PRO(patient reported outcome measure)

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures : 

Patient-Reported Outcome Measures FDA, CBER, CDER, CBRH

Why PRO ? : 

Why PRO ?

contents : 

contents Introduction Definition Diseases where PRO measures are used Applications of PRO instrument Development of PRO instrument Evaluation of PRO instrument End point model Choice of PRO instrument Conceptual framework of A PRO instrument Content validity Reliability, content & construct validity & ability to detect change Instrument modification PRO instrument for specific population

IntroductionGeneral Methods Used for Outcome Analysis : 

IntroductionGeneral Methods Used for Outcome Analysis

Definition of PRO : 

Definition of PRO Patient Reported Outcome measures are reports of status of patient’s health condition P RO data collected directly from questionnaires completed by the patient themselves or via interviews by a clinician or anyone else Outcome is measured in Absolute terms e.g. severity of a symptom, sign or state of disease, or as a change from a previous measure

Slide 8: 

Disease/Health status Concepts Domains Items PRO Instrument (simple/complex)

Diseases where PRO measures are used : 

Diseases where PRO measures are used Parkinson’s disease Rheumatoid Arthritis Patients undergone Renal Transplantation etc.. PRO measures often represent the effect of disease (e.g., heart failure or asthma) on health and functioning from the patient perspective.

Applications of PRO instruments… : 

Applications of PRO instruments… Used in clinical trials Medical practice Drug selection & comparison DUE Intervention efficacy, pharmacist evaluation Economic evaluations : cost utility studies Clinical experience programs

Slide 12: 

HYPERTENSION BP Importance of PRO

Slide 13: 

RA, ASTHMA, COPD

Ideal Characteristics of PRO Instrument : 

Ideal Characteristics of PRO Instrument PRO instrument PRO instrument is a questionnaire reported voluntarily It captures PRO data used to measure treatment benefit or risk in medical product clinical trials The adequacy of any PRO Instrument depends on whether its characteristics Conceptual framework Content validity and Other measurement properties are satisfactory. The FDA will review documentation of PRO instrument

Characteristics of PRO instruments that are reviewed by the FDA include the following: : 

Characteristics of PRO instruments that are reviewed by the FDA include the following: Concepts being measured Number of items & domains Conceptual framework of the instrument Medical condition for intended use Population for intended use Data collection method Administration mode Response options Recall period Scoring Weighting of items or domains Format Respondent burden Translation or cultural adaptation availability

Conceptual Framework of a PRO Instrument : 

Conceptual Framework of a PRO Instrument The acceptance of a proposed instrument Defines the concepts measured description of the relationships between items, domain (sub concepts), and concepts measured and the scores produced by a PRO instrument. Concepts Measured Intended population

Slide 17: 

psychological emotional cognitive

Concepts Measured : 

Concepts Measured Adequacy of the item generation process What to measure may be obvious given the condition being treated. For ex: treatment on pain When it is not obvious, instrument developers initially can hypothesize a conceptual framework based on literature reviews and expert opinion. Subsequently, patient interviews and qualitative cognitive interviewing ensures understanding and completeness of the concepts contained in the items.

Sponsors should provide the following: : 

Sponsors should provide the following: Development history available and accessible publicly. Documentation of content validity (i.e., Evidence that the instrument measures what it is intended to measure), including open-ended patient input from the appropriate population. Well established instrument’s measurement properties Engage the FDA in a discussion about PRO instrument before confirmatory clinical trial protocols are finalized. Provide useful early input Labeling goals, A hypothesized PRO instrument conceptual framework, and The relationship of the PRO endpoints to other clinical trial endpoints

Slide 20: 

Multi domain concept(Complex) vs. simple concept Multi domain claim cannot be substantiated by instruments that do not adequately measure the individual component domain concepts adequately General concepts often are not supported, because the instrument may not distinguish adverse side effects of treatment that affect the general concept If adverse effects are captured, PRO instruments should aim to measure the adverse consequences of treatment separately from the effectiveness of treatment. As with any clinical trial evaluating FDA regulated medical products, all adverse events detected with a pro instrument should be included in the clinical trial report.

Slide 21: 

Like wise framework of PRO instrument will evolve and be confirmed over the course of instrument development When used in a clinical trial, again to be confirmed by the observed relationships among items and domains. Documentation reveals development process The exact words used to represent the concepts measured by domain or total scores should be derived using patient input to ensure the scores are valid. Pain/analgesia, bone pain/arthralgia

Development of PRO instrument : 

Development of PRO instrument

Hypothesize Conceptual Framework : 

Hypothesize Conceptual Framework Outline hypothesized concepts and potential claims Determine intended Population Determine intended application Perform literature/expert review Develop hypothesized Conceptual framework Place PRO’s within preliminary endpoint model Document preliminary instrument development

Adjust Conceptual Framework and Draft Instrument : 

Adjust Conceptual Framework and Draft Instrument Obtain patient input Generate new items Select recall period, response options and format Select mode/method of administration Conduct patient cognitive interview Pilot test draft instrument Document content validity

Confirm Conceptual Framework and assess other Measurement properties : 

Confirm Conceptual Framework and assess other Measurement properties Confirm conceptual framework with scoring rule Assess score reliability, Construct validity, Ability to direct change. Finalize instrument content, formats, scoring, procedures and training materials Document the questionnaire development

Method to Collect, Analyze and Interpret Data : 

Method to Collect, Analyze and Interpret Data Prepare protocol and statistical analysis plan Collect and analyze data Evaluate treatment response using cumulative distribution Document interpretation of treatment benefit in relation to claim.

Modification of Instrument : 

Modification of Instrument Change wording of items, populations, response options, recall period, or mode/method of administration/data collection Translate and culturally adapt to other languages Evaluate modifications as appropriate Document all changes.

Evaluation of PRO instrument : 

Evaluation of PRO instrument

Evaluation of PRO instrument : 

Evaluation of PRO instrument The population enrolled in the clinical trial The clinical trial objectives and design The PRO instrument’s conceptual framework The PRO instrument’s measurement properties End point model PRO instrument and its contents Conceptual frame work

Content Validity : 

Content Validity Content validity is the extent to which the instrument measures the concept of interest. The items and domains of an instrument are appropriate & specific to the population, condition, and treatment to be studied. Documentation of patient input, cognitive interviewing of patient in item generation contribute to content validity. Evaluate instrument adequacy to measure the concept represented by the labeling claim. Existing /new PRO instrument , adequacy of the instrument’s content validity to be checked

Content Validity : 

1.Item Generation 2. Data Collection Method & Instrument Administration Mode 3. Recall Period 4. Response Options 5. Instrument Format, Instructions, and Training 6. Patient Understanding 7. Scoring of Items and Domains 8. Respondent and Administrator Burden Content Validity

1.Item Generation : 

1.Item Generation Items can be generated from patient input, literature reviews, or interviews with patients, clinicians, family members, researchers, or other sources. Review of documentation until saturation has been reached. Item wording, Item coverage, Clarity and Readability. Content validity should be checked at every time The sample size depends on the completeness of the information

2. Data Collection Method and Instrument Administration Mode : 

2. Data Collection Method and Instrument Administration Mode

3. Recall Period : 

3. Recall Period

Slide 42: 

The choice of recall period that is most suitable depends on the instrument’s purpose, Disease or condition’s characteristics, duration, frequency. Short recall periods or items that ask patients to describe their current or recent state are usually preferable. If detailed recall of experience over a period of time is necessary, we recommend make use of a diary for data collection). Response is likely to be influenced by the patient’s state at the time of recall.

4. Response Options : 

4. Response Options Item response options generally are considered appropriate whether: Wording used in responses is clear and appropriate e.g., pain/analgesia; myalgia/arthralgia Appropriate for the intended population, purpose, intended use. e.g., patients with visual impairment may find a VAS difficult to complete. Responses offer a clear distinction between choices e.g., intense and severe The number of response options e.g., using qualitative research, initial instrument testing, or existing literature. Responses for items avoid potential ceiling or floor effects Responses do not bias the direction of responses (Response bias)

5. Instrument Format, Instructions, and Training : 

5. Instrument Format, Instructions, and Training consistent format Results may vary acc. To instructions ad training Sponsors should consider all PRO instrument instructions to avoid missing data or clarify responses.

6. Patient Understanding : 

6. Patient Understanding Sponsor should check after preparation of the draft This examination should include documentation of concepts , response options , response scales recall period instrument’s readability Actions taken to delete or modify items Evidence from the patient cognitive interview

7. Scoring of Items and Domains : 

7. Scoring of Items and Domains

Slide 49: 

Numerical scores Scoring algorithm Combining domain scores into single general score Use of statistical techniques

8. Respondent and Administrator Burden : 

8. Respondent and Administrator Burden Physical, emotional, or cognitive strain on patients generally decreases the quality and completeness of PRO data. Factors that can contribute includes the following: Length of questionnaire or interview & Inadequate time Formatting , Font size too small to read easily New instructions for each item and typical style Requirement that patients consult records to complete responses Privacy of the setting Questions that patients are unwilling to answer Need for physical help in responding (e.g., turning pages, holding a pen, assistance with a telephone or computer keyboard)

E. Reliability, Other Validity, and Ability to Detect Change : 

E. Reliability, Other Validity, and Ability to Detect Change 1. Reliability Because clinical trials measure change over time, the adequacy of a PRO depends on its reliability or ability to yield consistent, reproducible estimates of true treatment effect. test-retest reliability, Internal consistency, Inter-interviewer reproducibility 2. Validity Construct validity, Content validity 3. Ability to Detect Change

F. Instrument Modification : 

F. Instrument Modification When a PRO instrument is modified, sponsors generally should provide evidence to confirm the new instrument’s adequacy. Examples of changes that can alter the way that patients respond to the same set of questions include: Changing an instrument from paper to electronic format Changing the timing of or procedures for PRO instrument administration within the clinic visit Changing the application to a different setting, population, or condition Changing the order of items, item wording, response options, or recall period or deleting portions of a questionnaire Changing the instructions or the placement of instructions within the PRO instrument

G. PRO Instruments Intended for Specific Populations : 

G. PRO Instruments Intended for Specific Populations 1. Children and Adolescents For patients who cannot respond for themselves (e.g., infant patients), we encourage observer reports that include only those events or behaviors that can be observed 2. Patients Cognitively Impaired or Unable to Communicate For patients who cannot respond for themselves (e.g., cognitively impaired), we encourage observer reports that include only those events or behaviors that can be observed. 3. Culture or Language Subgroups We will review the process used to translate and culturally adapt the instrument for populations that will use them in the trial.

Slide 59: 

Now Start preparing a PRO I think I have given input to `u’ Rheumatoid Arthritis Physical functioning

Endpoint Model Example: Rheumatoid Arthritis And PROs : 

Endpoint Model Example: Rheumatoid Arthritis And PROs Patient response Tender Joints Swollen Joints A. Physical Function B. Mobility Fatigue Pain Intensity Sleep Problems 2.Emotional Well-Being 1.Social Function/Activities QOL

References : 

References http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/default.htm. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/dfault.htm (CDER), http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/default.htm (CBER) and http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/GuidanceDocuments/default.htm (CDRH) Fitzpatrick R, Davey C, Buxton MJ, and Jones DR. Evaluating patient-based outcome measures for use in clinical trials. Health Technology Assessment 1998;2:14.