Margaret Mordin

Validation of the Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score Subscales for Patients With Articular Cartilage Lesions of the Knee

Background: The Knee Injury and Osteoarthritis Outcome Score (KOOS) assesses acute and chronic knee injuries or early-onset osteoarthritis in young, active patients. The United States Food and Drug Administration guidelines recommend that patient-reported outcome instruments used to support clinical trial label claims should demonstrate content validity using patient input and have acceptable psychometric properties in the target population. To use the KOOS subscales in safety and efficacy trials assessing new treatments for patients with articular cartilage lesions, additional validation work, using input from patients with articular cartilage lesions, was necessary. Purpose: Qualitative and quantitative evaluations of the KOOS subscales’ validity among patients with articular cartilage lesions were conducted to support their use as clinically meaningful end points in clinical trials. Study Design: Cohort study (diagnosis); Level of evidence, 2. Methods: For qualitative analysis, cognitive interviews involving concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing with the KOOS items were conducted with 15 participants aged 25 to 52 years. Participants either were candidates for cartilage repair or had undergone cartilage repair 6 months or more before the study. For the quantitative analysis, a psychometric evaluation of the KOOS was conducted with clinical trial data from 54 patients, aged 18 to 55 years, evaluating the Cartilage Autograft Implantation System in the United States (n = 29) and the European Union (n = 25). Data were collected before surgery and at 7 postsurgical visits up to 12 months. Internal consistency and test-retest reliability, construct validity, responsiveness, and estimates of the minimal detectable change (MDC) were assessed. Test-retest reliability was assessed using data from months 2 and 3 on a subset of stable patients. Results: Qualitative research confirmed that concepts measured on the KOOS are important to patients with articular cartilage lesions. Most participants reported the KOOS was comprehensive and appropriate. In the quantitative research, KOOS subscales showed excellent internal consistency reliability (range, .74-.97 at baseline) and test-retest reliability (range, .78-.82). Construct validity results supported hypothesized relationships, with significant correlations (r ≥ .50) in the expected directions. Responsiveness analyses demonstrated excellent sensitivity to change; standardized response means ranged from 0.8 to 1.2, and MDC estimates ranged from 7.4 to 12.1. Conclusion: The study results support the use of the KOOS subscales among patients with articular cartilage lesions.

Assessment of PRO Label Claims Granted by the FDA as Compared to the EMA (2006–2010)

BACKGROUND The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) provides formal guidance for the use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in support of labeling claims, whereas the European Medicines Agency (EMA) offers insight in a reflection paper relating to health-related quality of life in lieu of formal guidance. OBJECTIVES PRO label claims granted for new molecular entities and biologic license applications from 2006 through 2010 were reviewed to evaluate consistencies and discrepancies in PRO label claims granted by the FDA and the EMA and to highlight trends in the acceptance of PRO claims across agencies. METHODS Products approved by both the FDA and the EMA were identified. By using US Drug Approval Packages and European Public Assessment Reports packages, any PRO label claims made for the same product by the same company were compared. RESULTS Both agencies approved a total of 75 products. Of these, 35 (47%) had at least one EMA-granted PRO label claim compared with 14 (19%) by the FDA. Most FDA-grated claims focused on symptoms; however, EMA-granted claims were more likely to include higher order concepts. Few (~12%) were granted the same label claims. Despite this discordance between the two agencies, where PRO label claims were granted by both the FDA and the EMA, there was similarity in the type of label claim. CONCLUSIONS The EMA is more likely than the FDA to grant PRO claims and for higher order constructs. On a macro level, there appears to be poor concordance between claims granted by both agencies. On close examination, however, there appears to be greater concordance than previously recognized, which may be instructive in formulating future PRO strategies. Further research to create strategic alignment across agencies may be beneficial.

Reasons for rejection of patient-reported outcome label claims: a compilation based on a review of patient-reported outcome use among new molecular entities and biologic license applications, 2006-2010.

OBJECTIVES Previous analyses of patient-reported outcome (PRO) label claims concentrated only on successful label claims. The goal of this research was to explore the reasons why PRO label claims were denied and to compile regulatory feedback regarding the use of PROs in clinical trials. METHODS By using the Food and Drug Administrations Drug Approval Report Web page, all new molecular entities and biologic license applications approved between January 2006 and December 2010 were identified. For identified drug products, medical review sections from publicly available drug approval packages were reviewed to identify PRO end-point status and any Study Endpoints and Label Development team comments. RESULTS Of the 116 new molecular entities and biologic license applications with accompanying drug approval packages identified and reviewed, 44.8% of the products included PROs as part of the pivotal studies; however, only 24.1% received PRO label claims. Primary reasons for denial included issues of fit for purpose, issues of study design, data quality or interpretation, statistical issues, administrative issues, and lack of demonstrated treatment benefit. CONCLUSIONS Based on drug approval packages, nearly half (45%) of new molecular entitity/biologic license application products in the years 2006 to 2010 included PROs in the clinical trials supporting their approval, yet this rate is not reflected by claims granted. Understanding the nature of PRO claims granted under the current regulatory guidance is important. In addition, a clear understanding of denied claims yields valuable insight into where sponsors may improve implementation of PROs in clinical trials and submission of PRO evidence to increase the likelihood of obtaining PRO label claims.

Secukinumab improves patient‐reported psoriasis symptoms of itching, pain, and scaling: results of two phase 3, randomized, placebo‐controlled clinical trials

Secukinumab is a human interleukin‐17A antagonist indicated for the treatment of moderate to severe plaque psoriasis in adults who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy. The objective of this analysis was to measure the treatment response on psoriasis‐related itching, pain, and scaling via the Psoriasis Symptom Diary (PSD)©.

Potential of patient-reported outcomes as nonprimary endpoints in clinical trials.

BackgroundThe purpose of this research was to fully explore the impact of endpoint type (primary vs. nonprimary) on decisions related to patient-reported outcome (PRO) labeling claims supported by PRO measures and to determine if nonprimary PRO endpoints are being fully optimized.This review examines the use of PROs as both primary and nonprimary endpoints in support of demonstration of treatment benefit of new molecular entities (NMEs) and biologic license applications (BLAs) in the United States in the years 2000 to 2012.MethodsAll NMEs and BLAs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between January 2000 and June 2012 were identified using the FDA Drug Approval Reports Web page. Generic products granted tentative approvals were excluded. For all identified products, medical review sections from publicly available drug approval packages were reviewed to identify PRO endpoint status. Product labels (indication, clinical trials sections) were reviewed to determine the number and type of PRO claim.ResultsA total of 308 NMEs/BLAs were identified. Of these, 70 NMEs/BLAs (23%) were granted PRO claims. The majority of product claims were for disease- or condition-specific signs and symptoms. Of the 70 products with PRO claims, a PRO was a primary endpoint for the vast majority (57 [81%]). A total of 19 of the 70 products were granted a PRO claim based on a nonprimary endpoint. While nonprimary endpoints were used most often to support claims of improved signs or symptoms, nonprimary endpoints were much more likely to support claims of higher order impacts.ConclusionsSuccessful PRO labeling claims are typically based on primary endpoints assessing signs and symptoms. Based on this research, studies with PROs as primary endpoints are far more likely to facilitate positive regulatory review and acceptance of PROs in support of labeling claims. Although inclusion of PROs as nonprimary endpoints in clinical trials has its challenges, recent PRO labels granted by the FDA show that they can indeed be candidates for PRO labeling claims as long as they are supported by evidence.

Factors affecting the health-related quality of life of patients with cervical dystonia and impact of treatment with abobotulinumtoxinA (Dysport): results from a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study

Objective To describe the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) burden of cervical dystonia (CD) and report on the HRQOL and patient perception of treatment benefits of abobotulinumtoxinA (Dysport). Design The safety and efficacy of a single injection of abobotulinumtoxinA for CD treatment were evaluated in a previously reported international, multicenter, double-blind, randomised trial. HRQOL measures were assessed in the trial and have not been previously reported. Setting Movement disorder clinics in the USA and Russia. Participants Patients had to have a diagnosis of CD with symptoms for at least 18 months, as well as a total Toronto Western Spasmodic Torticollis Rating Scale (TWSTRS) score of at least 30; a Severity domain score of at least 15; and a Disability domain score of at least 3. Key exclusion criteria included treatment with botulinum toxin type A (BoNT-A) or botulinum toxin type B (BoNT-B) within 16 weeks of enrolment. Interventions Patients were randomised to receive either 500 U abobotulinumtoxinA (n=55) or placebo (n=61). Primary and secondary outcome measures Efficacy assessments included TWSTRS total (primary end point) and subscale scores at weeks 0, 4, 8, 12; a pain visual analogue scale at weeks 0 and 4; and HRQOL assessed by the SF-36 Health Survey (SF-36; secondary end point) at weeks 0 and 8. Results Patients with CD reported significantly greater impairment for all SF-36 domains relative to US norms. Patients treated with abobotulinumtoxinA reported significantly greater improvements in Physical Functioning, Role Physical, Bodily Pain, General Health and Role Emotional domains than placebo patients (p≤0.03 for all). The TWSTRS was significantly correlated with Physical Functioning, Role Physical and Bodily Pain scores, for those on active treatment. Conclusions CD has a marked impact on HRQOL. Treatment with a single abobotulinumtoxinA injection results in significant improvement in patients’ HRQOL. Trial registration number The trial is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, numbers NCT00257660 and NCT00288509.

Evidence-Based Medicine, Appropriate-Use Criteria, and Sports Medicine: How Best to Develop Meaningful Treatment Guidelines

We propose using appropriate-use criteria (AUC) as the methodology of choice for formulating and disseminating evidence-based medicine guidelines in sports medicine and arthroscopy. AUC provide a structured process for integrating findings from the scientific literature with clinical judgment to produce explicit criteria for determining the appropriateness of specific treatments. The use of AUC will enable surgeons to treat patients in a more consistent manner based on expert clinical consensus and evidence-based medicine. This methodology also will ensure that guidelines represent all stakeholders and available evidence.

Secukinumab provides better relief from the impact of psoriasis on daily activities and personal relationships than etanercept: results of two phase 3 placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials in moderate-to-severe psoriasis

Abstract Background: Psoriasis can greatly impact patients’ lives, influencing what clothing they wear and impairing their sexual functioning. Objective: To provide a detailed comparison of the impact of secukinumab vs. etanercept on enabling patients with psoriasis to have more normal lives with respect to daily activities (DA) (e.g. choosing clothing) and personal relationships (PR) (e.g. sexual functioning). Methods: Baseline to Week 52 ERASURE and FIXTURE data for secukinumab 300 mg and etanercept were analyzed. Treatment differences in mean scores on the DA and PR subscales and items from the Dermatology Life Quality Index were compared. The proportions of subscale and item responders (score = 0) were compared. Results: Subjects receiving secukinumab (n = 572) achieved greater mean improvement in DA and items (q3 and q4) than subjects receiving etanercept (n = 326; all p < .01 through Week 52). Subjects receiving secukinumab achieved greater mean improvement in PR and items (q8 and q9) than subjects receiving etanercept (subscale: p < .05 at Weeks 8 and 12). Response rates were significantly higher for secukinumab than for etanercept for DA (all p < .0001) and PR (all p < .05 except Weeks 4 and 36). Conclusions: Secukinumab 300 mg provides greater improvements and more effective relief from psoriasis impact on DA and PR than etanercept.

Secukinumab sustains early patient-reported outcome benefits through 1 year: Results from 2 phase III randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials comparing secukinumab with etanercept

Background Psoriasis is a chronic condition with negative impact on patients’ quality of life that most often requires lifelong effective and safe treatment. Objective This analysis focused on the effect of secukinumab treatment on patient‐reported health‐related quality of life as assessed by the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) in patients with moderate to severe psoriasis. Methods The proportion of subjects achieving DLQI score 0/1 response at week 24, time to DLQI score 0/1 response, and sustained DLQI score 0/1 response up to week 52 were compared between secukinumab and etanercept. Results Of 1470 subjects, 1144 received secukinumab and 326 received etanercept. DLQI score 0/1 response rates were significantly higher for secukinumab than for etanercept at week 24. The median time to DLQI score 0/1 response was significantly shorter for secukinumab versus etanercept (12 vs 24 weeks; P < .01). The majority of secukinumab‐treated subjects achieved DLQI score 0/1 response at week 24 and sustained it through week 52 along with a 90% to 100% reduction in the Psoriasis Area and Severity Index total score response. Limitations Placebo comparisons are limited during the maintenance period because of rerandomization at week 12. Conclusion Secukinumab treatment provided faster and greater sustained improvements in quality of life than etanercept over 52 weeks, consistent with greater clinical response.

Psoriasis patients with psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 response achieve greater health-related quality-of-life improvements than those with PASI 75–89 response: results from two phase 3 studies of secukinumab

Abstract Background: The emergence of new biological therapies showing high and sustained level of Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (PASI) 90 response has provided the possibility of both greater skin clearance and increased quality of life (QOL). Objective: To evaluate the association of greater response in skin clearance with improvements in skin-related QOL up to 52 weeks. Methods: Subjects achieving various levels of skin clearance (PASI 90–100 or PASI 75–89) and Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI) (0/1) response were compared using ERASURE and FIXTURE trial data. Similar analyses with IGA ratings of Clear or Almost Clear were performed. Results: Significantly more PASI 90–100 responders at week 12 had DLQI 0/1 response than PASI 75–89 (69.4% vs. 47.1%; p < .001) and sustained DLQI 0/1 response at week 52 (74.0% vs. 56.7%; p < .001). IGA results were similar. Conclusions: These results show that PASI 90–100 is a relevant therapeutic goal in moderate to severe psoriasis compared to PASI 75–89 when considering patients’ QOL.