Analysis and Interpretation of Results Based on Patient-Reported Outcomes

AbstractThis article is part of a series of manuscripts dealing with the incorporation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into clinical trials. The issues dealt with in this manuscript concern the common pitfalls to avoid in statistical analysis and interpretation of PROs. Specifically, the questions addressed by this manuscript involve the analysis pitfalls with PRO data in clinical trials and how can they be avoided (e.g.,missing data, multiplicity, null results etc.). The manuscript provides key literature for existing resources and proposes new guidelines

Interpreting and Reporting Results Based on Patient-Reported Outcomes

AbstractThis article deals with the incorporation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into clinical trials and focuses on issues associated with the interpretation and reporting of PRO data. The primary focus and context of this information relates to the evidentiary support and reporting for a labeling or advertising claim of a PRO benefit for a new or approved pharmaceutical product. This manuscript focuses on issues associated with assessing clinical significance and common pitfalls to avoid in presenting results related to PROs. Specifically, the questions addressed by this manuscript involve: What are the best methods to assess clinical significance for PROs? How should investigators present PRO data most effectively in a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) application? In labeling or in a scientific publication? Guidelinesfor interpreting clinical significance of PROs and for comprehensively reporting on the methods, measures and results of clinical trials that incorporate PROs are important for clinicians, regulatory agencies, and most of all to patients. Clear specifications for considering a finding on a PRO measure, as clinically meaningful, need to be determined by instrument developers and psychometricians; they need to be reported for all clinical trials involving PRO end points. Clinical trial reports need to be comprehensive, clear, and sufficient to enable any reader to understand the methods, PRO measures, statistical analysis, and results

Analysis and Interpretation of Results Based on Patient-Reported Outcomes

ABSTRACT This article is part of a series of manuscripts dealing with the incorporation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into clinical trials. The issues dealt with in this manuscript concern the common pitfalls to avoid in statistical analysis and interpretation of PROs. Specifically, the questions addressed by this manuscript involve the analysis pitfalls with PRO data in clinical trials and how can they be avoided (e.g.,missing data, multiplicity, null results etc.). The manuscript provides key literature for existing resources and proposes new guidelines

Interpreting and Reporting Results Based on Patient-Reported Outcomes

ABSTRACT This article deals with the incorporation of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) into clinical trials and focuses on issues associated with the interpretation and reporting of PRO data. The primary focus and context of this information relates to the evidentiary support and reporting for a labeling or advertising claim of a PRO benefit for a new or approved pharmaceutical product. This manuscript focuses on issues associated with assessing clinical significance and common pitfalls to avoid in presenting results related to PROs. Specifically, the questions addressed by this manuscript involve: What are the best methods to assess clinical significance for PROs? How should investigators present PRO data most effectively in a Food and Drug Administration (FDA) application? In labeling or in a scientific publication? Guidelinesfor interpreting clinical significance of PROs and for comprehensively reporting on the methods, measures and results of clinical trials that incorporate PROs are important for clinicians, regulatory agencies, and most of all to patients. Clear specifications for considering a finding on a PRO measure, as clinically meaningful, need to be determined by instrument developers and psychometricians; they need to be reported for all clinical trials involving PRO end points. Clinical trial reports need to be comprehensive, clear, and sufficient to enable any reader to understand the methods, PRO measures, statistical analysis, and results

The Multinational Impact of Migraine Symptoms on Healthcare Utilisation and Work Loss

Objective: To compare self-reported healthcare resource utilisation, paid work loss, unpaid work loss and loss of effectiveness at work due to migraine in a clinic-based adult migraine population. Methods: The Migraine Background Questionnaire(C) (MBQ) was translated and pilot-tested for use in 25 countries. The questionnaire was then self-administered by patients at a screening visit for 3 phase III clinical trials of rizatriptan [a selective serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine) 5-HT1B/1D receptor agonist] in 23 US and 78 non-US sites. Participants: Persons 18 to 65 years of age with at least a 6-month history of moderate to severe migraines prior to the screening visit were surveyed. Results: A total of 2670 persons (54.7% Europe, 16.5% Latin America, 23.1% North America, 5.5% other countries) completed the MBQ and had responses which could be analysed. On average, each patient reported 2.78 doctor visits, 0.53 emergency room visits and 0.06 hospitalisations related to migraine per year. Patients self-reported being only 46% effective while on the job with migraine symptoms. Extrapolation of patient self-reported work and productivity loss for the last 4 weeks to an annual basis suggested that clinic-based patients with migraine lose 19.5 workday equivalents (8.3 days due to absenteeism, 11.2 days due to reduced workday equivalents) due to migraine per year. In the US, the annual employer cost of this total migraine-related work loss is estimated to be $US3309 (2000 values) per patient with migraine. The levels of self-reported healthcare resources utilised for migraine and work loss were generally consistent across geographic regions. Conclusions: The impact of migraine symptoms on healthcare resource utilisation and work loss was similar across most measures in Europe, Latin America, North America and other countries. Total migraine-related work loss due to absenteeism and reduced workday equivalents accounts for most of the economic burden of migraine, regardless of country, in a clinic-based migraine population.Antimigraines, Cost of illness, Migraine, Pharmacoeconomics, Resource use