Meaghan Krohe

Patient-reported preferences for oral versus intravenous administration for the treatment of cancer: a review of the literature

Objective The emergence of various modes of administration for cancer treatment, including oral administration, brings into focus the importance of patient preference for administration. The purpose of this research was to evaluate the administration preferences of cancer patients, specifically between oral and intravenous (IV) treatment, as well as the factors contributing to preference. Methods A literature search was conducted in OvidSP to identify research in which the preferences of cancer patients for oral or IV treatment have been evaluated. Data were analyzed in two stages: 1) those articles that directly compared preference between modes of administration were tallied to determine explicit preference for oral or IV treatment; and 2) all attributes associated with patient preference were documented. Results Of the 48 abstracts identified as part of the initial OvidSP search, eight articles were selected for full-text review. One article was removed following full-text review, and seven additional articles were identified through a gray literature search, yielding a total of 14 articles for evaluation. In Stage 1, 13 of the 14 articles compared preference, of which eleven articles (84.6%) reported that patients preferred oral treatment over IV, while two (15.4%) stated that cancer patients preferred IV treatment over oral. In Stage 2, the most frequently reported attributes contributing to preference included convenience, ability to receive treatment at home, treatment schedule, and side effects. Discussion Evidence suggests that oncology patients prefer oral treatment to IV. Rationale for preference was due to a number of factors, including convenience, perception of efficacy, and past experience. Further evaluation should be conducted, given the limited data on patient preference in oncology.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Review of Industry-Sponsored Clinical Trials

Introduction Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures serve to capture vital patient information not otherwise obtained by primary study endpoints. This paper examines how PROs are utilized as endpoints in industry-sponsored metastatic breast cancer clinical trials. Methods A search was conducted in the clinicaltrials.gov web site for trials involving common treatments for metastatic breast cancer. Thirty-eight clinical trials were identified which included a PRO endpoint in the study, and data were extracted and summarized. Results Overall, 17 unique PRO questionnaires and 14 concepts of measurement were identified as secondary or exploratory endpoints. The Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy—Breast was the most frequently utilized questionnaire, commonly implemented to assess quality of life. The EORTC QLQ-C30 was also frequently used to measure quality of life or pain. Conclusion This review shares insights into the role of PROs in trials for metastatic breast cancer from which treatment developers and other stakeholders can enhance successful implementation of the patient voice into future trials.

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.

A Novel Electronic Application of Patient-reported Outcomes in Multiple Sclerosis – Meeting the Necessary Challenge of Assessing Quality of Life and Outcomes in Daily Clinical Practice

Multiple sclerosis (MS) has a substantial negative impact on health-related quality of life. Clinical assessments often do not include standardised, routine assessment of MS impact from the patient perspective, and communication between healthcare practitioners (HCPs) and patients can be lacking. Thus, there is a need for patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures to encourage patient–HCP communication, to help inform HCPs of matters important to patients and to aid both patients and HCPs in managing the disease. MSdialog is a weband mobile-based software application that works with auto-injector devices and electronic autoinjectors, including the RebiSmart® 2.0 device (a handheld electronic Rebif® auto-injector with wireless data transmission capabilities, CE marked and available worldwide [excluding the US]) to collect and store real-time, point-of-administration adherence, clinician-reported outcomes and PRO data. MSdialog may provide a practical solution to support patient-proactive engagements and self-management, patient-centred care and participatory decision-making in clinical practice.

Understanding polycystic ovary syndrome from the patient perspective: a concept elicitation patient interview study

BackgroundThe aim of this study was to explore the need for a new disease-specific patient reported outcome (PRO) measure for use in clinical trials of drugs designed to target the underlying causes of polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS), and in the process contribute to our understanding of the symptoms and impacts that define the patient experience with PCOS.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted in 20 women diagnosed with PCOS according to the Rotterdam criteria who had not menstruated in the previous month. The relative importance of PCOS symptoms and impact concepts to patients was determined by analyzing the frequency of their expression in the interview transcripts. These insights were compared to clinicians’ perceptions of PCOS.ResultsPain- and discomfort-related symptoms accounted for the highest proportion (27.6%) of the 735 patient expressions, although clinicians did not consider pain to be important to patients with PCOS. The most frequently expressed individual symptoms were cramping (70% of patients; 14.7% of concepts), irregular menstruation (95% of patients; 12.2% of concepts), facial hair growth (75% of patients; 10.6% of concepts), heavy bleeding (70% of patients; 8.8% of concepts), infertility (70% of patients; 5.4% of concepts), and bloating (60% of patients; 5.2% of concepts). Cramping, heavy bleeding, and bloating were not identified by clinicians as being important to patients with PCOS. The impacts most frequently reported by patients with PCOS related to emotional well-being (e.g. anxiety/stress) and coping behaviors (e.g. acne medication, hair removal).ConclusionsThe only validated PCOS-specific PRO, the PCOSQ, does not capture some key PCOS symptoms and impacts expressed by patients with PCOS, most notably those related to pain and discomfort, bleeding intensity and coping behaviours. Furthermore, some key PCOS symptoms may be under-recognized in the clinic.

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.

The use of patient-reported outcomes in advanced breast cancer clinical trials: a review of the published literature

Abstract Objective: As a means to measure quantifiable signs, symptoms, and impacts of a disease or its treatment, patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments can be applied to numerous settings, including use in drug development to support labeling claims. This research summarizes the use of PROs in trials for 16 commonly used regulatory approved treatments for advanced or metastatic breast cancer. Methods: For each treatment (n = 16), a literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO. The primary criterion for selection was the report of studies that used PROs to evaluate treatment benefit and/or toxicity in advanced or metastatic breast cancer. From this, a sub-set of articles for each treatment were selected for full-text review where PRO-related information was extracted and summarized. Results: The searches yielded 1727 publications. Following abstract review, 1702 were excluded because they failed to meet criteria, or were duplicates or less relevant for PRO information reported. Thus, 25 articles were reviewed in detail for this evaluation. Eleven PRO instruments were identified from these publications. The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire – Core (EORTC QLQ-C30) was utilized the most frequently (n = 13, 52.0%). Most publications reported PROs positioned as secondary endpoints (n = 20, 80.0%); described some of the statistical analyses applied to PRO data (n = 21, 84.0%); and specified PRO results (n = 23, 92.0%). Conclusions: While several of the publications provided some information on how PROs were utilized, many did not describe details for PRO administration, scoring, analyses, and results interpretation. While it is encouraging that PROs are often used in clinical trials for patients with metastatic breast cancer, they are not commonly used to support endpoints that establish the basis for label claims. Because they yield direct insight into the patient experience of a condition, PROs may be used to provide a more comprehensive perspective of the benefits and risks from treatment.

Patient-reported outcomes in advanced breast cancer: inside the label and approval documents

ABSTRACT Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures are used in clinical research and practice for the assessment of disease-related symptoms and impacts as well as treatment-related side effects, from the patient perspective. However, a systematic examination of the role of PROs in metastatic breast cancer treatment approvals is lacking. A review of FDA labels and historical drug approval documents for metastatic breast cancer treatments was conducted to determine how PROs had been used or pursued to support labeling claims. In the historical drug approval documents, PROs were often being implemented by sponsors, and regulatory reviewers noted several issues limiting their suitability to support label claims. The findings suggest there is much room for improvement in how sponsors develop, implement, and report PRO measurement strategies as part of drug approval.