Sandy Lewis

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.

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.

Evaluating patient-reported outcome measurement comparability between paper and alternate versions, using the lung function questionnaire as an example.

OBJECTIVES The goal of this study was to provide recommended steps to assess measurement comparability using a crossover study design and to demonstrate these steps using a short patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument as an example. METHODS The example PRO instrument was administered via paper, Web, interactive voice response system, and interview; a randomized crossover design was used to gather data across the multiple administration types. Participants completed the PRO instrument, demographic and health questions, and a short preference questionnaire. Evaluation included comparisons of the item-level responses and agreement, comparison of mean scale scores, score classifications, and questions designed to collect usability and administration preference. Here the authors provide a four-step evaluation guide to evaluate measurement comparability and illustrate these steps using a case-finding tool. RESULTS In the example, item-level kappa statistics between the paper and the alternate versions ranged from good to excellent, intraclass correlation coefficient for mean scores were above 0.70, and the rate of disagreement ranged from 2% to 14%. In addition, although participants had an administration preference, they reported few difficulties with the versions they were assigned. CONCLUSIONS The steps described in this article provide a guide for evaluating whether to combine scores across administration versions to simplify analyses and interpretation under a crossover design. The guide recommends the investigation of item-level responses, summary scores, and participant usability/preference when comparing versions, with each step providing unique information to support comprehensive evaluation and informed decisions regarding whether to combine data.

Antiviral Efficacy of a Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) Fusion Inhibitor in a Bovine Model of RSV Infection

ABSTRACT Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is the leading cause of bronchiolitis and pneumonia in infants. Effective treatment for RSV infection is a significant unmet medical need. While new RSV therapeutics are now in development, there are very few animal models that mimic the pathogenesis of human RSV, making it difficult to evaluate new disease interventions. Experimental infection of Holstein calves with bovine RSV (bRSV) causes a severe respiratory infection that is similar to human RSV infection, providing a relevant model for testing novel therapeutic agents. In this model, viral load is readily detected in nasal secretions by quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR), and cumulative symptom scoring together with histopathology evaluations of infected tissue allow for the assessment of disease severity. The bovine RSV model was used to evaluate the antiviral activity of an RSV fusion inhibitor, GS1, which blocks virus entry by inhibiting the fusion of the viral envelope with the host cell membrane. The efficacy of GS1, a close structural analog of GS-5806 that is being developed to treat RSV infection in humans was evaluated in two randomized, blind, placebo-controlled studies in bRSV-infected calves. Intravenous administration of GS1 at 4 mg/kg of body weight/day for 7 days starting 24 h or 72 h postinoculation provided clear therapeutic benefit by reducing the viral load, disease symptom score, respiration rate, and lung pathology associated with bRSV infection. These data support the use of the bovine RSV model for evaluation of experimental therapeutics for treatment of RSV.

Development of the sporadic inclusion body myositis physical functioning assessment.

Introduction: Sporadic inclusion body myositis (sIBM) is a progressive idiopathic inflammatory myopathy characterized by atrophy and weakness of proximal and distal muscle groups that results in a loss of independence and the need for assistive devices and supportive care. To assess treatment benefit of new therapies, a patient‐reported outcome measure of physical function was developed. Methods: The tool was rigorously developed in accordance with the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) patient‐reported outcomes (PRO) guidance. A single‐visit, observational study was conducted. Standard qualitative analytical methods were employed to analyze interview data and generate questionnaire items. Results: Twenty concept elicitation and 19 cognitive debriefing interviews were conducted, and 6 expert physicians were consulted. The tool consists of 11 items scored on a 0–10 numerical rating scale. Subjects completed the questionnaire utilizing either paper or electronic administration. Conclusion: We have developed a PRO tool in alignment with FDA PRO guidance for use in the functional assessment of treatment benefit in sIBM. Muscle Nerve, 2016 Muscle Nerve 54: –, 2016 Muscle Nerve 54: 653–657, 2016

Validation of alternate modes of administration of the lung function questionnaire (LFQ) in subjects with smoking history

Purpose: The Lung Function Questionnaire (LFQ) was developed and validated as a case-finding tool to identify patients at risk of airflow obstruction (AO) that should be evaluated further using spirometry. Our objective was to assess the usability and validity of additional questionnaire-administration modes, including Web-based, interactive voice response system (IVRS)-based, and interviewer-based modes. Design: This multicenter, prospective, noninterventional data-collection study enrolled 149 individuals aged ≥40 years with current or former smoking history. A two-visit crossover design was employed; patients completed the paper-based LFQ and were randomly assigned to complete one of three alternate modes. Methods: Statistical evaluation included item-level, scale-level, and AO risk-classification comparisons; a satisfaction survey assessed patient preference. Results: This study showed a great degree of concordance between alternate forms of the LFQ and the paper version. Results indicated an absence of floor and ceiling effects and the average LFQ item-level means were consistent across modes. LFQ scores were stable between assessments, (administered approximately one week apart) showed exceptionally good agreement, and AO risk classification using the LFQ cut point was consistent across modes. Conclusions: The LFQ is an important case-finding tool to aid primary care physicians in further evaluating symptomatic patients at risk of AO. The alternate modes will further facilitate the implementation and widespread uptake of this tool.

Development of the Observable Behaviors of Autism Spectrum Disorder Scale

Background: The objective of this research was to develop a caregiver-reported clinical outcome assessment (COA) measure designed to assess observable behaviors of children, ages 4 to 12 years, with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) for supporting labeling claims of treatment benefit. Methods: Development of the measure included a review of the literature and existing instruments, conceptual disease model development, concept elicitation focus groups, item generation, and cognitive debriefing interviews. Results: Predominant characteristics and behaviors of ASD identified by the literature and instrument reviews included sociability, communication deficits, stereotypy, inattention and hyperactivity, irritability, anxiety, and familial impact. In each of the 10 instruments reviewed, evidence of content validity was limited or nonexistent. Predominant themes arose across 8 major categories during concept elicitation. A total of 27 concepts were identified through focus group feedback and formed the basis for item development and cognitive pre-testing. Revisions to the items yielded a final version of a daily diary containing 21 items assessing observable behaviors and characteristics of ASD in children 4 to 12 years old. Conclusions: The Observable Behaviors of ASD Scale (OBAS) was developed as a self-administered, caregiver-reported measure containing 8 predominant themes. Items are scored on one of two 5-point ordinal categorical response scales, and the recall period for each item is “the past 24 hours.” This research provides evidence that the OBAS is content valid for assessing treatment benefit, which was found to be lacking in other instruments.