Patient reported outcomes: looking beyond the label claim

The use of patient reported outcome scales in clinical trials conducted by the pharmaceutical industry has become more widespread in recent years. The use of such outcomes is particularly common for products developed to treat chronic, disabling conditions where the intention is not to cure but to ameliorate symptoms, facilitate functioning or, ultimately, to improve quality of life. In such cases, patient reported evidence is increasingly viewed as an essential complement to traditional clinical evidence for establishing a product's competitive advantage in the marketplace. In a commercial setting, the value of patient reported outcomes is viewed largely in terms of their potential for securing a labelling claim in the USA or inclusion in the summary of product characteristics in Europe. Although, the publication of the recent US Food and Drug Administration guidance makes it difficult for companies to make claims in the USA beyond symptom improvements, the value of these outcomes goes beyond satisfying requirements for a label claim. The European regulatory authorities, payers both in the US and Europe, clinicians and patients all play a part in determining both the availability and the pricing of medicinal products and all have an interest in patient-reported data that go beyond just symptoms. The purpose of the current paper is to highlight the potential added value of patient reported outcome data currently collected and held by the industry for these groups

Requirements for Quality of Life Instruments in Clinical Research

AbstractThe ability to produce high quality instruments for the assessment of quality of life has advanced considerably in recent years. As the science progresses it has become clear that certain standards must be met if outcome measures are to be capable of providing useful, reliable, and valid information within the context of clinical studies and trials. This paper specifies what these standards are with particular reference to theoretical basis, practicality, acceptability to respondents, unidimensionality, scaling and psychometric properties, and cultural validity and equivalence. The paper also indicates how failure to achieve such standards results in measures that are inaccurate and insensitive to true changes in outcome

Measuring the psychosocial consequences of screening

The last three decades have seen a dramatic rise in the implementation of screening programmes for cancer in industrialised countries. However, in contrast to screening for infectious diseases, most cancer screening programmes only have the potential to reduce mortality; they cannot lower the incidence of cancer in a population. In fact, most cancer screening programmes have been shown to increase the incidence of the disease as a consequence of over-diagnosis. A further dilemma of cancer screening programmes is that they do not distinguish between healthy people and those with disease. Rather, they identify a continuum of disease severity. Consequently, many healthy people who have abnormal screening tests are wrongly diagnosed. Indeed, studies have demonstrated that for each screening-prevented death from cancer, at least 200 false-positive results are given. Therefore, screening has the potential to be harmful as well as beneficial. The psychosocial consequences of false-positive screening results cannot be determined by diagnostic tests or by other technical means. Instead, patient reported outcome measures must be employed. To measure the outcomes of screening accurately and comprehensively patient reported outcome measures have to capture; the nature and extent of the psychosocial consequences and how these change over time. The outcome measures used must have high content validity and their psychometric properties should be determined prior to their use in the specific population. In particular it is important to establish unidimensionality, additivity and item ordering through the application of Item Response Theory

Interpreting scores on multiple sclerosis-specific patient reported outcome measures (the PRIMUS and U-FIS)

BACKGROUND: The PRIMUS is a Multiple Sclerosis (MS)-specific suite of outcome measures including assessments of QoL (PRIMUS QoL, scored 0-22) and activity limitations (PRIMUS Activities, scored 0-30). The U-FIS is a measure of fatigue impact (scored 0-66). These measures have been fully validated previously using an MS sample with mixed diagnoses. The aim of the present study was to validate the measures further in a specifically Relapse Remitting MS (RRMS) sample and to provide preliminary evidence of the responder definitions (RD; also known as minimal important difference) for these instruments. METHODS: Data were derived from a multi-country efficacy trial of MS patients with assessments at baseline and 12 months. Baseline data were used to assess the internal reliability and validity of the measures. Both anchor-based and distribution-based approaches were employed for estimating RD. Anchor-based estimates were based on published RD values for the EQ-5D and were assessed for those improving and deteriorating separately. Distribution-based estimates were based on standard error of measurement (SEM), change score equivalent to 0.30, and change score equivalent to 0.50, effect sizes (ES). RESULTS: The sample included 911 RRMS patients (67.3% female, age mean (SD) 36.2 (8.4) years, duration of MS mean (SD) 4.8 (5.2) years). Results showed that the PRIMUS and U-FIS had good internal consistency. Appropriate correlations were observed with comparator instruments and both measures were able to distinguish between participants based on Expanded Disability Status Scale scores and time since diagnosis. The anchor-based and distribution-based RD estimates were: PRIMUS Activities range = 1.2-2.3, PRIMUS QoL range = 1.0-2.2, and U-FIS range = 2.4-7.0. CONCLUSIONS: The results show that the PRIMUS and U-FIS are valid instruments for use with RRMS patients. The analyses provide preliminary information on how to interpret scores on the scales. These data will be useful for assessing treatment efficacy and for powering clinical studies. TRIAL REFERENCE NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT00340834

Development and validation of the Asthma Life Impact Scale (ALIS)

SummaryBackgroundCurrent asthma patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures focus on symptoms and functioning and may not capture the holistic impact of asthma on the quality of life of the patient.ObjectiveTo develop a PRO measure capturing the overall impact of asthma on patient's quality of life.MethodsItems for the Asthma Life Impact Scale (ALIS) were generated from patients with asthma during interviews in the UK and focus groups in the US. The ALIS was tested with UK and US asthma patients during cognitive debriefing interviews and included in large, two-administration, validation studies in the UK and US.ResultsIssues raised by asthma patients during interviews (n = 39 patients) and focus groups (n = 16 patients) were included in the draft ALIS. Cognitive debriefing interviews with 29 UK and US asthma patients showed that the scale was relevant and comprehensive. 140 UK and 185 US asthma patients participated in the validation study. The analysis showed that the ALIS measures a single construct, namely the overall impact of asthma on patients' quality of life. Internal consistency (Cronbach's Alpha) was high (UK = 0.94; US = 0.92) as was test-retest reliability (UK = 0.93; US = 0.83). Patients reporting worse general health or more severe asthma had significantly higher ALIS scores (p < 0.001) (indicating greater negative impact of asthma). Correlations with the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire were moderate to high.ConclusionsThe final 22-item ALIS is unidimensional, reliable and valid, and a valuable tool for comprehensively assessing the holistic impact of asthma from the patient's perspective

Retraction: Psychometric characteristics of the ankylosing spondylitis quality of life questionnaire, short form 36 health survey, and functional assessment of chronic illness therapy-fatigue subscale

Retraction of Revicki DA, Rentz AM, Luo MP, Wong RL, Doward LC, McKenna SP: Psychometric characteristics of the ankylosing spondylitis quality of life questionnaire, short form 36 health survey, and functional assessment of chronic illness therapy-fatigue subscale. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes 2009, 7: 6

Translation and validation of non-English versions of the Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life (ASQOL) questionnaire

BACKGROUND: The Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life (ASQOL) questionnaire is a unidimensional, disease-specific measure developed in the UK and the Netherlands. This study describes its adaptation into other languages. METHODS: The UK English ASQOL was translated into US English; Canadian French and English; French; German; Italian; Spanish; and Swedish (dual-panel methods). Cognitive debriefing interviews were conducted with AS patients. Psychometric/scaling properties were assessed using data from two Phase III studies of adalimumab. Baseline and Week-2 data were used to assess test-retest reliability. Validity was determined by correlation of ASQOL with SF-36 and BASFI and by discriminative ability of ASQOL based on disease severity. Item response theory (Rasch model) was used to test ASQOL's scaling properties. RESULTS: Cognitive debriefing showed the new ASQOL versions to be clear, relevant and comprehensive. Sample sizes varied, but were sufficient for: psychometric/scaling assessment for US English and Canadian English; psychometric but not scaling analyses for German; and preliminary evidence of these properties for the remaining languages. Test-retest reliability and Cronbach's alpha coefficients were high: US English (0.85, 0.85), Canadian English (0.87, 0.86), and German (0.77, 0.79). Correlations of ASQOL with SF-36 and BASFI for US English, Canadian English, and German measures were moderate, but ASQOL discriminated between patients based on perceived disease severities (p < 0.01). Results were comparable for the other languages. US English and Canadian English exhibited fit to the Rasch model (non-significant p-values: 0.54, 0.68), confirming unidimensionality. CONCLUSION: The ASQOL was successfully translated into all eight languages. Psychometric properties were excellent for US English, Canadian English, and German, and extremely promising for the other languages

Is the EQ-5D fit for purpose in asthma? Acceptability and content validity from the patient perspective

Background The increasing emphasis on patient-reported outcomes in health care decision making has prompted greater rigor in the evidence to support the instruments used. Acceptability and content validity are important properties of any measure to ensure it assesses the relevant aspects of the target concept. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the acceptability and content validity of the EQ-5D 5-Level (EQ-5D-5L) to assess the impact of asthma on patients’ lives. Methods Qualitative interviews were conducted with 40 adults with asthma in the United Kingdom. The first 25 interviews used cognitive-debriefing methods to assess the relevance and acceptability of the EQ-5D-5L and two asthma-specific measures for comparison: an asthma-specific, preference-based measure (the Asthma Quality of Life Utility Index–5 Dimensions) and an Asthma Symptom Diary. The final 15 interviews combined concept elicitation to identify patient-perceived asthma impact, and cognitive debriefing to assess relevance and acceptability of the EQ-5D-5L and the Asthma Symptom Diary. Cognitive-debriefing feedback on the content of the measures was collated and summarized descriptively. The concept-elicitation data were analyzed thematically. Results Participants were aged 20 to 57 years and 62.5% were female. Although some participants expressed positive opinions on aspects of the EQ-5D-5L, only the usual activities dimension was consistently considered relevant to participants’ asthma experiences. The mobility and self-care dimensions prompted strong negative reactions from some participants. Variations in interpretation of the mobility dimension and difficulties with multiple concepts in the pain/discomfort and anxiety/depression dimensions also were noted. Concepts reported by participants as missing included environmental triggers, asthma symptoms, emotions, and sleep. The EQ-5D-5L was the least preferred measure to describe the impact of asthma on participants’ lives. Participants reported shortness of breath and impact on activities as especially salient issues. Conclusions The content of the EQ-5D-5L was poorly aligned with the patient-perceived impact of asthma, and the measure failed to meet basic standards for acceptability and content validity as a measure to assess the impact of asthma from the patient perspective. The shortcomings identified raise concerns regarding the appropriateness of the EQ-5D in asthma and further evaluation is warranted

A Review of Quality of Life in Alzheimer's Disease: Parts 1 and 2: Issues in Assessing Disease Impact and Drug Effects

Pharmacoeconomics, Alzheimer's-disease, Quality-of-life, Clinical-trial-design, Quality-of-life-rating-scales