Margaret Rothman

Recommendations on health-related quality of life research to support labeling and promotional claims in the United States

Health-related quality of life (HRQL) outcomes evaluation is becoming an important component of clinical trials of new pharmaceuticals and medical devices. HRQL research provides patients, providers, and decision makers with important information on the impact of disease and treatment on physical, psychological, and social functioning and well-being. These outcomes are also useful to the pharmaceutical and device industries as they attempt to understand and communicate product value to physicians, patients, health insurers and others. HRQL labeling and promotional claims in the US are likely to increase over the next few years. The evidentiary requirements to make such a claim should be based on accepted scientific standards of HRQL evaluation and consistent with the regulatory requirements for clinical efficacy. This report outlines the scientific practices that should be considered in the evaluation of evidence for an HRQL claim, including the selection of appropriate domains, evidence to support the reliability and validity of HRQL measurement, considerations in research design and statistical analyses, and the issue of clinical significance. Representatives from the pharmaceutical and device industries, regulatory agencies, and the HRQL scientific community should work together to make certain the use of HRQL in labeling and promotion are based on sound scientific evidence, and that these messages are clearly and accurately reported to the consumers.

Developing patient-reported outcome measures for pain clinical trials : IMMPACT recommendations

a University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195, USA b University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY, USA c United States Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD, USA d Northwestern University, Chicago, IL, USA e Johnson and Johnson, Raritan, NY, USA f AstraZeneca, Wilmington, DE, USA g University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA h Merck and Company, Blue Bell, PA, USA i University of Texas, M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, USA j American Chronic Pain Association, Rocklin, CA, USA k Allergan, Inc, Irvine, CA, USA l National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research, Bethesda, MD, USA m University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA n Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA o University Health Network and University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada p Novartis Pharmaceuticals, East Hanover, NJ, USA q VA Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, CT, USA r Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA s Celgene Corporation, Warren, NJ, USA t Pfizer Global Research and Development, Ann Arbor, MI, USA u Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada v London Regional Cancer Centre, London, Ont., Canada

Effect of abiraterone acetate and prednisone compared with placebo and prednisone on pain control and skeletal-related events in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: exploratory analysis of data from the COU-AA-301 randomised trial.

BACKGROUND Bone metastases are a major cause of morbidity in metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer. Abiraterone acetate potently disrupts intracrine androgen receptor signalling pathways implicated in the progression of the disease, including bone metastases. We assessed data for pain control and skeletal-related events prospectively collected as part of the randomised, phase 3 COU-AA-301 trial of abiraterone acetate plus prednisone versus placebo plus prednisone in patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer after docetaxel chemotherapy. METHODS The COU-AA-301 trial enrolled patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer in whom one or two lines of chemotherapy (one docetaxel based) had been unsuccessful and who had Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance statuses of 2 or less. Pain intensity and interference of pain with daily activities were assessed with the Brief Pain Inventory-Short Form questionnaire at baseline, day 15 of cycle 1, and day 1 of each treatment cycle thereafter until discontinuation. We assessed, with prospectively defined response criteria that incorporated analgesic use, clinically meaningful changes in pain intensity and interference with daily living. We measured time to first occurrence of skeletal-related events, which we defined as pathological fracture, spinal cord compression, palliative radiation to bone, or bone surgery, and regularly assessed them throughout the study. Pain palliation was assessed in patients who had clinically significant baseline pain, whereas all other analyses were done in the overall intention-to-treat population. COU-AA-301 is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00638690. FINDINGS Median follow-up was 20·2 months (IQR 18·4-22·1). In patients with clinically significant pain at baseline, abiraterone acetate and prednisone resulted in significantly more palliation (157 of 349 [45·0%] patients vs 47 of 163 [28·8%]; p=0·0005) and faster palliation (median time to palliation 5·6 months [95% CI 3·7-9·2] vs 13·7 months [5·4-not estimable]; p=0·0018) of pain intensity than did prednisone only. Palliation of pain interference (134 of 223 [60·1%] vs 38 of 100 [38·0%], p=0·0002; median time to palliation of pain interference 1·0 months [95% CI 0·9-1·9] vs 3·7 months [2·7-not estimable], p=0·0004) and median duration of palliation of pain intensity (4·2 months [95% CI 3·0-4·9] vs 2·1 months [1·4-3·7]; p=0·0056) were significantly better with abiraterone acetate and prednisone than with prednisone only. In the overall population, median time to occurrence of first skeletal-related event was significantly longer with abiraterone acetate and prednisone than with prednisone only (25·0 months [95% CI 25·0-not estimable] vs 20·3 months [16·9-not estimable]; p=0·0001). INTERPRETATION In patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer previously treated with docetaxel, abiraterone acetate and prednisone offer significant benefits compared with prednisone alone in terms of pain relief, delayed pain progression, and prevention of skeletal-related events. FUNDING Janssen Research & Development and Janssen Global Services.

Use of Existing Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Instruments and Their Modification: The ISPOR Good Research Practices for Evaluating and Documenting Content Validity for the Use of Existing Instruments and Their Modification PRO Task Force Report

BACKGROUND Patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments are used to evaluate the effect of medical products on how patients feel or function. This article presents the results of an ISPOR task force convened to address good clinical research practices for the use of existing or modified PRO instruments to support medical product labeling claims. The focus of the article is on content validity, with specific reference to existing or modified PRO instruments, because of the importance of content validity in selecting or modifying an existing PRO instrument and the lack of consensus in the research community regarding best practices for establishing and documenting this measurement property. METHODS Topics addressed in the article include: definition and general description of content validity; PRO concept identification as the important first step in establishing content validity; instrument identification and the initial review process; key issues in qualitative methodology; and potential threats to content validity, with three case examples used to illustrate types of threats and how they might be resolved. A table of steps used to identify and evaluate an existing PRO instrument is provided, and figures are used to illustrate the meaning of content validity in relationship to instrument development and evaluation. RESULTS & RECOMMENDATIONS: Four important threats to content validity are identified: unclear conceptual match between the PRO instrument and the intended claim, lack of direct patient input into PRO item content from the target population in which the claim is desired, no evidence that the most relevant and important item content is contained in the instrument, and lack of documentation to support modifications to the PRO instrument. In some cases, careful review of the threats to content validity in a specific application may be reduced through additional well documented qualitative studies that specifically address the issue of concern. CONCLUSION Published evidence of the content validity of a PRO instrument for an intended application is often limited. Such evidence is, however, important to evaluating the adequacy of a PRO instrument for the intended application. This article provides an overview of key issues involved in assessing and documenting content validity as it relates to using existing instruments in the drug approval process.

Dapoxetine for the Treatment of Premature Ejaculation: Results from a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Phase 3 Trial in 22 Countries

BACKGROUND Dapoxetine is being developed for the on-demand treatment of premature ejaculation (PE). Previous clinical trials have demonstrated its safety and efficacy. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the long-term efficacy and safety of dapoxetine in men with PE. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, conducted in 22 countries, enrolled men (N=1162) > or = 18 yr of age who met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition, text revision criteria for PE for > or = 6 mo, with an intravaginal ejaculatory latency time (IELT) < or = 2 min in > or = 75% of intercourse episodes at baseline. INTERVENTION Dapoxetine 30 mg or dapoxetine 60 mg or placebo on demand (1-3 h before intercourse) for 24 wk. MEASUREMENTS Stopwatch-measured IELT, Premature Ejaculation Profile (PEP), Clinical Global Impression (CGI) of change, adverse events (AEs). RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS The study was completed by 618 men. Mean average IELT increased from 0.9 min at baseline (all groups) to 1.9 min, 3.2 min, and 3.5 min with placebo and dapoxetine 30 mg and dapoxetine 60 mg, respectively, at study end point; geometric mean IELT increased from 0.7 min at baseline to 1.1 min, 1.8 min, and 2.3 min, respectively, at study end point. All PEP measures and IELTs improved significantly with dapoxetine versus placebo at week 12 and week 24 (p<0.001 for all). The most common AEs were nausea, dizziness, diarrhea, and headache. AEs led to discontinuation in 1.3%, 3.9%, and 8.2% of subjects with placebo and dapoxetine 30 mg and dapoxetine 60 mg, respectively. Limitations of this study included the exclusion of men who were not in long-term monogamous relationships. CONCLUSIONS Dapoxetine significantly improved all aspects of PE and was generally well tolerated in this broad population.

Analyzing multiple endpoints in clinical trials of pain treatments: IMMPACT recommendations

Abstract The increasing complexity of randomized clinical trials and the practice of obtaining a wide variety of measurements from study participants have made the consideration of multiple endpoints a critically important issue in the design, analysis, and interpretation of clinical trials. Failure to consider important outcomes can limit the validity and utility of clinical trials; specifying multiple endpoints for the evaluation of treatment efficacy, however, can increase the rate of false positive conclusions about the efficacy of a treatment. We describe the use of multiple endpoints in the design, analysis, and interpretation of pain clinical trials, and review available strategies and methods for addressing multiplicity. To decrease the probability of a Type I error (i.e., the likelihood of obtaining statistically significant results by chance) in pain clinical trials, the use of gatekeeping procedures and other methods that correct for multiple analyses is recommended when a single primary endpoint does not adequately reflect the overall benefits of treatment. We emphasize the importance of specifying in advance the outcomes and clinical decision rule that will serve as the basis for determining that a treatment is efficacious and the methods that will be used to control the overall Type I error rate.

Siltuximab for multicentric Castleman's disease: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND Multicentric Castlemans disease is a rare lymphoproliferative disorder driven by dysregulated production of interleukin 6. No randomised trials have been done to establish the best treatment for the disease. We assessed the safety and efficacy of siltuximab-a chimeric monoclonal antibody against interleukin 6-in HIV-negative patients with multicentric Castlemans disease. METHODS We did this randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study at 38 hospitals in 19 countries worldwide. We enrolled HIV-negative and human herpesvirus-8-seronegative patients with symptomatic multicentric Castlemans disease. Treatment allocation was randomised with a computer-generated list, with block size six, and stratification by baseline corticosteroid use. Patients and investigators were masked to treatment allocation. Patients were randomly assigned (2:1) to siltuximab (11 mg/kg intravenous infusion every 3 weeks) or placebo; all patients also received best supportive care. Patients continued treatment until treatment failure. The primary endpoint was durable tumour and symptomatic response for at least 18 weeks for the intention-to-treat population. Enrolment has been completed. The study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01024036. FINDINGS We screened 140 patients, 79 of whom were randomly assigned to siltuximab (n=53) or placebo (n=26). Durable tumour and symptomatic responses occurred in 18 (34%) of 53 patients in the siltuximab group and none of 26 in the placebo group (difference 34·0%, 95% CI 11·1-54·8, p=0·0012). The incidence of grade 3 or more adverse events (25 [47%] vs 14 [54%]) and serious adverse events (12 [23%] vs five [19%]) was similar in each group despite longer median treatment duration with siltuximab than with placebo (375 days [range 1-1031] vs 152 days [23-666]). The most common grade 3 or higher were fatigue (five vs one), night sweats (four vs one), and anaemia (one vs three). Three (6%) of 53 patients had serious adverse events judged reasonably related to siltuximab (lower respiratory tract infection, anaphylactic reaction, sepsis). INTERPRETATION Siltuximab plus best supportive care was superior to best supportive care alone for patients with symptomatic multicentric Castlemans disease and well tolerated with prolonged exposure. Siltuximab is an important new treatment option for this disease. FUNDING Janssen Research & Development.

Efficacy and Safety of Dapoxetine for the Treatment of Premature Ejaculation: Integrated Analysis of Results from Five Phase 3 Trials

INTRODUCTION Dapoxetine has been evaluated for the on-demand treatment of premature ejaculation (PE) in five phase 3 studies in various populations worldwide and has recently been approved in several countries. AIM To present integrated efficacy and safety data from phase 3 trials of dapoxetine. METHODS Data were from five randomized, multicenter, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies conducted in over 25 countries. Men (N=6,081)≥18 years who met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, fourth edition, text revision criteria for PE; four studies required a baseline intravaginal ejaculatory latency time (IELT) of ≤2 minutes. Dapoxetine 30 and 60 mg on demand (prn; 1-3 hours before intercourse) were evaluated for either 12 or 24 weeks in four studies; one study evaluated dapoxetine 60 mg daily (qd; included in safety assessments only) or prn for 9 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES End points included stopwatch-measured IELT, Premature Ejaculation Profile (PEP) items, clinical global impression of change (CGIC) in PE, and adverse events (AEs). RESULTS Average IELT (mean [standard deviation], geometric mean [standard error]) increased from baseline (across groups, 0.9 [0.49] minutes, 0.8 [1.01] minutes) to a significantly greater extent with dapoxetine 30 (3.1 [3.91] minutes, 2.0 [1.03] minutes) and 60 mg (3.6 [3.85] minutes, 2.3 [1.03] minutes) vs. placebo (1.9 [2.43] minutes, 1.3 [1.02] minutes; P<0.001 for all) at week 12 (geometric mean fold increase, 2.5, 3.0, and 1.6, respectively). All PEP items and CGIC improved significantly with both doses of dapoxetine vs. placebo (P<0.001 for all). The most common AEs included nausea, dizziness, and headache, and evaluation of validated instruments demonstrated no anxiety, akathisia, suicidality, or changes in mood with dapoxetine use and no discontinuation syndrome following abrupt withdrawal. CONCLUSIONS In this diverse population, dapoxetine significantly improved all aspects of PE and was generally well tolerated.

The Premature Ejaculation Profile: validation of self-reported outcome measures for research and practice.

To evaluate the reliability and validity of the Premature Ejaculation Profile (PEP), a self‐reported outcome instrument for evaluating domains of PE and its treatment, comprised of four single‐item measures, a profile, and an index score.

Reliability, validity and ability to detect change of the clinician-rated Personal and Social Performance scale in patients with acute symptoms of schizophrenia

ABSTRACT Objective: To describe the measurement properties of the Personal and Social Performance scale (PSP), a clinician-reported measure of severity of personal and social dysfunction, in subjects with acute symptoms of schizophrenia. Methods: Pooled data from three paliperidone extended-release clinical studies (n = 1665) and data from a separate noninterventional, cross-sectional, validation study (n = 299) were analyzed. Results: The PSP showed good interrater (intraclass correlation coefficient [ICC] = 0.87) and test–retest (ICCs > 0.90) reliability. Pearson correlation coefficient for association between baseline PSP and Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale (PANSS) total scores was −0.32 for subjects assessed by the same rater and −0.29 for subjects assessed by different raters, suggesting low overlap in measurement constructs between the PANSS and PSP. Spearman Rank correlation coefficient for association between baseline PSP and Clinical Global Impression-Severity (CGI-S) scores was −0.51 with the same rater and −0.15 with different raters. Hypothesized relationships between the PSP and the PANSS or CGI-S based on levels of disease severity were prospectively defined. These hypotheses were confirmed by analyses showing statistically significant differences between baseline mean PSP scores in subjects grouped by severity rating on the CGI-S (mild or less vs. at least moderate) (p < 0.001) and the PANSS (‘low symptom severity’ vs. ‘high symptom severity’) (p = 0.005). The PSP was sensitive to change based on statistically significant correlations between change in the PSP and change in the CGI-S (p < 0.001) and the PANSS (p < 0.001). Limitations of analyses include pooling data across studies, interrater reliability assessment in the validation study only, post hoc assessment of test–retest reliability in the paliperidone ER studies, different raters for the PSP and PANSS not specified in the paliperidone ER studies, PSP validity assessment based on the PANSS and the CGI-S as comparators rather than another social function instrument. Conclusion: These initial reliability and validity assessments suggest the PSP has promise as a measure of social functioning in patients with acute symptoms of schizophrenia.