Date post: | 01-Apr-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | sara-seeton |
View: | 212 times |
Download: | 0 times |
PRO Guidance: Theory and Practice Ari Gnanasakthy
Head, Patient Reported Outcomes
Novartis Pharmaceuticals
15 Oct 2013
Clinical Outcome Assessments (COAs)
Patient Reported Outcome (PRO)• A measurement based on a report that comes directly from the patient
(i.e., study subject) about the status of particular aspects of or events related to a patient’s health condition.
Clinician Reported Outcome (ClinRO)• An assessment that is determined by an observer with some
recognized professional training that is relevant to the measurement being made.
Observer Reported Outcome (ObsRO)• An assessment that is determined by an observer who does not have
a background of professional training that is relevant to the measurement being made, i.e., a non-clinician observer such as a teacher or caregiver.
| PRO Guidance - Theory and Practice / 18 Oct 2013
Patient-reported outcomes allow a holistic view of treatment effects
Caregiver
History experience
SymptomsActivity limitationsCognitive functionPhysical functionPsych distressBurden
PatientPhysiological Clinician
Biomarkers Lab values & tests Functional tests Blood tests Biopsies Tolerance tests Vital signs
Signs Physical examination Visual inspection Palpation Auscultation Clinical impression
History experience
SymptomsActivity toleranceCognitive functionPhysical functionPsych distressRx satisfaction
“Subjectivity”
Assessing disease activity and treatment outcomes
3| PRO Guidance - Theory and Practice / 18 Oct 2013
What Is a Patient-Reported Outcome?
A PRO is a measurement of any aspect of a patient’s health status that comes directly from the patient• Without the interpretation of the physician or anyone else
PRO Elements • Function
• Feeling
PRO concept• Simple (e.g., bone pain)
• Complex (e.g., treatment satisfaction/preference)
| PRO Guidance - Theory and Practice / 18 Oct 20134
Guidance for the Industry (2009)
• Draft PRO Guidance: published December 2006
• Final FDA PRO Guidance: published December 2009
• Guidance developed by the SEALD group within the Office of New Drugs (OND) at FDA
• SEALD serves as an advisory group to all reviewing divisions
| PRO Guidance - Theory and Practice / 18 Oct 2013
Purpose of the PRO Guidance
To emphasize that FDA recognizes the importance of the patient perspective where appropriate
To explain how FDA evaluates PRO instruments for their usefulness in measuring & characterizing treatment benefit as perceived by the patient.
To explain how FDA reviews evidence that a PRO instrument measures the concept represented in the study objectives and intended to support claims.
| PRO Guidance - Theory and Practice / 18 Oct 2013
8 | Presentation Title | Presenter Name | Date | Subject | Business Use Only
Product X relieves symptoms, improves physical activity, without upsetting stomach
Linking PRO Concepts to Claims
Desired Desired ClaimClaim
PROPROConceptConcept
Physical Activity
UpsetStomach
SymptomRelief
Physical Activitymeasure
Symptom Diary
GI-symptom measure
PROPROInstrumentsInstruments
| PRO Guidance - Theory and Practice / 18 Oct 2013
Some specifics from the guidance . . .
PRO instruments will be evaluated in the context of stated labeling goals.
Instrument development must be based on patient input
A recall period that captures the patient’s current state is preferred
Content validity is paramount and must be documented
Instrument adequacy for one purpose does not guarantee its adequacy for another purpose
In order to support claims, criteria for statistical analysis and interpretation of PRO results, including clear specification for a “positive” study conclusion should be clearly stated in the study protocol and statistical analysis plan
Statistical adjustments for multiple endpoints and a plan for dealing with missing PRO data are required
| PRO Guidance - Theory and Practice / 18 Oct 2013
Emphasis of the guidance is on five aspects
The link between the endpoints and the proposed study claims (specific to the protocol)
The conceptual framework – a clear description or diagram of the relationship among concepts, domains and items (specific to the instrument)
Documentation of validity and measurement properties• Content validity / Reliability / Construct validity / Responsiveness
Definition of a responder
Documentation of instrument modificationBurke, LE., Kennedy DL, Miskala, PH., et. el., The use of PRO measures in the evaluation of the medical products for regulatory approval. Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics June 2008
i. Identify Concepts• Identify claims • Identify relationships among all endpoints • Identify concepts relevant to patients • Determine intended population • Develop expected relationships among items &
concepts/domains
Claim
v. Modify Instrument• Change concepts
measured, populations studied, research application, response options, recall period, or method of administration
• Translate & culturally adapt to other languages
ii. Create Instrument• Generate items • Choose administration
method, recall period & response scales
• Draft instructions • Format instrument• Draft procedures for
scoring & administration• Pilot test draft instrument• Refine instrument &
procedures
iii. Assess Measurement Properties• Assess score reliability, validity, & ability to detect
change • Evaluate administrative & respondent burden • Add, delete, or revise items • Confirm conceptual framework • Finalize instrument formats, scoring, procedures &
training materials
iv. Collect, Analyze, & Interpret Data
• Prepare protocol & statistical analysis plan
• Identify responder definition • Evaluate cumulative distribution
curve • Present interpretation of treatment
benefit11
COA instrument Development and Application: Framework in Final PRO Guidance 2009 for PROs essential works
for all Clinical Outcome Assessments
14
Endpoint Model
15
Endpoint Model
• Clear statement as to the role a PRO endpoint is intended to play in the clinical trial (e.g. primary, co-primary, secondary, exploratory)
• A diagram or description of the hierarchy of hypothesized relationships among all endpoints in a clinical trial and how the PRO endpoints relate to the others
• Explains the demands to be placed on the PRO instrument in order to attain the evidence to meet study objectives
17
Endpoint Model Example IConcepts
Indication:
Treatment
of cancer X
Supportive Concepts:
Other
treatment
benefit
Endpoints
Primary:Survival (Progression Free)
Secondary/Exploratory:
Pain palliation
Serologic markers
HRQOL
18
Endpoint Model Example 2
Concepts
Indication:
Treatment of pain
due to cancer X
Supportive Concepts:
Other treatment
benefit
Endpoints
Primary:
Pain palliation
Secondary/Exploratory:
HRQOL
Survival
19
Conceptual Framework
20
Conceptual Framework of a PRO Instrument
• A diagram of instrument items that explains how each item contributes to specific concepts represented and how each score is generated
• Provides a clear description of the relationship among concepts, domains, and items
21
Lack of Conceptual FrameworkExample
Pain severity
Sitting
Pain frequency
Walking
Swelling
Standing
Overall Score
22
Conceptual Framework
Domain
Item 1
Item 2
Item 3
Item 4
Item 5
Item 6
Domain Concept
B
Domain Concept
A
Overall Concept
23
Conceptual Framework: ExampleItems
Pain severityPain frequency
Sitting WalkingStanding
Swelling
Domains
Pain
Physicalfunctioning
Swelling
Total Score
Enough of theory
| PRO Guidance - Theory and Practice / 18 Oct 2013
“In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. But in practice, there is.”
Yogi Berra
“How empty is theory in the presence of fact!”
Mark Twain, A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court
25
| PRO Guidance - Theory and Practice / 18 Oct 2013
What types of PRO labels claims have been granted by the FDA since the release of the guidance (Jan 06 – Dec10)?
Type of claim All products with PRO label claims (n=28) (n) (%)
Symptoms 24 85.7%
Functioning 7 25.0%
HRQOL 2 7.1%
Patient global rating 3 10.7%
Other 2 7.1%
Total # of claims 38
| PRO Guidance - Theory and Practice / 18 Oct 201326
Most Frequently Reported Reasons for Denial of Claim
| PRO Guidance - Theory and Practice / 18 Oct 201327
DeMuro C, Clark M, Mordin M, Fehnel S, Copley-Merriman C, Gnanasakthy A. Reasons for rejection of patient-reported outcome label claims: a compilation based on a review of patient-reported outcome use among new molecular entities and biologic license applications, 2006-2010. Value Health 15, 443-448 (2012).
Reasons for rejection of PRO Label
1. Fit for purpose – content validity, validation evidence in target population, lack of evidence of translation/cross cultural validation
2. Interpretation – issues of potential bias (open label design, etc.), recall period, clinical meaningfulness, missingness, poor compliance
3. Statistical considerations – no adjustment for multiplicity, inappropriate or missing SAP
4. Concepts – lack of link between concept and claim, failing to measure full constellation of symptoms
5. Administration considerations – lack of documentation for use of measure, copy of measure not provided to agency
6. No treatment benefit – measures did not support treatment benefit
| PRO Guidance - Theory and Practice / 18 Oct 201328
| PRO Guidance - Theory and Practice / 18 Oct 2013
Evidence suggests . . .
Since the release of the Draft PRO Guidance, many PRO claims continue to be approved by FDA reviewing divisions
The FDA favors PRO label claims for 1st order impacts
Certain FDA reviewing divisions (e.g. DAARP, DPAP) appear to be more comfortable allowing claims using specific PRO measures (usually as primary endpoints)
Reviewing divisions do not always follow the recommendation by SEALD
Reviewing divisions may or may not be adhering to the current standards when assessing PRO data for a claim
Expectations and consequences
Delays in product development
The PRO Guidance may have become a hurdle to innovation
| PRO Guidance - Theory and Practice / 18 Oct 2013
But . . . It’s not all about the labels
• PRO data are often requested by advisory boards and reimbursement authorities to evaluate drugs in a holistic manner
• Patient reported outcomes enables holistic evaluation of new medications
• Even after product launch PROs can help us to understand • patients’ satisfaction with treatment
• factors that may affect adherence, and
• other patient centric outcome data to support market access.
| PRO Guidance - Theory and Practice / 18 Oct 2013
The case of Avastin in metastatic breast cancer
| PRO Guidance - Theory and Practice / 18 Oct 2013
Jakafi™ Case Study
“It was a secondary endpoint, but in our mind this is why we gave the application full approval. One could quibble about the importance of reduction in spleen size, but with reduction in all the symptoms,” full approval was warranted, Pazdur said.
• Quote from Richard Pazdur, director of FDA’s Office of Hematology Oncology Products, BioCentury, December 5, 2011
Need for PRO data is more than ever
The industry can no longer rely on traditional pharmaceutical sales models alone
An article demonstrating the benefits of a drug treatment based on data from a well developed PRO scale is likely to have a far reaching impact through patient-based websites
These are precisely the kind of data that patient advocacy groups feel they need in order to lobby payers and politicians in order to gain access to newer, often more expensive medical products
| PRO Guidance - Theory and Practice / 18 Oct 2013
35 | Presentation Title | Presenter Name | Date | Subject | Business Use Only