regulatory decisions and into those made by payers and HCPs, which are crucial to quality care and assessing the value of care. Utilizing PRO assessments and communicating results to key stakeholders in the oncology space can allow sponsors to report treatment benefit and, more importantly, can provide valuable insight into the patient treatment experience.

Patient-reported outcomes for US oncology labeling: review and discussion of score interpretation and analysis methods

This paper describes ways to approach the conceptual and practical challenges associated with interpreting the clinical meaning of scores produced by patient reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires, particularly when used to inform efficacy decisions for regulatory approval for oncology products. Score interpretation estimates are not inherent to PRO questionnaires per se, instead, vary dependent upon sample and study design characteristics. Scores from PRO measures can be interpreted at the individual and group level, and each carries its own set of statistics for evaluating differences. Oncology researchers have a variety of methods and data analytic strategies available to support their score interpretation needs, which should be considered in the context of their a priori knowledge of the target patient population, the hypothesized effects of treatment, the study design and assessment schedule, and the inferences and decisions to be made from the PRO data.

Informing a priori Sample Size Estimation in Qualitative Concept Elicitation Interview Studies for Clinical Outcome Assessment (COA) Instrument Development

OBJECTIVE Evidence-based recommendations for the a priori estimation of sample size are needed for qualitative concept elicitation (CE) interview studies in clinical outcome assessment (COA) instrument development. Saturation is described as the point at which no new data is expected to emerge from the conduct of additional qualitative interviews. STUDY DESIGN A retrospective evaluation of 26 CE interview studies conducted with patients between 2006 and 2013 was completed to assess the point at which saturation of concept was achieved in each study. METHODS For each of the 26 interview studies, saturation of symptom concepts was assessed by dividing the sample into quartiles and then comparing the number of responses elicited from the first 25% of participants to the next 25% of participants, from the first 50% of participants to the next 25% of participants, and then from the first 75% of participants to the last 25% of participants. The number of interviews required to achieve saturation was documented for each study and then summarized across studies. RESULTS Findings indicate that 84% of symptom concepts emerged by the 10th interview, 92% emerged by the 15th interview, 97% emerged by the 20th interview, and 99% by the 25th interview. CONCLUSIONS Results provide practical guidance for estimating the number of interviews that may be needed to achieve saturation in a qualitative CE interview study for COA instrument development; address an important gap in qualitative research for the development of COAs in the context of medical product development; and offer useful information for study design and implementation.

The impact of upper facial lines and psychological impact of crow's feet lines: content validation of the Facial Line Outcomes (FLO‐11) Questionnaire

Treatments for upper facial lines (UFL), the most visible sign of aging, are of interest to patients and clinicians alike. Patient‐reported outcomes (PROs) are valuable in evaluating the impact of such treatments; however, regulatory recommendations have stipulated that the patient perspective be central in developing these assessments.

Quality of Care in Rheumatoid Disease from the Clinician Perspective: A Modified Delphi Panel Approach

IntroductionTo establish clinical consensus on important and relevant quality-of-care (QoC) attributes in rheumatic disease (RD) treatment that may improve treatment outcomes and guide best practices.MethodsTwenty-three QoC attributes were identified in a literature review. Fifteen European-based clinicians were selected based on their contributions to RD guidelines, publications, and patient care. A three-round (an interview round and two web-based rounds) modified Delphi panel was conducted to reach consensus and finalize a QoC attribute list.ResultsIn round 1 (clinician interviews), clinicians reported 52 unique QoC attributes across 14 themes, with the greatest number of attributes reported in the “treatment goals” (n = 7) and “remote monitoring” (n = 7) themes. During rounds 2 and 3, the critically important QoC attributes most frequently reported were access to care/treatment (n = 14, 93.3%), safety of treatment (round 2 n = 14, 93.3%, round 3 n = 13, 86.7%), and access to clinicians and specialists (round 2: n = 13, 86.7%, round 3: n = 14, 93.3%). The final list contained 53 QoC attributes.ConclusionThe study demonstrates consensus across several themes of QoC. Quality of care is a complex, multidimensional, and fluid concept that can be improved by ensuring patients have access to care, open communication between patients and clinicians, and the use of novel strategies, such as remote monitoring. Utilization of the attribute list can potentially improve the lives of patients, provide clinicians with tools to provide greater QoC, and improve the healthcare system as a whole.FundingMerck & Co., Inc.