Timing is everything: The importance of patient-reported outcome assessment frequency when characterizing symptomatic adverse events

Effects of a change in recall period on reporting severe symptoms: an analysis of a pragmatic multisite trial

BACKGROUND

Optimal methods for deploying electronic patient-reported outcomes to manage symptoms in routine oncologic practice remain uncertain. The electronic symptom management (eSyM) program asks chemotherapy and surgery patients to self-report 12 common symptoms regularly. Feedback from nurses and patients led to changing the recall period from the past 7 days to the past 24 hours.

METHODS

Using questionnaires submitted during the 16 weeks surrounding the recall period change, we assessed the likelihood of reporting severe or moderate and severe symptoms across 12 common symptoms and separately for the 5 most prevalent symptoms. Interrupted time-series analyses modeled the effects of the change using generalized linear mixed-effects models. Surgery and chemotherapy cohorts were analyzed separately. Study-wide effects were estimated using a meta-analysis method.

RESULTS

In total, 1692 patients from 6 institutions submitted 7823 eSyM assessments during the 16 weeks surrounding the recall period change. Shortening the recall period was associated with lower odds of severe symptom reporting in the surgery cohort (odds ratio = 0.65, 95% confidence interval = 0.46 to 0.93; P = .02) and lower odds of moderate and severe symptom reporting in the chemotherapy cohort (odds ratio = 0.83, 95% confidence interval = 0.71 to 0.97; P = .02). Among the most prevalent symptoms, 24-hour recall was associated with a lower rate of reporting postoperative constipation but no differences in reporting rates for other symptoms.

CONCLUSION

A shorter recall period was associated with a reduction in the proportion of patients reporting moderate-severe symptoms. The optimal recall period may vary depending on whether electronic patient-reported outcomes are collected for active symptom management, as a clinical trial endpoint, or another purpose. ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT03850912.

[Special issue PRO] A demonstration of estimands and sensitivity analyses for time-to-deterioration of patient reported outcomes

In oncology trials, health-related quality of life (HRQoL), specifically patient-reported symptom burden and functional status, can support the interpretation of survival endpoints, such as progression-free survival. However, applying time-to-event endpoints to patient-reported outcomes (PRO) data is challenging. For example, in time-to-deterioration analyses clinical events such as disease progression are common in many settings and are often handled through censoring the patient at the time of occurrence; however, disease progression and HRQoL are often related leading to informative censoring. Special consideration to the definition of events and intercurrent events (ICEs) is necessary. In this work, we demonstrate time-to-deterioration of PRO estimands and sensitivity analyses to answer research questions using composite, hypothetical, and treatment policy strategies applied to a single endpoint of disease-related symptoms. Multiple imputation methods under both the missing-at-random and missing-not-at-random assumptions are used as sensitivity analyses of primary estimands. Hazard ratios ranged from 0.52 to 0.66 over all the estimands and sensitivity analyses modeling a robust treatment effect favoring the treatment in time to disease symptom deterioration or death. Differences in the estimands include how people who experience disease progression or discontinue the randomized treatment due to AEs are accounted for in the analysis. We use the estimand framework to define interpretable and principled approaches for different time-to-deterioration research questions and provide practical recommendations. Reporting the proportions of patient events and patient censoring by reason helps understand the mechanisms that drive the results, allowing for optimal interpretation.

[Special issue PRO] Considering endpoints for comparative tolerability of cancer treatments using patient report given the estimand framework

Regulatory agencies are advancing the use of systematic approaches to collect patient experience data, including patient-reported outcomes (PROs), in cancer clinical trials to inform regulatory decision-making. Due in part to clinician under-reporting of symptomatic adverse events, there is a growing recognition that evaluation of cancer treatment tolerability should include the patient experience, both in terms of the overall side effect impact and symptomatic adverse events. Methodologies around implementation, analysis, and interpretation of "patient" reported tolerability are under development, and current approaches are largely descriptive. There is robust guidance for use of PROs as efficacy endpoints to compare cancer treatments, but it is unclear to what extent this can be relied-upon to develop tolerability endpoints. An important consideration when developing endpoints to compare tolerability between treatments is the linkage of trial design, objectives, and statistical analysis. Despite interest in and frequent collection of PRO data in oncology trials, heterogeneity in analyses and unclear PRO objectives mean that design, objectives, and analysis may not be aligned, posing substantial challenges for the interpretation of results. The recent ICH E9 (R1) estimand framework represents an opportunity to help address these challenges. Efforts to apply the estimand framework in the context of PROs have primarily focused on efficacy outcomes. In this paper, we discuss considerations for comparing the patient-reported tolerability of different treatments in an oncology trial context.

Guidelines for the Use and Reporting of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Multiple Myeloma Clinical Trials

In the era of personalized medicine there is an increasing need for the assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) to become a standard of patient care. Patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) are important in assessing significant and meaningful changes as a result of an intervention based on a patient's own perspective. It is well established that active multiple myeloma (MM) can be characterized by a high burden of disease and treatment-related symptoms, with considerable worsening of quality of life (QoL). In general, and over the past decade, the focus has shifted to obtaining the most durable remissions with the best QoL as primary goals for MM treatment. Patients place considerable value on their QoL and communicating about QoL data prior to treatment decisions allows them to make informed treatment choices. Consequently, optimization of QoL of patients with MM is an important therapeutic goal and the incorporation of PROs into clinical trials has the potential of improving treatment outcomes. In this regard, guidance for the use and reporting of PROMs in MM in clinical trials is warranted. Under the auspices of the European Hematology Association, evidence-based guidelines for the use and reporting of PROs in patients with MM have been developed according to the EHA's core Guidelines Development Methodology. This document provides general considerations for the choice of PROMs in MM clinical trials as well as a series of recommendations covering a selection of PROMs in MM clinical trials; the mode of administration; timing of assessments; strategies to minimize missing data; sample size calculation; reporting of results; and interpretation of results.

International Society for Quality of Life Research commentary on the US Food and Drug Administration draft guidance for industry on core patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials

In June 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released a draft guidance for industry on core patient-reported outcomes (PROs) and related considerations for instrument selection and trial design in registrational cancer clinical trials, building on prior communications about the use of PROs to assess efficacy and tolerability in oncology drug development. The International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) Standards and Best Practices Committee led an initiative to draft a commentary about the guidance, focusing on its positive aspects and areas that would benefit from additional clarification and consideration. For comprehensiveness, the authors reviewed existing public comments on the draft guidance, and the commentary underwent a thorough review process through three ISOQOL Special Interest Groups (Psychometrics, Clinical Practice, and Regulatory and Health Technology Assessment Engagement) followed by the ISOQOL Board. The goal of this commentary is to situate this new and relevant guidance document within the context of recent regulatory efforts on PROs and highlight areas in which further work may ultimately benefit the field.