Swipe om te navigeren naar een ander artikel
Interpretation guidelines are needed for patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures’ change scores to evaluate efficacy of an intervention and to communicate PRO results to regulators, patients, physicians, and providers. The 2009 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Guidance for Industry Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims (hereafter referred to as the final FDA PRO Guidance) provides some recommendations for the interpretation of change in PRO scores as evidence of treatment efficacy.
This article reviews the evolution of the methods and the terminology used to describe and aid in the communication of meaningful PRO change score thresholds.
Anchor- and distribution-based methods have played important roles, and the FDA has recently stressed the importance of cross-sectional patient global assessments of concept as anchor-based methods for estimation of the responder definition, which describes an individual-level treatment benefit. The final FDA PRO Guidance proposes the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of responses as a useful method to depict the effect of treatments across the study population.
While CDFs serve an important role, they should not be a replacement for the careful investigation of a PRO’s relevant responder definition using anchor-based methods and providing stakeholders with a relevant threshold for the interpretation of change over time.
Log in om toegang te krijgen
Met onderstaand(e) abonnement(en) heeft u direct toegang:
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). Available at: http://www.pcori.org/home.html.
King, M. T. (2011). A point of minimal important difference (MID): A critique of terminology and methods. Expert review of pharmacoeconomics & outcomes research, 11(2), 171–184. CrossRef
Food and Drug Administration. (2009). Guidance for industry on patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Federal Register, 74(235), 65132–65133.
Burke, L. B., & Trenacosti, A. M. (2010). Interpretation of PRO trial results to support FDA labelling claims: the regulator perspective. International Society for Pharmacoecomomics and Outcomes Research 15th Annual International Meeting. Atlanta: GA.
Guyatt, G. H., Berman, L. B., & Townsend, M. (1987). Long-term outcome after respiratory rehabilitation. Canadian Medical Association Journal, 137(12), 1089–1095. PubMed
Sloan, J. A., Aaronson, N., Cappelleri, J. C., Fairclough, D. L., & Varricchio, C. (2002). Assessing the clinical significance of single items relative to summated scores. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 77(5), 479–487. PubMed
Frost, M. H., Bonomi, A. E., Ferrans, C. E., Wong, G. Y., & Hays, R. D. (2002). Patient, clinician, and population perspectives on determining the clinical significance of quality-of-life scores. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 77(5), 488–494. PubMed
Food and Drug Administration. (2006). Draft guidance for industry on patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Federal Register, 71(23), 5862–5863.
Wyrwich, K., Harnam, N., Revicki, D. A., Locklear, J. C., Svedsater, H., & Endicott, J. (2009). Assessing health-related quality of life in generalized anxiety disorder using the Quality Of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire. International Clinical Psychopharmacology, 24(6), 289–295. PubMedCrossRef
Kosinski, M., Zhao, S. Z., Dedhiya, S., Osterhaus, J. T., & Ware, J. E., Jr. (2000). Determining minimally important changes in generic and disease-specific health-related quality of life questionnaires in clinical trials of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 43(7), 1478–1487. PubMedCrossRef
Eton, D. T., Cella, D., Yost, K. J., Yount, S. E., Peterman, A. H., Neuberg, D. S., et al. (2004). A combination of distribution- and anchor-based approaches determined minimally important differences (MIDs) for four endpoints in a breast cancer scale. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 57(9), 898–910. PubMedCrossRef
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Liang, M. H. (1995). Evaluating measurement responsiveness. Journal of Rheumatology, 22(6), 1191–1192. PubMed
Norman, G. R., Sloan, J. A., & Wyrwich, K. W. (2003). Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: The remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Medical Care, 41(5), 582–592. PubMed
Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Cella, D., Eton, D. T., Fairclough, D. L., Bonomi, P., Heyes, A. E., Silberman, C., et al. (2002). What is a clinically meaningful change on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) Questionnaire? Results from Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Study 5592. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 55(3), 285–295. PubMedCrossRef
Yost, K. J., Cella, D., Chawla, A., Holmgren, E., Eton, D. T., Ayanian, J. Z., et al. (2005). Minimally important differences were estimated for the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal (FACT-C) instrument using a combination of distribution- and anchor-based approaches. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 58(12), 1241–1251. PubMedCrossRef
ARICEPT Oral Solution (Donepezil Hydrochloride) [approval label]. Available at: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2004/21719lbl.pdf.
von Essen, L. (2004). Proxy ratings of patient quality of life–factors related to patient-proxy agreement. Acta Oncologica, 43(3), 229–234. CrossRef
- Methods for interpreting change over time in patient-reported outcome measures
K. W. Wyrwich
J. M. Norquist
W. R. Lenderking
the Industry Advisory Committee of International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL)
- Springer Netherlands