Development and Validation of the FSIQ-RMS: A New Patient-Reported Questionnaire to Assess Symptoms and Impacts of Fatigue in Relapsing Multiple Sclerosis

Objectives: A new patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument to measure fatigue symptoms and impacts in relapsing multiple sclerosis (RMS) was developed in a qualitative stage, followed by psychometric validation and migration from paper to an electronic format. Methods: Adult patients with relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis (RRMS) were interviewed to elicit fatigue-related symptoms and impacts. A draft questionnaire was debriefed in cognitive interviews with further RRMS patients, and revised. Content confirmation interviews were conducted with patients with progressive-relapsing multiple sclerosis (PRMS) and relapsing secondary-progressive multiple sclerosis (RSPMS). Psychometric analyses used data from adult patients with different RMS subtypes and matched non-RMS controls in a multicenter, observational study. After item reduction, the final instrument was migrated to a smartphone (eDiary) and usability was confirmed in interviews with additional adult RMS patients. Results: The qualitative stage included 37 RRMS, 5 PRMS, and 5 RSPMS patients. Saturation of concepts was reached during concept elicitation. Cognitive interviews confirmed that participants understood the instructions, items, and response options of the instrument—named FSIQ-RMS—as intended. Psychometric validation included 164 RMS and 74 control patients. Internal consistency and test–retest reliability were demonstrated. The symptoms domain discriminated along the RMS symptom-severity continuum and between patients and controls. Patients were able to attribute fatigue-related symptoms to RMS. Usability and conceptual equivalence of the eDiary were confirmed (n = 10 participants). Conclusions: With 7 symptom items and 13 impact items (in 3 impacts subdomains: physical, cognitive and emotional, and coping) after item reduction, the FSIQ-RMS is a comprehensive, valid, and reliable measure of fatigue-related symptoms and impacts in RMS patients

PRO Data Collection in Clinical Trials Using Mixed Modes: Report of the ISPOR PRO Mixed Modes Good Research Practices Task Force

AbstractThe objective of this report was to address the use and mixing of data collection modes within and between trials in which patient-reported outcome (PRO) end points are intended to be used to support medical product labeling. The report first addresses the factors that should be considered when selecting a mode or modes of PRO data collection in a clinical trial, which is often when mixing is first considered. Next, a summary of how to "faithfully" migrate instruments is presented followed by a section on qualitative and quantitative study designs used to evaluate measurement equivalence of the new and original modes of data collection. Finally, the report discusses a number of issues that must be taken into account when mixing modes is deemed necessary or unavoidable within or between trials, including considerations of the risk of mixing at different levels within a clinical trial program and mixing between different types of platforms. In the absence of documented evidence of measurement equivalence, it is strongly recommended that a quantitative equivalence study be conducted before mixing modes in a trial to ensure that sufficient equivalence can be demonstrated to have confidence in pooling PRO data collected by the different modes. However, we also strongly discourage the mixing of paper and electronic field-based instruments and suggest that mixing of electronic modes be considered for clinical trials and only after equivalence has been established. If proceeding with mixing modes, it is important to implement data collection carefully in the trial itself in a planned manner at the country level or higher and minimize ad hoc mixing by sites or individual subjects. Finally, when mixing occurs, it must be addressed in the statistical analysis plan for the trial and the ability to pool the data must be evaluated to then evaluate treatment effects with mixed modes data. A successful mixed modes trial requires a "faithful migration," measurement equivalence established between modes, and carefully planned implementation to minimize the risk of increased measurement error impacting the power of the trial to detect a treatment effect

Multinational Trials - Recommendations on the Translations Required, Approaches to Using the Same Language in Different Countries, and the Approaches to Support Pooling the Data: The ISPOR Patient-Reported Outcomes Translation and Linguistic Validation Good Research Practices Task Force Report

Multinational Trials - Recommendations on the Translations Required, Approaches to Using the Same Language in Different Countries, and the Approaches to Support Pooling the Data: The ISPOR Patient-Reported Outcomes Translation and Linguistic Validation Good Research Practices Task Force Report Abstract. Objectives: With the internationalization of clinical trial programs, there is an increased need to translate and culturally adapt patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. Although guidelines for good practices in translation and linguistic validation are available, the ISPOR Patient-Reported Outcomes Translation and Linguistic Validation Task Force identified a number of areas where they felt that further discussion around methods and best practices would be beneficial. The areas identified by the team were as follows: 1) the selection of the languages required for multinational trials; 2) the approaches suggested when the same language is required across two or more countries; and 3) the assessment of measurement equivalence to support the aggregation of data from different countries. Methods: The task force addressed these three areas, reviewed the available literature, and had multiple discussions to develop this report. Results: Decision aid tools have also been developed and presented for the selection of languages and the approaches suggested for the use of the same language in different countries. Conclusion: It is hoped that this report and the decision tools proposed will assist those involved with multinational trials to 1) decide on the translations required for each country; 2) choose the approach to use when the same language is spoken in more than one country; and 3) choose methods to gather evidence to support the pooling of data collected using different language versions of the same tool

Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Consortium translation process: consensus development of updated best practices

Abstract This paper describes the rationale and goals of the Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) Consortium’s instrument translation process. The PRO Consortium has developed a number of novel PRO measures which are in the process of qualification by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for use in clinical trials where endpoints based on these measures would support product labeling claims. Given the importance of FDA qualification of these measures, the PRO Consortium’s Process Subcommittee determined that a detailed linguistic validation (LV) process was necessary to ensure that all translations of Consortium-developed PRO measures are performed using a standardized approach with the rigor required to meet regulatory and pharmaceutical industry expectations, as well as having a clearly defined instrument translation process that the translation industry can support. The consensus process involved gathering information about current best practices from 13 translation companies with expertise in LV, consolidating the findings to generate a proposed process, and obtaining iterative feedback from the translation companies and PRO Consortium member firms on the proposed process in two rounds of review in order to update existing principles of good practice in LV and to provide sufficient detail for the translation process to ensure consistency across PRO Consortium measures, sponsors, and translation companies. The consensus development resulted in a 12-step process that outlines universal and country-specific new translation approaches, as well as country-specific adaptations of existing translations. The PRO Consortium translation process will play an important role in maintaining the validity of the data generated through these measures by ensuring that they are translated by qualified linguists following a standardized and rigorous process that reflects best practice

Content validity and ePRO usability of the BPI-sf and “worst pain” item with pleural and peritoneal mesothelioma

Abstract Background The Brief Pain Inventory-short form (BPI-sf) is widely used in self-reported pain assessment, incorporates pain numeric rating scales (NRS) and is commonly utilized in electronic format in clinical trials, however, there is no published information about its usability as an electronic patient-reported outcome (ePRO) measure. The objective of this qualitative study was threefold: 1) to better understand pain experiences among patients with pleural or peritoneal mesothelioma; 2) to assess the interpretability of the instructions, item stem, recall period, and response option of the “worst pain” item of the BPI-sf; and 3) to examine the usability of the TrialMax Touch™ (CRF Health, Inc., Plymouth Meeting, PA) screen-based handheld device and the electronic format of the BPI-sf in a sub-sample of pleural mesothelioma patients. Methods A cross-sectional qualitative study was conducted among participants with pleural and peritoneal mesothelioma recruited from 4 clinical sites in the US. Semi-structured telephone or in-person interviews were conducted consisting of concept elicitation, cognitive interviewing of the 11-item BPI-sf, and in-person interview evaluation of ePRO assessment usability in pleural mesothelioma patients. Results Twenty-one participants recruited from 4 clinical sites in the US were interviewed in-person (n = 9) and by telephone (n = 12); 71% male; mean age 68.7 ± 13.6 years. Pleural and peritoneal patients described pain as ranging from discomfort to intense pain and reported being able to distinguish tumor pain from treatment pain. The BPI-sf “worst pain” item was relevant to, and easily understood by, study participants with pleural and peritoneal mesothelioma. The ePRO version was found to be easy to use, but readability of small font may be an issue. Participants reported minimal differences between their responses on the paper and ePRO version for all of the pain severity and pain interference items. Conclusions Results support the relevance and ease of understanding of the “worst pain” item and provide support for its content validity in patients with pleural and peritoneal mesothelioma. Usability of the ePRO format of the BPI-sf was confirmed for use in clinical trials among patients with pleural mesothelioma

Clinically Meaningful Change for Physical Performance: Perspectives of the ICFSR Task Force.

peer reviewedFor clinical studies of sarcopenia and frailty, clinically meaningful outcome measures are needed to monitor disease progression, evaluate efficacy of interventions, and plan clinical trials. Physical performance measures including measures of gait speed and other aspects of mobility and strength have been used in many studies, although a definition of clinically meaningful change in performance has remained unclear. The International Conference on Frailty and Sarcopenia Research Task Force (ICFSR-TF), a group of academic and industry scientists investigating frailty and sarcopenia, met in Miami Beach, Florida, USA in February 2019 to explore approaches for establishing clinical meaningfulness in a manner aligned with regulatory authorities. They concluded that clinical meaningful change is contextually dependent, and that both anchor- based and distribution-based methods of quantifying physical function are informative and should be evaluated relative to patient-reported outcomes. In addition, they identified additional research needed to enable setting criteria for clinical meaningful change in trials

Additional file 1: of Content validity and ePRO usability of the BPI-sf and “worst pain” item with pleural and peritoneal mesothelioma

Screen Shots of Electronic Version of Instrument. (DOCX 295 kb

Additional file 1: of Emerging good practices for Translatability Assessment (TA) of Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) measures

Table S1 Terminology . Table S2 Definitions. Table S3 Steps used by each organization. Table S4 People involved. Table S5 Timing of assessment. Table S6 Review criteria. Table S7 Recommendations (DOCX 56 kb

Multinational Trials—Recommendations on the Translations Required, Approaches to Using the Same Language in Different Countries, and the Approaches to Support Pooling the Data: The ISPOR Patient-Reported Outcomes Translation and Linguistic Validation Good Research Practices Task Force Report

AbstractObjectivesWith the internationalization of clinical trial programs, there is an increased need to translate and culturally adapt patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. Although guidelines for good practices in translation and linguistic validation are available, the ISPOR Patient-Reported Outcomes Translation and Linguistic Validation Task Force identified a number of areas where they felt that further discussion around methods and best practices would be beneficial. The areas identified by the team were as follows: 1) the selection of the languages required for multinational trials; 2) the approaches suggested when the same language is required across two or more countries; and 3) the assessment of measurement equivalence to support the aggregation of data from different countries.MethodsThe task force addressed these three areas, reviewed the available literature, and had multiple discussions to develop this report.ResultsDecision aid tools have also been developed and presented for the selection of languages and the approaches suggested for the use of the same language in different countries.ConclusionIt is hoped that this report and the decision tools proposed will assist those involved with multinational trials to 1) decide on the translations required for each country; 2) choose the approach to use when the same language is spoken in more than one country; and 3) choose methods to gather evidence to support the pooling of data collected using different language versions of the same tool