A review of patient-reported outcomes used for regulatory approval of oncology medicinal products in the European Union between 2017 and 2020

Practical Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Chronic Kidney Disease-Associated Pruritus

Regulatory and clinical stakeholders are increasingly advocating for the use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures; however, the use of PROs is still not widespread. Patient reports are often the best ways to diagnose and monitor the effect of treatment on symptoms when the symptoms are subjective, as with pruritus. While many PRO tools are available to assess the severity of pruritus and its impact on quality of life (e.g., sleep), these are not used in a consistent manner and their results may not translate into clinical action. In this article, we present an introduction to PROs and their use in the assessment of chronic kidney disease-associated pruritus, as well as a practical guide to some of the PRO tools currently available, to empower all members of the nephrology patient care team to use these tools appropriately for the benefit of the patient.

Leveraging patient experience data to guide medicines development, regulation, access decisions and clinical care in the EU

Patient experience data (PED), provided by patients/their carers without interpretation by clinicians, directly capture what matters more to patients on their medical condition, treatment and impact of healthcare. PED can be collected through different methodologies and these need to be robust and validated for its intended use. Medicine regulators are increasingly encouraging stakeholders to generate, collect and submit PED to support both scientific advice in development programs and regulatory decisions on the approval and use of these medicines. This article reviews the existing definitions and types of PED and demonstrate the potential for use in different settings of medicines' life cycle, focusing on Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) and Patient Preferences (PP). Furthermore, it addresses some challenges and opportunities, alluding to important regulatory guidance that has been published, methodological aspects and digitalization, highlighting the lack of guidance as a key hurdle to achieve more systematic inclusion of PED in regulatory submissions. In addition, the article discusses opportunities at European and global level that could be implemented to leverage PED use. New digital tools that allow patients to collect PED in real time could also contribute to these advances, but it is equally important not to overlook the challenges they entail. The numerous and relevant initiatives being developed by various stakeholders in this field, including regulators, show their confidence in PED's value and create an ideal moment to address challenges and consolidate PED use across medicines' life cycle.

Outcome prioritization and preferences among older adults with cancer starting chemotherapy in a randomized clinical trial

INTRODUCTION

Older adults with cancer facing competing treatments must prioritize between various outcomes. This study assessed health outcome prioritization among older adults with cancer starting chemotherapy.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of a randomized trial addressing vulnerabilities in older adults with cancer. Patients completed three validated outcome prioritization tools: 1) Health Outcomes Tool: prioritizes outcomes (survival, independence, symptoms) using a visual analog scale; 2) Now vs. Later Tool: rates the importance of quality of life at three times-today versus 1 or 5 years in the future; and 3) Attitude Scale: rates agreement with outcome-related statements. The authors measured the proportion of patients prioritizing various outcomes and evaluated their characteristics.

RESULTS

A total of 219 patients (median [range] age 71 [65-88], 68% with metastatic disease) were included. On the Health Outcomes Tool, 60.7% prioritized survival over other outcomes. Having localized disease was associated with choosing survival as top priority. On the Now vs. Later Tool, 50% gave equal importance to current versus future quality of life. On the Attitude Scale, 53.4% disagreed with the statement "the most important thing to me is living as long as I can, no matter what my quality of life is"; and 82.2% agreed with the statement "it is more important to me to maintain my thinking ability than to live as long as possible".

CONCLUSION

Although survival was the top priority for most participants, some older individuals with cancer prioritize other outcomes, such as cognition and function. Clinicians should elicit patient-defined priorities and include them in decision-making.

Adverse Event Signal Detection Using Patients' Concerns in Pharmaceutical Care Records: Evaluation of Deep Learning Models

BACKGROUND

Early detection of adverse events and their management are crucial to improving anticancer treatment outcomes, and listening to patients' subjective opinions (patients' voices) can make a major contribution to improving safety management. Recent progress in deep learning technologies has enabled various new approaches for the evaluation of safety-related events based on patient-generated text data, but few studies have focused on the improvement of real-time safety monitoring for individual patients. In addition, no study has yet been performed to validate deep learning models for screening patients' narratives for clinically important adverse event signals that require medical intervention. In our previous work, novel deep learning models have been developed to detect adverse event signals for hand-foot syndrome or adverse events limiting patients' daily lives from the authored narratives of patients with cancer, aiming ultimately to use them as safety monitoring support tools for individual patients.

OBJECTIVE

This study was designed to evaluate whether our deep learning models can screen clinically important adverse event signals that require intervention by health care professionals. The applicability of our deep learning models to data on patients' concerns at pharmacies was also assessed.

METHODS

Pharmaceutical care records at community pharmacies were used for the evaluation of our deep learning models. The records followed the SOAP format, consisting of subjective (S), objective (O), assessment (A), and plan (P) columns. Because of the unique combination of patients' concerns in the S column and the professional records of the pharmacists, this was considered a suitable data for the present purpose. Our deep learning models were applied to the S records of patients with cancer, and the extracted adverse event signals were assessed in relation to medical actions and prescribed drugs.

RESULTS

From 30,784 S records of 2479 patients with at least 1 prescription of anticancer drugs, our deep learning models extracted true adverse event signals with more than 80% accuracy for both hand-foot syndrome (n=152, 91%) and adverse events limiting patients' daily lives (n=157, 80.1%). The deep learning models were also able to screen adverse event signals that require medical intervention by health care providers. The extracted adverse event signals could reflect the side effects of anticancer drugs used by the patients based on analysis of prescribed anticancer drugs. "Pain or numbness" (n=57, 36.3%), "fever" (n=46, 29.3%), and "nausea" (n=40, 25.5%) were common symptoms out of the true adverse event signals identified by the model for adverse events limiting patients' daily lives.

CONCLUSIONS

Our deep learning models were able to screen clinically important adverse event signals that require intervention for symptoms. It was also confirmed that these deep learning models could be applied to patients' subjective information recorded in pharmaceutical care records accumulated during pharmacists' daily work.

Perceptions regarding the concept and definition of patient-reported outcomes among healthcare stakeholders in Japan with relation to quality of life: a cross-sectional study

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are frequently used in a variety of settings, including clinical trials and clinical practice. The definition of PRO and quality of life (QOL) and their relationship have been concluded through discussions among experts that has been the premise of PRO guidelines are not clearly stated in the guidelines. Therefore, the definition of PRO, especially in relation to QOL, is sometimes explained simply, as "PRO includes QOL," but this complicated matters. This study investigated the perceptions of PRO among various stakeholders (including patients and their families, the industry, clinicians, regulatory or health technology assessment personnel, and academic researchers) in Japan to clarify its definitions and that of QOL, including their relationship.We conducted a two-step survey: a qualitative interview survey and a web-based survey to ensure the validity of the survey. During the interviews, eight stakeholders described their perceptions and thoughts on PRO and its relationship to QOL, and their experience of using PRO. Overall 253 clinicians, 249 company employees, and 494 patients participated in the web survey to confirm how the findings of the interview survey supported the results.In the interview survey, patient advocates described various perspectives of PRO and QOL, including unexpected dynamic relationships, while the most other stakeholders explained PRO and QOL with the language used in the guidelines, but their responses were split. The web-based survey revealed that all stakeholders had a lower awareness of PRO than QOL. The most common perception of PRO, especially in the relationship to QOL, was "they did not fully overlap." Although there were differences in perceptions of the relationship between PRO and QOL among clinicians, company employees, and patients, all perceived PRO as a tool to facilitate communication in clinical practice.The present results are inconsistent with the simplified explanation of PRO, but consistent with the original PRO guideline definitions, which also considered the role of PRO in clinical practice. To make PRO a more potent tool, all stakeholders using PRO should confirm its definition and how it differs from QOL, have a unified recognition in each PRO use, and avoid miscommunication.

Reflections on estimands for patient-reported outcomes in cancer clinical trials

It is common and important to include the patient's perspective of the impact of treatment on health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes. In this commentary, we focus on applying the new addendum to ICH E9 guideline E9 (R1) relating to the estimand framework to Patient Reported Outcomes (PROs) collected in cancer clinical trials, from a statistician's viewpoint. Currently, common practice for statistical analysis of PRO endpoints of published cancer clinical trials demonstrates ambiguity, leaving critical questions unspecified, hindering conclusions about the effect of treatment on PRO endpoints as well as comparability between clinical trials. To avoid this scenario, we advocate the systematic use of the estimand framework which requires the prospective definition of clear PRO research questions. Among the five attributes of the estimands framework, the definition of the endpoint (what is the right PRO measure and timeframe to target and why?), the intercurrent event identification and management (what happens with PRO data post-disease progression, what is the impact of death?) and the population-level summary (what is an acceptable statistical summary for PRO data?) require the most attention for PRO estimands. We identify good practice and highlight discussion points including the challenges of statistical analysis in the presence of missing and/or unobservable data and in relation to death. Through this discussion we highlight that there is no "statistical magic", but that the estimand framework will help you find out what you really want to know when quantifying the benefit of treatments from the patients' perspective.

The Assessment of Patient-Reported Outcomes for the Authorisation of Medicines in Europe: A Review of European Public Assessment Reports from 2017 to 2022

OBJECTIVES

Health regulators have progressively increased their attention and focus on patient-reported outcomes (PROs), driven by the diffusion of a patient-centred approach to the drug development process. This study investigates the consideration of PROs and their measures (PROMs) in the authorisation of medicines in Europe.

METHODS

All medicines for human use authorised or refused by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in the period 2017-2022 were identified, and corresponding European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) were downloaded for review. Medicine and PROs/PROM characteristics were systematically recorded. A multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify variables associated with the use of patient-reported evidence in EPARs.

RESULTS

Overall, 497 EPARs of authorised medicines and 19 EPARs of refused medicines were analysed; of these, 240 (48.3%) and 10 (52.6%), respectively, reported any use of PROs/PROMs (p = 0.710). For authorised medicines, the likelihood of using PROs/PROMs was negatively affected by generic (OR = 0.01, p < 0.001) and biosimilar status (OR = 0.46, p = 0.013) and positively affected by orphan status (OR = 1.41, p = 0.177). The use of PROMs (50.6% in 2017 vs 47.9% in 2022) did not show a clear pattern over the 6-year period considered (p = 0.758) and was particularly uncommon in some therapeutic areas (e.g., 15.2% in infectious diseases). A total of 816 dyads of PROs/PROMs were identified. On average each EPAR considered 1.6 (range: 0-14) instruments. Patient-reported outcomes were typically secondary (53.3%) and exploratory endpoints (18.8%); in one-third of cases (32.5%), they assessed generic quality of life. Among the PROMs, 227 (27.8%) targeted general population; EQ-5D (11.0%), SF-36/SF-12 (5.9%) and EORTC QLQ-C30 (5.6%) were the instruments most frequently used.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests PROs/PROMs are considered in less than half of total medicine assessments and even more rarely in some disease areas. The adoption of PROs is key in EMA strategy to 2025 and would be facilitated by consensus development on their measures and optimisation of data collection.

Perspectives of patients with advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer on symptoms, impacts on daily activities, and thresholds for meaningful change: a qualitative research study

Introduction

Advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is associated with significant symptom burden. It is important to understand the impact of these disease-and treatment-related symptoms on patients' daily lives and explore from a patient perspective what constitutes a meaningful change in NSCLC symptoms.

Methods

Patient experience of advanced or metastatic NSCLC was explored in this prospective, non-interventional qualitative research study recruiting patients from the United States (US). Interviews were conducted to explore the most important symptoms, daily life impacts, and patients' perspectives of what constitutes meaningful change when considering their current symptoms versus 6-12 months prior, based on the Patient Global Impression of Severity (PGI-S) and Patient Global Impression of Change (PGI-C) items.

Results

Between February and April 2022, 19 US-based patients with Stage IV NSCLC were recruited; 95% were female, 63% were White, 79% had been diagnosed >1 year prior, and 63% were receiving targeted therapy. Over half the patients indicated their most important symptoms were fatigue, shortness of breath, and cough. Patient differentiation between whether symptoms were disease- or treatment-related lacked concordance, and often patients were unable to distinguish the two. The most frequently mentioned impacts of these symptoms on patients' daily lives were difficulty walking, sleep disturbance, anxiety/depression, impact on relationships, and difficulty doing daily tasks. Most patients considered a one-point change on the PGI-S or PGI-C to be meaningful based on rating their symptom severity at the time of the interview compared with 6-12 months before the interview.

Conclusion

Based on their own symptom experience, patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC indicated a one-point threshold for meaningful change, whether improvement or worsening. This suggests a one-point change on the PGI-S or PGI-C may be a potential anchor for patient-reported outcome (PRO) endpoints used in clinical trials. It is important to use PRO instruments that capture the symptoms and impacts identified as most important to patients. These findings highlight the importance of using qualitative methods to assess disease-related symptoms, treatment-related side effects, and the impacts on daily life for patients with advanced or metastatic NSCLC, underscoring how qualitative assessments can complement quantitative PRO instruments for evaluating clinical trials.

How can patient preferences be used and communicated in the regulatory evaluation of medicinal products? Findings and recommendations from IMI PREFER and call to action

Objective: Patients have unique insights and are (in-)directly affected by each decision taken throughout the life cycle of medicinal products. Patient preference studies (PPS) assess what matters most to patients, how much, and what trade-offs patients are willing to make. IMI PREFER was a six-year European public-private partnership under the Innovative Medicines Initiative that developed recommendations on how to assess and use PPS in medical product decision-making, including in the regulatory evaluation of medicinal products. This paper aims to summarize findings and recommendations from IMI PREFER regarding i) PPS applications in regulatory evaluation, ii) when and how to consult with regulators on PPS, iii) how to reflect PPS in regulatory communication and iv) barriers and open questions for PPS in regulatory decision-making. Methods: PREFER performed six literature reviews, 143 interviews and eight focus group discussions with regulators, patient representatives, industry representatives, Health Technology Assessment bodies, payers, academics, and clincians between October 2016 and May 2022. Results: i) With respect to PPS applications, prior to the conduct of clinical trials of medicinal products, PPS could inform regulators' understanding of patients' unmet needs and relevant endpoints during horizon scanning activities and scientific advice. During the evaluation of a marketing authorization application, PPS could inform: a) the assessment of whether a product meets an unmet need, b) whether patient-relevant clinical trial endpoints and outcomes were studied, c) the understanding of patient-relevant effect sizes and acceptable trade-offs, and d) the identification of key (un-)favorable effects and uncertainties. ii) With respect to consulting with regulators on PPS, PPS researchers should ideally have early discussions with regulators (e.g., during scientific advice) on the PPS design and research questions. iii) Regarding external PPS communication, PPS could be reflected in the assessment report and product information (e.g., the European Public Assessment Report and the Summary of Product Characteristics). iv) Barriers relevant to the use of PPS in regulatory evaluation include a lack of PPS use cases and demonstrated impact on regulatory decision-making, and need for (financial) incentives, guidance and quality criteria for implementing PPS results in regulatory decision-making. Open questions concerning regulatory PPS use include: a) should a product independent broad approach to the design of PPS be taken and/or a product-specific one, b) who should optimally be financing, designing, conducting, and coordinating PPS, c) when (within and/or outside clinical trials) to perform PPS, and d) how can PPS use best be operationalized in regulatory decisions. Conclusion: PPS have high potential to inform regulators on key unmet needs, endpoints, benefits, and risks that matter most to patients and their acceptable trade-offs. Regulatory guidelines, templates and checklists, together with incentives are needed to foster structural and transparent PPS submission and evaluation in regulatory decision-making. More PPS case studies should be conducted and submitted for regulatory assessment to enable regulatory discussion and increase regulators' experience with PPS implementation and communication in regulatory evaluations.

Single-arm studies involving patient-reported outcome data in oncology: a literature review on current practice

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in single-arm cancer studies. We reviewed 60 papers published between 2018 and 2021 of single-arm studies of cancer treatment with PRO data for current practice on design, analysis, reporting, and interpretation. We further examined the studies' handling of potential bias and how they informed decision making. Most studies (58; 97%) analysed PROs without stating a predefined research hypothesis. 13 (22%) of the 60 studies used a PRO as a primary or co-primary endpoint. Definitions of PRO objectives, study population, endpoints, and missing data strategies varied widely. 23 studies (38%) compared the PRO data with external information, most often by using a clinically important difference value; one study used a historical control group. Appropriateness of methods to handle missing data and intercurrent events (including death) were seldom discussed. Most studies (51; 85%) concluded that PRO results supported treatment. Conducting and reporting of PROs in cancer single-arm studies need standards and a critical discussion of statistical methods and possible biases. These findings will guide the Setting International Standards in Analysing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Data in Cancer Clinical Trials-Innovative Medicines Initiative (SISAQOL-IMI) in developing recommendations for the use of PRO-measures in single-arm studies.

Updated normative data for the EORTC QLQ-C30 in the general Dutch population by age and sex: a cross-sectional panel research study

PURPOSE

The European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) quality of life core questionnaire (QLQ-C30) is a validated and widely-used Patient-Reported Outcome Measure for measuring the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of cancer patients. To facilitate interpretation of results obtained in studies using the EORTC QLQ-C30, we generated normative data for the Dutch general population, stratified by age and sex.

METHODS

Dutch participants were selected from a larger cross-sectional online panel research study collecting EORTC QLQ-C30 general population normative data across 15 countries. EORTC QLQ-C30 raw scores based on a 4-point response scale were transformed to linear scores ranging from 0 to 100. Transformed scores were weighted based on the United Nations population distribution statistics and presented by age and sex/age. Differences in scale scores of ≥ 10 points in HRQoL were applied to indicate clinical relevance.

RESULTS

One thousand respondents completed the online survey. Stratified by age, clinically meaningful differences were observed, with worse physical functioning scores and better emotional functioning scores with increased age. Symptom scores remained stable across age groups, except for small age differences observed for fatigue, nausea/vomiting, diarrhoea, and financial difficulties. Stratified by sex/age, men generally scored better for both functioning and symptoms. However, these differences were not clinically meaningful.

CONCLUSIONS

These updated normative EORTC QLQ-C30 for the Dutch general population can be used to better interpret HRQoL data obtained from Dutch cancer patients. Being part of a larger international study, these data can further be used for inter-country comparisons in multi-national studies.

Communication of anticancer drug benefits and related uncertainties to patients and clinicians: document analysis of regulated information on prescription drugs in Europe

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the frequency with which relevant and accurate information about the benefits and related uncertainties of anticancer drugs are communicated to patients and clinicians in regulated information sources in Europe.

DESIGN

Document content analysis.

SETTING

European Medicines Agency.

PARTICIPANTS

Anticancer drugs granted a first marketing authorisation by the European Medicines Agency, 2017-19.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Whether written information on a product addressed patients' commonly asked questions about: who and what the drug is used for; how the drug was studied; types of drug benefit expected; and the extent of weak, uncertain, or missing evidence for drug benefits. Information on drug benefits in written sources for clinicians (summaries of product characteristics), patients (patient information leaflets), and the public (public summaries) was compared with information reported in regulatory assessment documents (European public assessment reports).

RESULTS

29 anticancer drugs that received a first marketing authorisation for 32 separate cancer indications in 2017-19 were included. General information about the drug (including information on approved indications and how the drug works) was frequently reported across regulated information sources aimed at both clinicians and patients. Nearly all summaries of product characteristics communicated full information to clinicians about the number and design of the main studies, the control arm (if any), study sample size, and primary measures of drug benefit. None of the patient information leaflets communicated information to patients about how drugs were studied. 31 (97%) summaries of product characteristics and 25 (78%) public summaries contained information about drug benefits that was accurate and consistent with information in regulatory assessment documents. The presence or absence of evidence that a drug extended survival was reported in 23 (72%) summaries of product characteristics and four (13%) public summaries. None of the patient information leaflets communicated information about the drug benefits that patients might expect based on study findings. Scientific concerns about the reliability of evidence on drug benefits, which were raised by European regulatory assessors for almost all drugs in the study sample, were rarely communicated to clinicians, patients, or the public.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this study highlight the need to improve the communication of the benefits and related uncertainties of anticancer drugs in regulated information sources in Europe to support evidence informed decision making by patients and their clinicians.