The Potential Role of Individual-Level Benefit-Risk Assessment in Treatment Decision Making: A DIA Study Endpoints Community Workstream

Key Opinion Leaders' Interviews to Inform the Future of Benefit-Risk Planning in the Medical Total Product Life Cycle of Global Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Organizations

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Key opinion leader (KOL) interviews were conducted by the Benefit-Risk Assessment Planning (BRAP) Taskforce to seek expert opinion mainly from industry and regulatory bodies, about the current status and future direction of benefit-risk assessment (BRA) planning in the lifecycle of medical product development. The findings from these interviews are intended to help communication concerning planning for BRA between industry and regulators and shape future guidance.

METHODS

Key opinion leader interviews consisted of 5 questions related to BRA planning, which were administered to volunteers (mainly clinicians and statisticians) within a pool of experienced pharmaceutical and medical device professionals representing academia, industry, regulatory agencies and a patient group. The interviewees' responses to the 5 questions were summarized. To analyze the qualitative data, a Coding System was developed to label themes arising from the interviews. The key findings from the interviews were summarized into a Master Template. A quantitative analysis based on descriptive statistics was also conducted.

RESULTS

Of the 27 interviewees, there were 11 professionals from regulatory agencies, 11 from industry, 4 from academia and 1 from a patient advocacy group. Key findings based on the comments provided by 48% of the interviewees indicated the need of incorporating BRA into other (e.g., existing) processes with the importance of alignment between processes being stressed in the comments provided by 59% of the interviewees. Commencing BRA early in the product lifecycle was emphasized in comments provided by 44% of the interviewees. Among other needs identified were an appropriate contextualization of benefits and risks (based on comments provided by 41% of interviewees) through adoption of an integrated approach with structured support by regulatory agencies and a need for understanding the audience with better communication of benefit-risk (BR) among all stakeholders (based on comments provided by 44% of the interviewees). Almost all comments provided by interviewees (96%) highlighted the importance of utilizing patient experience/preference to guide new product development and BRA. Comments provided by 74% of the interviewees expressed the need to understand patient tolerance for risk and trade-offs, with a majority (78%) of interviewees highlighting how to gather information, and 59% stressing the need for the selection and development of appropriate methodologies as important considerations for enhancing the quality and relevance of the data collected from patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Interviewees indicated that BRA should commence early in the medical product development and inform decision-making throughout the product lifecycle. Better planning and integration of BRA into existing processes within industry would be valuable. The importance of incorporating the patient voice into BRA and medical product development was emphasized. Other key findings from the KOL interviews included a need for improved communication of BR information, and establishment of methodologies for performing BRA and soliciting patient input.

Development and validation of the patient-reported outcome scale for chronic kidney disease

PURPOSE

The patient-reported outcomes (PROs) measuring patient's experience and perception of disease are important components of approach to care. However, no tools are available to assess the PROs of chronic kidney disease (CKD). This study aims to develop and verify a PROs scale to evaluate clinical outcomes in CKD patients.

METHODS

The theoretical structure model and original item pool were formed through a literature review, patient interviews and references to relevant scales. The Delphi method, classical test theory methods and item response theory method were used to select items and adjust dimensions to form the final scale. Altogether 360 CKD patients were recruited through convenience sampling. CKD-PROs could be evaluated from four aspects, namely reliability, content validity, construct validity, responsibility, and feasibility.

RESULTS

The CKD-PROs scale covers 4 domains, including the physiological, psychological, social, and therapeutic domain, and 12 dimensions, 54 items. The Cronbach's α is 0.939, the split reliability coefficient is 0.945, and the correlation of the scores each item and domain's coefficients range from 0.413 to 0.669. The results of structure validity, content validity and reactivity showed that the multidimensional measurement of the scale met professional expectations. The recovery rate and effective rate of the scale were over 99%.

CONCLUSION

The CKD-PROs scale has great reliability, validity, reactivity, acceptability and is capable of being used as one of the evaluation tools for the clinical outcomes of CKD patients.

A Structured Benefit-Risk Assessment Operating Model for Investigational Medicinal Products in the Pharmaceutical Industry

Robust and transparent formal benefit-risk (BR) analyses for medicinal products represent a means to better understand the appropriate use of medicinal products, and to maximize their value to prescribers and patients. Despite regulatory and social imperatives to conduct structured BR (sBR) assessments, and the availability of a plethora of methodological tools, there exists large variability in the uptake and execution of sBR assessments among pharmaceutical companies. As such, in this paper we present an sBR assessment framework developed and implemented within a large global pharmaceutical company that aims to guide the systematic assessment of BR across the continuum of drug development activities, from first-time-in-human studies through to regulatory submission. We define and emphasize the concepts of Key Clinical Benefits and Key Safety Risks as the foundation for BR analysis. Furthermore, we define and foundationally employ the concepts of sBR and a Core Company BR position as the key elements for our BR framework. We outline 3 simple stages for how to perform the fundamentals of an sBR analysis, along with an emphasis on the weighting of Key Clinical Benefits and Key Safety Risks, and a focus on any surrounding uncertainties. Additionally, we clarify existing definitions to differentiate descriptive, semi-quantitative, and fully quantitative BR methodologies. By presenting our framework, we wish to stimulate productive conversation between industry peers and health authorities regarding best practice in the BR field. This paper may also help facilitate the pragmatic implementation of sBR methodologies for organizations without an established framework for such assessments.

Bringing the patient's perspectives forward in drug development and health-care evaluation

INTRODUCTION

For many years, psychologists and other social scientists have been pushing for the individual patient's perspective - priorities, needs, feelings, and functioning - to be incorporated into drug development. This is usually achieved through the use of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in clinical trials.

AREAS COVERED

This paper discusses some key issues in the use of PROM data as the sole method of generating information about the patient's perspective and outlines the relevance of narrative evidence to enhance understanding and interpretation of PROM data.

EXPERT OPINION

The development and use of PROMs situates them at the vertex of two very different trends in medicine: patient-centered care and standardization. Indeed, the application of PROMs - which pull in the direction of standardization - results in a narrow conception of evidence by overriding the subjectivity of individual experiences, beliefs, and judgments. Without additional context, PROM data cannot easily support individual patient-level care. When collected systematically and with an interpretive phenomenological approach, narrative data can contain valuable information about the patient experience that numerical ratings from PRO measures do not capture.

Benefit-risk assessment and reporting in clinical trials of chronic pain treatments: IMMPACT recommendations

ABSTRACT

Chronic pain clinical trials have historically assessed benefit and risk outcomes separately. However, a growing body of research suggests that a composite metric that accounts for benefit and risk in relation to each other can provide valuable insights into the effects of different treatments. Researchers and regulators have developed a variety of benefit-risk composite metrics, although the extent to which these methods apply to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of chronic pain has not been evaluated in the published literature. This article was motivated by an Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials consensus meeting and is based on the expert opinion of those who attended. In addition, a review of the benefit-risk assessment tools used in published chronic pain RCTs or highlighted by key professional organizations (ie, Cochrane, European Medicines Agency, Outcome Measures in Rheumatology, and U.S. Food and Drug Administration) was completed. Overall, the review found that benefit-risk metrics are not commonly used in RCTs of chronic pain despite the availability of published methods. A primary recommendation is that composite metrics of benefit-risk should be combined at the level of the individual patient, when possible, in addition to the benefit-risk assessment at the treatment group level. Both levels of analysis (individual and group) can provide valuable insights into the relationship between benefits and risks associated with specific treatments across different patient subpopulations. The systematic assessment of benefit-risk in clinical trials has the potential to enhance the clinical meaningfulness of RCT results.

Adjuvant radiotherapy and stereotactic radiosurgery in grade 3 meningiomas - a systematic review and meta-analysis

Malignant meningioma is a rare, aggressive form of meningioma. Radiation is commonly included in treatment guidelines either as adjuvant radiotherapy (RT) or stereotactic radiosurgery (SRS). Nevertheless, the treatment recommendations are not supported by prospective comparative trials and systematical, critical evaluation of supportive evidence is lacking. For this systematic review, studies analyzing the effectiveness of adjuvant RT and SRS in grade 3 (gr. 3) meningioma were reviewed. Thirty studies met the inclusion criteria for qualitative synthesis, and 6 studies were assessed in quantitative analysis. In quantitative analysis, the weighted average of hazard ratios for adjuvant RT in univariate analyses of overall survival (OS) was 0.55 (CI: 0.41; 0.69). The median 5-year OS after adjuvant RT in gr. 3 meningiomas was 56.3%, and the median OS ranged from 24 to 80 months for patients treated with adjuvant RT versus 13 to 41.2 months in patients not treated. For SRS, the 3-year progression free survival was 0% in one study and 57% in another. The 2-year OS ranged from 25 to 75% in 2 studies. The quality of evidence was rated as "very low" in 14 studies analyzed, and considerable allocation bias was detected. Treatment toxicity was reported in 47% of the studies. The severity, according to the CTCAE, ranged from grades I-V and 5.3 to 100% of patients experienced complications. Adjuvant RT is usually considered standard of care for WHO grade 3 meningiomas, although supporting evidence was of low quality. Better evidence from registries and prospective trials can improve the evidence base for adjuvant fractionated RT in malignant meningiomas.

Patient Global Impression of Benefit-Risk (PGI-BR): Incorporating Patients' Views of Clinical Benefit-Risk into Assessment of New Medicines

INTRODUCTION

There is a need to understand how patients assess perceived benefits and risks of treatments.

OBJECTIVES

The study aimed to (i) elucidate how patients evaluate treatment experiences and (ii) develop a brief patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument for use across disease areas for perceived benefit-risk evaluation of a new medicine in a clinical trial setting.

METHODS

Concepts relating to patient-perceived benefit-risk were identified from literature reviews and qualitative concept elicitation interviews with patients across a variety of primary medical conditions. Draft instrument items were developed from identified concepts and evaluated for clarity, relevance and appropriateness of response options in cognitive interviews. Items were iteratively revised to address patient feedback.

RESULTS

Qualitative interviews were conducted with 47 patients (primary condition: 20 oncological, 12 respiratory, 10 metabolic, 5 cardiovascular), of whom 32 contributed to concept elicitation and 42 to cognitive debriefing. Elicited concepts could be grouped into four medication-related categories: effectiveness of treatment, burden of side effects, convenience of use and overall acceptance/satisfaction. Cost, trial experience and altruism were additional concept categories unrelated to medication. The final instrument contained one item each on the medication's effectiveness, side effects and convenience, and an overall item capturing patient benefit-risk assessment. An upfront question was included to separate out non-medication aspects of patients' experiences.

CONCLUSION

We developed a brief PRO instrument, the Patient Global Impression of Benefit-Risk (PGI-BR), which can be applied across disease areas to assess patient views of benefit-risk of a new medicine in the clinical trial setting.

Development of a preliminary conceptual model of the patient experience of chronic kidney disease: a targeted literature review and analysis

Background

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments should capture the experiences of disease and treatment that patients consider most important in order to inform patient-centred care and product development. The aim of this study was to develop a preliminary conceptual model of patient experience in chronic kidney disease (CKD) based on a targeted literature review and to characterize existing PRO instruments used in CKD.

Methods

PubMed, EMBASE and Cochrane databases and recent society meetings were searched for publications reporting signs/symptoms and life impacts of CKD. Concepts identified in the literature review were used to develop a preliminary conceptual model of patient experience of CKD, overall, and within patient subpopulations of differing CKD causes, severities and complications. PRO instruments, identified from PRO databases, CKD literature and CKD clinical trials, were assessed for content validity, psychometric strength and coverage of concepts in the literature review.

Results

In total, 100 publications met criteria for analysis; 56 signs/symptoms and 37 life impacts of CKD were identified from these sources. The most frequently mentioned signs/symptoms were pain/discomfort (57% of publications) and tiredness/low energy/lethargy/fatigue (42%); the most commonly reported life impacts were anxiety/depression (49%) and decrements in physical functioning (43%). Signs/symptoms and life impacts varied across the subpopulations and were more frequent at advanced CKD stages. The preliminary conceptual model grouped signs/symptoms into seven domains (pain/discomfort; energy/fatigue; sleep-related; gastrointestinal-related; urinary-related; skin−/hair−/nails-related; and other) and life impacts into six domains (psychological/emotional strain; cognitive impairment; dietary habit disruption; physical function decrements; interference with social relationships; and other). Eleven PRO instruments were considered to be promising for use in CKD; all had limitations.

Conclusions

Although preliminary, the proposed conceptual model highlights key PROs for people with CKD and is intended to spur development of more tailored PRO instruments to assess these concepts.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12882-021-02440-9.

Understanding the patient experience in hepatocellular carcinoma: a qualitative patient interview study

Purpose

This study aimed to elucidate the patient experience of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) to guide patient-centered outcome measurement in drug development.

Methods

Patients with HCC participated in qualitative interviews to elicit disease-related signs/symptoms and impacts, using discussion guides developed from literature searches and discussions with oncologists. Interview participants rated the disturbance of their experiences (0–10 scale). A conceptual model was developed and mapped against patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments identified from database reviews.

Results

Interviews were conducted with 25 individuals with HCC (68% were men; median age: 63 years; 12% Barcelona clinic liver cancer (BCLC) stage A; 32% stage B; and 56% stage C) in the USA. Fifty-one HCC-related concepts were identified from the interviews and were grouped into eight sign/symptom categories (eating behavior/weight changes; extremities [arms, legs]; fatigue and strength; gastrointestinal; pain; sensory; skin; other) and four impact categories (emotional; physical; cognitive function; other) for the conceptual model. The most prevalent and disturbing experiences across the disease stages were fatigue/lack of energy and emotional impacts such as frustration, fear, and depression. Abdominal pain and skin-related issues were particularly common and disturbing in individuals with HCC stage C. The EORTC QLQ-C30 and HCC18 were identified as commonly used PRO instruments in HCC studies and captured the relevant signs/symptoms associated with the patient experience.

Conclusion

Patients with HCC reported a range of signs/symptoms and impacts that negatively affect daily functioning and quality of life. Including PRO measures in HCC clinical trials can provide meaningful patient perspectives during drug development.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11136-021-02903-4.

Data Mining of Free-Text Responses: An Innovative Approach to Analyzing Patient Perspectives on Treatment for Chronic Rhinosinusitis with Nasal Polyps in a Phase IIa Proof-of-Concept Study for Dupilumab

PURPOSE

Patient perspective is an important and increasingly sought-after complement to clinical assessment. The aim of this study was to transcribe individual patients' experience of treatment in a dupilumab clinical trial through free-text responses with analysis using natural language processing (NLP) to obtain the unique perspective of patients on disease impact and unmet needs with existing treatment to inform future trial design.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP) who were enrolled in a Phase IIa randomized controlled trial comparing dupilumab with placebo (NCT01920893) were invited to complete a self-assessment of treatment (SAT) tool at the end of treatment, asking, "What is your opinion on the treatment you had during the trial? What did you like or dislike about the treatment?" Free-text responses were analyzed for the overall cohort and according to treatment assignment using natural language processing including sentiment scoring. In a mixed-methods approach, quantitative patient-reported outcome (PRO) results were utilized to complement the qualitative analysis of free-text responses.

RESULTS

Of 60 patients enrolled in the study, 43 (71.6%) completed the SAT and responses from 37 patients were analyzed (placebo, n = 16; dupilumab, n = 21). Word analyses showed that the most common words were "smell," "improve," "staff," "great," "time," and "good." Across the whole cohort, "smell" was the most common symptom-related word. The words "smell" and "experience" were more likely to occur in patients treated with dupilumab. Patients treated with dupilumab also had more positive sentiment in their SAT responses than those who received placebo. The results from this qualitative analysis were reflected in quantitative PRO results.

CONCLUSION

"Smell" was important to patients with CRSwNP, highlighting its importance as a patient-centric efficacy outcome measure in the context of clinical trials in CRSwNP.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01920893. Registered 12 August 2013, https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01920893.

Development and First Use of the Patient's Qualitative Assessment of Treatment (PQAT) Questionnaire in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus to Explore Individualised Benefit-Harm of Drugs Received During Clinical Studies

Introduction

Individualised benefit–harm assessments can help identify patient-perceived benefits and harms of a treatment, and associated trade-offs that may influence patients’ willingness to use a treatment. This research presents the first use of a patient-reported outcome measure designed to assess patient-perceived benefits and disadvantages of drugs received during clinical studies.

Methods

The Patient’s Qualitative Assessment of Treatment (PQAT) was developed in English and cognitively tested with US (n = 4) and Canadian (n = 3) patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). The revised version of the PQAT comprises three qualitative open-ended questions focused on the benefits and disadvantages of treatment and reasons why patients would choose to continue/discontinue treatment. A final quantitative question asks patients to evaluate the balance between benefits and disadvantages using a 7-point scale. The revised version of the questionnaire was administered as an exploratory endpoint in a phase II clinical trial for a new injectable treatment for T2DM. Qualitative data were analysed using thematic analysis, and relationships between qualitative and quantitative data were identified.

Results

Patient-reported benefits of treatment administered during the clinical trial included clinical markers of efficacy and subjective markers. Disadvantages reported by patients were mainly related to drug adverse effects or to the mode of administration. Of the 57 patients completing the PQAT, 70.2% reported being willing to continue treatment, with 59.6% reporting that the benefits outweighed the disadvantages. The reported benefits of feeling better and improved energy levels were more likely to be associated with a more positive ratio (70% and 71.4%, respectively), while the disadvantages of fatigue, headaches, and stomach pain were associated with a negative ratio and patients not being willing to continue the treatment.

Conclusions

The PQAT is a unique patient-reported outcome tool designed to aid understanding patients’ real experience of benefits and disadvantages of a treatment. It combines the richness of qualitative data with quantitative data—information valuable for various stakeholders to make well-informed treatment decisions.

Trial Registration

ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT02973321.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40264-019-00877-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A Bayesian approach for individual-level drug benefit-risk assessment

In existing benefit-risk assessment (BRA) methods, benefit and risk criteria are usually identified and defined separately based on aggregated clinical data and therefore ignore the individual-level differences as well as the association among the criteria. We proposed a Bayesian multicriteria decision-making method for BRA of drugs using individual-level data. We used a multidimensional latent trait model to account for the heterogeneity of treatment effects with latent variables introducing the dependencies among outcomes. We then applied the stochastic multicriteria acceptability analysis approach for BRA incorporating imprecise and heterogeneous patient preference information. We adopted an efficient Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm when implementing the proposed method. We applied our method to a case study to illustrate how individual-level benefit-risk profiles could inform decision-making.