Skip to main content
Top
Gepubliceerd in:

14-09-2020 | Review

International guidance on the selection of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical trials: a review

Auteurs: Norah L. Crossnohere, Michael Brundage, Melanie J. Calvert, Madeleine King, Bryce B. Reeve, Elissa Thorner, Albert W. Wu, Claire Snyder

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 1/2021

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail

Abstract

Purpose

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in clinical trials to provide patients’ perspectives regarding symptoms, health-related quality of life, and satisfaction with treatments. A range of guidance documents exist for the selection of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical trials, and it is unclear to what extent these documents present consistent recommendations.

Methods

We conducted a targeted review of publications and regulatory guidance documents that advise on the selection of PROMs for use in clinical trials. A total of seven guidance documents from the US Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, and scientific consortia from professional societies were included in the final review. Guidance documents were analyzed using a content analysis approach comparing them with minimum standards recommended by the International Society for Quality of Life Research.

Results

Overall there was substantial agreement between guidance regarding the appropriate considerations for PROM selection within a clinical trial. Variations among the guidance primarily related to differences in their format and differences in the perspectives and mandates of their respective organizations. Whereas scientific consortia tended to produce checklist or rating-type guidance, regulatory groups tended to use more narrative-based approaches sometimes supplemented with lists of criteria.

Conclusion

The consistency in recommendations suggests an emerging consensus in the field and supports use of any of the major guidance documents available to guide PROM selection for clinical trials without concern of conflicting recommendations. This work represents an important first step in the international PROTEUS Consortium’s ongoing efforts to optimize the use of PROs in clinical trials.
Literatuur
1.
go back to reference Acquadro, C., et al. (2003). Incorporating the patient's perspective into drug development and communication: An ad hoc task force report of the patient-reported outcomes (PRO) Harmonization Group meeting at the Food and Drug Administration, February 16, 2001. Value Health, 6(5), 522–531.PubMed Acquadro, C., et al. (2003). Incorporating the patient's perspective into drug development and communication: An ad hoc task force report of the patient-reported outcomes (PRO) Harmonization Group meeting at the Food and Drug Administration, February 16, 2001. Value Health, 6(5), 522–531.PubMed
2.
go back to reference Au, H. J., et al. (2010). Added value of health-related quality of life measurement in cancer clinical trials: The experience of the NCIC CTG. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 10(2), 119–128. Au, H. J., et al. (2010). Added value of health-related quality of life measurement in cancer clinical trials: The experience of the NCIC CTG. Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics & Outcomes Research, 10(2), 119–128.
3.
go back to reference Till, J. E., et al. (1994). Research on health-related quality of life: Dissemination into practical applications. Quality of Life Research, 3(4), 279–283.PubMed Till, J. E., et al. (1994). Research on health-related quality of life: Dissemination into practical applications. Quality of Life Research, 3(4), 279–283.PubMed
4.
go back to reference Lipscomb, J., Gotay, C. C., & Snyder, C. (2004). Outcomes assessment in cancer: Measures, methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lipscomb, J., Gotay, C. C., & Snyder, C. (2004). Outcomes assessment in cancer: Measures, methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
5.
go back to reference Brundage, M., et al. (2011). A knowledge translation challenge: Clinical use of quality of life data from cancer clinical trials. Quality of Life Research, 20(7), 979–985.PubMed Brundage, M., et al. (2011). A knowledge translation challenge: Clinical use of quality of life data from cancer clinical trials. Quality of Life Research, 20(7), 979–985.PubMed
6.
go back to reference Bezjak, A., et al. (2001). Oncologists' use of quality of life information: Results of a survey of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group physicians. Quality of Life Research, 10(1), 1–13.PubMed Bezjak, A., et al. (2001). Oncologists' use of quality of life information: Results of a survey of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group physicians. Quality of Life Research, 10(1), 1–13.PubMed
7.
go back to reference Basch, E., et al. (2015). Patient-reported outcomes in cancer drug development and us regulatory review: Perspectives from industry, the food and drug administration, and the patient. JAMA Oncology, 1(3), 375–379.PubMed Basch, E., et al. (2015). Patient-reported outcomes in cancer drug development and us regulatory review: Perspectives from industry, the food and drug administration, and the patient. JAMA Oncology, 1(3), 375–379.PubMed
8.
go back to reference Basch, E., et al. (2017). Overall survival results of a trial assessing patient-reported outcomes for symptom monitoring during routine cancer treatment. JAMA, 318(2), 197–198.PubMedPubMedCentral Basch, E., et al. (2017). Overall survival results of a trial assessing patient-reported outcomes for symptom monitoring during routine cancer treatment. JAMA, 318(2), 197–198.PubMedPubMedCentral
9.
go back to reference Kyte, D., et al. (2019). Systematic evaluation of patient-reported outcome protocol content and reporting in cancer trials. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 111, 1170.PubMedPubMedCentral Kyte, D., et al. (2019). Systematic evaluation of patient-reported outcome protocol content and reporting in cancer trials. JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute, 111, 1170.PubMedPubMedCentral
10.
go back to reference Ahmed, K., et al. (2016). Systematic evaluation of patient-reported outcome (PRO) protocol content and reporting in UK cancer clinical trials: The EPiC study protocol. British Medical Journal Open, 6(9), e012863. Ahmed, K., et al. (2016). Systematic evaluation of patient-reported outcome (PRO) protocol content and reporting in UK cancer clinical trials: The EPiC study protocol. British Medical Journal Open, 6(9), e012863.
11.
go back to reference Mercieca-Bebber, R., et al. (2016). The patient-reported outcome content of international ovarian cancer randomised controlled trial protocols. Quality of Life Research, 25(10), 2457–2465.PubMed Mercieca-Bebber, R., et al. (2016). The patient-reported outcome content of international ovarian cancer randomised controlled trial protocols. Quality of Life Research, 25(10), 2457–2465.PubMed
13.
go back to reference Reeve, B. B., et al. (2013). ISOQOL recommends minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures used in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research. Quality of Life Research, 22(8), 1889–1905.PubMed Reeve, B. B., et al. (2013). ISOQOL recommends minimum standards for patient-reported outcome measures used in patient-centered outcomes and comparative effectiveness research. Quality of Life Research, 22(8), 1889–1905.PubMed
14.
go back to reference Calvert, M., et al. (2018). Guidelines for inclusion of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trial protocols: The SPIRIT-PRO extension. JAMA, 319(5), 483–494.PubMed Calvert, M., et al. (2018). Guidelines for inclusion of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trial protocols: The SPIRIT-PRO extension. JAMA, 319(5), 483–494.PubMed
15.
go back to reference Coens, C., et al. (2020). International standards for the analysis of quality-of-life and patient-reported outcome endpoints in cancer randomised controlled trials: Recommendations of the SISAQOL Consortium. The Lancet Oncology, 21(2), e83–e96.PubMed Coens, C., et al. (2020). International standards for the analysis of quality-of-life and patient-reported outcome endpoints in cancer randomised controlled trials: Recommendations of the SISAQOL Consortium. The Lancet Oncology, 21(2), e83–e96.PubMed
16.
go back to reference Calvert, M., et al. (2013). Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in randomized trials: The CONSORT PRO extension. JAMA, 309(8), 814–822.PubMed Calvert, M., et al. (2013). Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in randomized trials: The CONSORT PRO extension. JAMA, 309(8), 814–822.PubMed
17.
go back to reference Snyder, C., et al. (2019). Making a picture worth a thousand numbers: Recommendations for graphically displaying patient-reported outcomes data. Quality of Life Research, 28(2), 345–356.PubMed Snyder, C., et al. (2019). Making a picture worth a thousand numbers: Recommendations for graphically displaying patient-reported outcomes data. Quality of Life Research, 28(2), 345–356.PubMed
18.
go back to reference Wu, A. W., et al. (2014). Clinician's checklist for reading and using an article about patient-reported outcomes. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 89(5), 653–661.PubMed Wu, A. W., et al. (2014). Clinician's checklist for reading and using an article about patient-reported outcomes. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 89(5), 653–661.PubMed
19.
go back to reference EMA. (2016). Appendix 2 to the guideline on the evaluation of anticancer medicinal products in man. The use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in oncology studies. Amsterdam: EMA. EMA. (2016). Appendix 2 to the guideline on the evaluation of anticancer medicinal products in man. The use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in oncology studies. Amsterdam: EMA.
20.
go back to reference US Food and Drug Administration. (2009). Guidance for industry patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Silver Spring: US Food and Drug Administration. US Food and Drug Administration. (2009). Guidance for industry patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Silver Spring: US Food and Drug Administration.
21.
go back to reference Lohr, K. N. (2002). Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: Attributes and review criteria. Quality of Life Research, 11(3), 93–205. Lohr, K. N. (2002). Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: Attributes and review criteria. Quality of Life Research, 11(3), 93–205.
22.
go back to reference Eichenfield, L. F., et al. (2017). Current guidelines for the evaluation and management of atopic dermatitis: A comparison of the Joint Task Force Practice Parameter and American Academy of Dermatology guidelines. The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 139(4s), S49–S57.PubMed Eichenfield, L. F., et al. (2017). Current guidelines for the evaluation and management of atopic dermatitis: A comparison of the Joint Task Force Practice Parameter and American Academy of Dermatology guidelines. The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 139(4s), S49–S57.PubMed
23.
go back to reference Makady, A., et al. (2017). Policies for use of real-world data in health technology assessment (HTA): A comparative study of six HTA agencies. Value Health, 20(4), 520–532.PubMed Makady, A., et al. (2017). Policies for use of real-world data in health technology assessment (HTA): A comparative study of six HTA agencies. Value Health, 20(4), 520–532.PubMed
24.
go back to reference Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108.
25.
go back to reference Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.PubMed Hsieh, H. F., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.PubMed
26.
go back to reference Neuendorf, K. A. (2016). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Neuendorf, K. A. (2016). The content analysis guidebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage.
27.
go back to reference Patrick, D. L., et al. (2011). Content validity–establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO Good Research Practices Task Force report: Part 2–assessing respondent understanding. Value Health, 14(8), 978–988.PubMed Patrick, D. L., et al. (2011). Content validity–establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO Good Research Practices Task Force report: Part 2–assessing respondent understanding. Value Health, 14(8), 978–988.PubMed
28.
go back to reference Patrick, D. L., et al. (2011). Content validity–establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO good research practices task force report: Part 1–eliciting concepts for a new PRO instrument. Value Health, 14(8), 967–977.PubMed Patrick, D. L., et al. (2011). Content validity–establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO good research practices task force report: Part 1–eliciting concepts for a new PRO instrument. Value Health, 14(8), 967–977.PubMed
29.
go back to reference Rothman, M., et al. (2009). Use of existing patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments and their modification: The ISPOR good research practices for evaluating and documenting content validity for the use of existing instruments and their modification PRO task force report. Value Health, 12(8), 1075–1083.PubMed Rothman, M., et al. (2009). Use of existing patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments and their modification: The ISPOR good research practices for evaluating and documenting content validity for the use of existing instruments and their modification PRO task force report. Value Health, 12(8), 1075–1083.PubMed
31.
go back to reference Prinsen, C. A., et al. (2018). COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research, 27(5), 1147–1157.PubMedPubMedCentral Prinsen, C. A., et al. (2018). COSMIN guideline for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research, 27(5), 1147–1157.PubMedPubMedCentral
32.
go back to reference Terwee, C. B., et al. (2018). COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: A Delphi study. Quality of Life Research: AN International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation, 27(5), 1159–1170. Terwee, C. B., et al. (2018). COSMIN methodology for evaluating the content validity of patient-reported outcome measures: A Delphi study. Quality of Life Research: AN International Journal of Quality of Life Aspects of Treatment, Care and Rehabilitation, 27(5), 1159–1170.
33.
go back to reference Mokkink, L. B., et al. (2018). COSMIN risk of bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research, 27(5), 1171–1179.PubMed Mokkink, L. B., et al. (2018). COSMIN risk of bias checklist for systematic reviews of patient-reported outcome measures. Quality of Life Research, 27(5), 1171–1179.PubMed
34.
go back to reference Prinsen, C. A. C., et al. (2016). How to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a “Core Outcome Set”—A practical guideline. Trials, 17(1), 449.PubMedPubMedCentral Prinsen, C. A. C., et al. (2016). How to select outcome measurement instruments for outcomes included in a “Core Outcome Set”—A practical guideline. Trials, 17(1), 449.PubMedPubMedCentral
35.
go back to reference US Department of Health and Human Services. (2018). Patient-focused drug development: Collecting comprehensive and representative input, in draft guidance for industry, food and drug administration staff, and other stakeholders. Washington: US Department of Health and Human Services. US Department of Health and Human Services. (2018). Patient-focused drug development: Collecting comprehensive and representative input, in draft guidance for industry, food and drug administration staff, and other stakeholders. Washington: US Department of Health and Human Services.
36.
go back to reference Valderas, J. M., et al. (2008). Development of EMPRO: A tool for the standardized assessment of patient-reported outcome measures. Value in Health, 11(4), 700–708.PubMed Valderas, J. M., et al. (2008). Development of EMPRO: A tool for the standardized assessment of patient-reported outcome measures. Value in Health, 11(4), 700–708.PubMed
38.
go back to reference Luckett, T., & King, M. T. (2010). Choosing patient-reported outcome measures for cancer clinical research – Practical principles and an algorithm to assist non-specialist researchers. European Journal of Cancer, 46(18), 3149–3157.PubMed Luckett, T., & King, M. T. (2010). Choosing patient-reported outcome measures for cancer clinical research – Practical principles and an algorithm to assist non-specialist researchers. European Journal of Cancer, 46(18), 3149–3157.PubMed
39.
go back to reference Revicki, D., et al. (2008). Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 6, 1102–1109. Revicki, D., et al. (2008). Recommended methods for determining responsiveness and minimally important differences for patient-reported outcomes. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 6, 1102–1109.
40.
go back to reference Mokkink, L. B., et al. (2010). The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: An international Delphi study. Quality of Life Research, 19(4), 539–549.PubMedPubMedCentral Mokkink, L. B., et al. (2010). The COSMIN checklist for assessing the methodological quality of studies on measurement properties of health status measurement instruments: An international Delphi study. Quality of Life Research, 19(4), 539–549.PubMedPubMedCentral
41.
go back to reference Wild, D., Eremenco, S., Mear, I., et al. (2009). 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 & linguistic validation good research practices task force report. Value in Health, 12, 430–440.PubMed Wild, D., Eremenco, S., Mear, I., et al. (2009). 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 & linguistic validation good research practices task force report. Value in Health, 12, 430–440.PubMed
42.
go back to reference Wild, D., et al. (2005). Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: Report of the ISPOR task force for translation and cultural adaptation. Value in Health, 8(2), 94–104.PubMed Wild, D., et al. (2005). Principles of good practice for the translation and cultural adaptation process for patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measures: Report of the ISPOR task force for translation and cultural adaptation. Value in Health, 8(2), 94–104.PubMed
44.
go back to reference Basch, E., et al. (2012). Recommendations for incorporating patient-reported outcomes into clinical comparative effectiveness research in adult oncology. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 30(34), 4249–4255.PubMed Basch, E., et al. (2012). Recommendations for incorporating patient-reported outcomes into clinical comparative effectiveness research in adult oncology. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 30(34), 4249–4255.PubMed
45.
go back to reference Kluetz, P. G., O'Connor, D. J., & Soltys, K. (2018). Incorporating the patient experience into regulatory decision making in the USA, Europe, and Canada. The lancet Oncology, 19(5), e267–e274.PubMed Kluetz, P. G., O'Connor, D. J., & Soltys, K. (2018). Incorporating the patient experience into regulatory decision making in the USA, Europe, and Canada. The lancet Oncology, 19(5), e267–e274.PubMed
46.
go back to reference Mercieca-Bebber, R., et al. (2018). The importance of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials and strategies for future optimization. Patient Related Outcome Measures, 9, 353–367.PubMedPubMedCentral Mercieca-Bebber, R., et al. (2018). The importance of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials and strategies for future optimization. Patient Related Outcome Measures, 9, 353–367.PubMedPubMedCentral
48.
go back to reference European Medicines Agency. (2005). Reflection paper on the regulatory guidance for the use of health-related quality of life measures in the evaluation of medicinal products. Amsterdam: European Medicines Agency. European Medicines Agency. (2005). Reflection paper on the regulatory guidance for the use of health-related quality of life measures in the evaluation of medicinal products. Amsterdam: European Medicines Agency.
49.
go back to reference Aaronson, N. K., et al. (1991). Quality of life research in oncology. Past achievements and future priorities. Cancer, 67(S3), 839–843.PubMed Aaronson, N. K., et al. (1991). Quality of life research in oncology. Past achievements and future priorities. Cancer, 67(S3), 839–843.PubMed
50.
go back to reference European Medicines Agency. (2018). Guideline on the development of new medicinal products for the treatment of Crohn’s Disease. Amsterdam: European Medicines Agency. European Medicines Agency. (2018). Guideline on the development of new medicinal products for the treatment of Crohn’s Disease. Amsterdam: European Medicines Agency.
51.
go back to reference European Medicines Agency. (2018). EMA regulatory science to 2025. Amsterdam: European Medicines Agency. European Medicines Agency. (2018). EMA regulatory science to 2025. Amsterdam: European Medicines Agency.
Metagegevens
Titel
International guidance on the selection of patient-reported outcome measures in clinical trials: a review
Auteurs
Norah L. Crossnohere
Michael Brundage
Melanie J. Calvert
Madeleine King
Bryce B. Reeve
Elissa Thorner
Albert W. Wu
Claire Snyder
Publicatiedatum
14-09-2020
Uitgeverij
Springer International Publishing
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 1/2021
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-020-02625-z

Andere artikelen Uitgave 1/2021

Quality of Life Research 1/2021 Naar de uitgave