Measuring what matters to rare disease patients - reflections on the work by the IRDiRC taskforce on patient-centered outcome measures

Thomas Morel, Stefan J Cano, Thomas Morel, Stefan J Cano

Abstract

Our ability to evaluate outcomes which genuinely reflect patients' unmet needs, hopes and concerns is of pivotal importance. However, much current clinical research and practice falls short of this objective by selecting outcome measures which do not capture patient value to the fullest. In this Opinion, we discuss Patient-Centered Outcomes Measures (PCOMs), which have the potential to systematically incorporate patient perspectives to measure those outcomes that matter most to patients. We argue for greater multi-stakeholder collaboration to develop PCOMs, with rare disease patients and families at the center. Beyond advancing the science of patient input, PCOMs are powerful tools to translate care or observed treatment benefit into an 'interpretable' measure of patient benefit, and thereby help demonstrate clinical effectiveness. We propose mixed methods psychometric research as the best route to deliver fit-for-purpose PCOMs in rare diseases, as this methodology brings together qualitative and quantitative research methods in tandem with the explicit aim to efficiently utilise data from small samples. And, whether one opts to develop a brand-new PCOM or to select or adapt an existing outcome measure for use in a rare disease, the anchors remain the same: patients, their daily experience of the rare disease, their preferences, core concepts and values. Ultimately, existing value frameworks, registries, and outcomes-based contracts largely fall short of consistently measuring the full range of outcomes that matter to patients. We argue that greater use of PCOMs in rare diseases would enable a fast track to Patient-Centered Care.

Keywords: Clinical outcome assessments; Mixed methods research; Patient centricity; Patient-centered outcome measures; Patient-focused drug development (PFDD); Patient-relevant outcomes; Patient-reported outcomes; Rare diseases; Rasch measurement theory.

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable

Consent for publication

Not applicable

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PCOMs bring value across all healthcare stakeholders. Evaluating value from the perspective of the patient can bring substantial benefit for all healthcare stakeholders. Because they are grounded in what matters most to patients, PCOMs help translate care and/or observed treatment effect into an ‘interpretable’ measure of patient benefit. By doing so, PCOMs bring value to all healthcare stakeholders involved. PCOMs may be used for several purposes, such as: efficacy endpoints in clinical trials, outcomes measures in registries, guides to treatment choices for daily care, or tools to monitor care delivery
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
‘On track’ to Patient-Centered Outcome Measurement. To be useful, and provide meaningful information, PCOMs should be grounded in patients and in their daily experience of the rare disease, core concepts, expectations and values. Developing PCOM strategies is an iterative process where qualitative and quantitative patient evidence complement each other to identify those outcomes that matter most to patients. Thus, we always start our journey with the patient (far left of figure) and gain a full understanding of the disease and key concepts (Dark Blue and Brown lines) before proceeding. This may require more than one loop to get correct. Following this, whether one opts for the route to select/adapt an existing outcome measure (Yellow line), or that to develop a novel PCOM (Green line), the anchor remains the same: patients and the conceptual model. Because rare diseases are rare and complex, creativity and pragmatism should prevail. This could include alternate routes to information gathering (Grey line). Ultimately, as we approach our intended destination (Patient-Centered Care), we need to ensure our PCOMs are finalised (Light Blue line), and we are able to begin to build an evidence base for its use

References

    1. Heneghan C, Goldacre B, Mahtani KR. Why clinical trial outcomes fail to translate into benefits for patients. Trials. 2017;18(1):122. doi: 10.1186/s13063-017-1870-2.
    1. European Commission Inventory of Union and Member State incentives to support research into, and the development and avalaibility of, orphan medicinal products - state of play 2015: European Commission; 2016.
    1. Morel T, Lhoir A, Picavet E, et al. Regulatory watch: the orphan drug pipeline in Europe. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2016;15(6):376. doi: 10.1038/nrd.2016.96.
    1. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The Rise in Orphan Drug Designations: Meeting the Growing Demand. FDA Voice, 18/07/2016. . Accessed 01 June 2017.
    1. Cortelis Regulatory Intelligence. Clinical trial data seen as inadequate to support approval for Sarepta's DMD treatment. AdComm Bulletin, 2016.
    1. Karimi-Shah BA, Chowdhury BA. Forced vital capacity in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis--FDA review of pirfenidone and nintedanib. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(13):1189–1191. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1500526.
    1. Richeldi L. Efficacy endpoints for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis trials. Lancet Respir Med. 2015;3(5):335–337. doi: 10.1016/S2213-2600(15)00146-0.
    1. Janoudi G, Amegatse W, McIntosh B, et al. Health technology assessment of drugs for rare diseases: insights, trends, and reasons for negative recommendations from the CADTH common drug review. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2016;11(1):164. doi: 10.1186/s13023-016-0539-3.
    1. Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER). Overview of the ICER value framework and proposals for an update for 2017-2018. 2017. . Accessed 01 June 2017.
    1. Mullard A. Parsing clinical success rates. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2016;15(7):447.
    1. Smietana K, Siatkowski M, Moller M. Trends in clinical success rates. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2016;15(6):379–380. doi: 10.1038/nrd.2016.85.
    1. Sabino G, Mills A, Jonker AH, et al. Patient-Centered Outcome Measures in the Field of Rare Diseases: International Rare Diseases Research Consortium (IRDiRC); 2016. Available from: .
    1. Woodcock J, PDUFA V. Clinical outcome assessments public workshop. US Food & Drug Administration (FDA). 2015;
    1. Anderson M, McCleary KK. From passengers to co-pilots: Patient roles expand. Sci Transl Med. 2015;7(291):291fs25. doi: 10.1126/scitranslmed.aac6023.
    1. Bartlett SJ, Barnes T, McIvor RA. Integrating patients into meaningful real-world research. Ann Am Thorac Soc. 2014;11(Suppl 2):S112–SS17. doi: 10.1513/AnnalsATS.201309-327RM.
    1. Boutin M, Dewulf L, Hoos A, et al. Culture and process change as a priority for patient engagement in medicines development. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2017;51(1):29–38. doi: 10.1177/2168479016659104.
    1. Hoos A, Anderson J, Boutin M, et al. Partnering with patients in the development and lifecycle of medicines: a call for action. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2015;49(6):929–939. doi: 10.1177/2168479015580384.
    1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Roadmap to Patient-Focused Outcome Measurement in Clinical Trials. 2013. . Accessed 01 June 2017.
    1. Kesselheim AS, Avorn J. New "21st century cures" legislation: speed and ease vs science. JAMA. 2017;317(6):581–582. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.20640.
    1. U.S. Congress. 21st Century Cures Act. 114th Congress, 2016.
    1. US Food & Drug Administration (FDA). Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA) reauthorization for fiscal years 2018-2022, 2017.
    1. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Plan for Issuance of Patient-Focused Drug Development Guidance Under 21st Century Cures Act Title III Section 3002. 2017.
    1. Walton MK, Powers JH, Hobart J, et al. Clinical outcome assessments: conceptual foundation-report of the ISPOR clinical outcomes assessment - emerging good practices for outcomes research task force. Value Health. 2015;18(6):741–752. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2015.08.006.
    1. Arbuckle R, Abetz-Webb L. "Not just little adults": qualitative methods to support the development of pediatric patient-reported outcomes. Patient. 2013;6(3):143–159. doi: 10.1007/s40271-013-0022-3.
    1. Matza LS, Patrick DL, Riley AW, et al. Pediatric patient-reported outcome instruments for research to support medical product labeling: report of the ISPOR PRO good research practices for the assessment of children and adolescents task force. Value Health. 2013;16(4):461–479. doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2013.04.004.
    1. Tadic V, Rahi JS. One size doesn't fit all: time to revisit patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) in paediatric ophthalmology? Eye (Lond) 2017;31(4):511–518. doi: 10.1038/eye.2016.316.
    1. Morel T, Aymé S, Cassiman D, et al. Quantifying benefit-risk preferences for new medicines in rare disease patients and caregivers. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2016;11(1):70. doi: 10.1186/s13023-016-0444-9.
    1. Peay HL, Hollin I, Fischer R, et al. A community-engaged approach to quantifying caregiver preferences for the benefits and risks of emerging therapies for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Clin Ther. 2014;36(5):624–637. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2014.04.011.
    1. Albrecht GL, Devlieger PJ. The disability paradox: high quality of life against all odds. Soc Sci Med. 1999;48(8):977–988. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(98)00411-0.
    1. Bronstein MG, Kakkis ED. Patients as key partners in rare disease drug development. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2016;15(11):731–732. doi: 10.1038/nrd.2016.133.
    1. TransCelerate BioPharma Inc. White Paper: Development and Implementation of a Pharma-Collaborative Large Historical Control Database. 2015. .
    1. Mokkink LB, Prinsen CA, Bouter LM, et al. The COnsensus-based standards for the selection of health measurement INstruments (COSMIN) and how to select an outcome measurement instrument. Braz J Phys Ther. 2016;20(2):105–113. doi: 10.1590/bjpt-rbf.2014.0143.
    1. Terwee CB, Mokkink LB, Knol DL, et al. Rating the methodological quality in systematic reviews of studies on measurement properties: a scoring system for the COSMIN checklist. Qual Life Res. 2012;21(4):651–657. doi: 10.1007/s11136-011-9960-1.
    1. Klingels K, Mayhew AG, Mazzone ES, et al. Development of a patient-reported outcome measure for upper limb function in Duchenne muscular dystrophy: DMD upper limb PROM. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2017;59(2):224–231. doi: 10.1111/dmcn.13277.
    1. Mayhew A, Mazzone ES, Eagle M, et al. Development of the performance of the upper limb module for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2013;55(11):1038–1045. doi: 10.1111/dmcn.12213.
    1. PROBE study. Patient Reported Outcomes, Burdens, and Experiences (PROBE) study. 2017. Available from: .
    1. Aras LM, Isla J, Mingorance-Le MA. The European patient with Dravet syndrome: results from a parent-reported survey on antiepileptic drug use in the European population with Dravet syndrome. Epilepsy Behav. 2015;44:104–109. doi: 10.1016/j.yebeh.2014.12.028.
    1. Dravet Syndrome Foundation. Wacean: a patient-driven innovative tool for data capture. 2016. Available from: .
    1. European Medicines Agency (EMA). Letter of support for Patient Data Platform for capturing patient-reported outcome measures for Dravet syndrome. 2016. Accessed 19 July 02017.
    1. European Medicines Agency (EMA). Spinal Muscular Atrophy Workshop. 2016. . Accessed 01 June 2017.
    1. Myotonic Dystrophy Foundation. DM PFDD Meeting - Bringing Your Voice to Therapy Development. 2016. Available from: .
    1. Regnault A, Willgoss T, Barbic S, et al. Towards the use of Mixed Methods Inquiry as best practice in Health Outcomes Research. [in peer review] 2017.
    1. Andrich D. Rating scales and Rasch measurement. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011;11(5):571–585. doi: 10.1586/erp.11.59.
    1. Cano S, Pendrill L, Barbic S, et al. Patient-Centred Outcome Metrology for Healthcare Decision-Making. Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2017;(IN PRESS).
    1. Cano S, Vosk T, Pendrill L, et al. On trial: the compatibility of measurement in the physical and social sciences. J Phys Conf Ser. 2016;772(2016):012025. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/772/1/012025.
    1. Choppin B. Item bank using sample-free calibration. Nature. 1968;219(5156):870–872. doi: 10.1038/219870a0.
    1. Fisher W, Stenner A. Integrating qualitative and quantitative research approaches via the phenomenological method. International Journal of Multiple Research Approaches. 2011;5(1):89–103. doi: 10.5172/mra.2011.5.1.89.
    1. Grimby G, Tennant A, Tesio L. The use of raw scores from ordinal scales: time to end malpractice? J Rehabil Med. 2012;44(2):97–98. doi: 10.2340/16501977-0938.
    1. Hobart J, Cano S. Improving the evaluation of therapeutic interventions in multiple sclerosis: the role of new psychometric methods. Health Technol Assess. 2009;13(12):1–177. doi: 10.3310/hta13120.
    1. Hobart JC, Cano SJ, Thompson AJ. Effect sizes can be misleading: is it time to change the way we measure change? J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry. 2010;81(9):1044–1048. doi: 10.1136/jnnp.2009.201392.
    1. Houts C, MC E, Wirth R, et al. A review of empirical research related to the use of small quantitative samples in clinical outcome scale development. Qual Life Res. 2016;25:2685–2691. doi: 10.1007/s11136-016-1364-9.
    1. Pendrill L. Using measurement uncertainty in decision-making & conformity assessment. Metrologia. 2014;51:S206. doi: 10.1088/0026-1394/51/4/S206.
    1. Wright B, Stone M. Best test design: Rasch measurement. Chicago: MESA Press; 1979.
    1. Pera MC, Coratti G, Forcina N, et al. Content validity and clinical meaningfulness of the HFMSE in spinal muscular atrophy. BMC Neurol. 2017;17(1):39. doi: 10.1186/s12883-017-0790-9.
    1. Ramsey D, Scoto M, Mayhew A, et al. Revised Hammersmith scale for spinal muscular atrophy: a SMA specific clinical outcome assessment tool. PLoS One. 2017;12(2):e0172346. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0172346.
    1. Mayhew AG, Cano SJ, Scott E, et al. Detecting meaningful change using the north star ambulatory assessment in Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2013;55(11):1046–1052. doi: 10.1111/dmcn.12220.
    1. van Nes SI, Vanhoutte EK, van Doorn PA, et al. Rasch-built overall disability scale (R-ODS) for immune-mediated peripheral neuropathies. Neurology. 2011;76(4):337–345. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0b013e318208824b.
    1. Shapiro EG, Nestrasil I, Ahmed A, et al. Quantifying behaviors of children with Sanfilippo syndrome: the Sanfilippo behavior rating scale. Mol Genet Metab. 2015;114(4):594–598. doi: 10.1016/j.ymgme.2015.02.008.
    1. Gelhorn HL, Kulke MH, O'Dorisio T, et al. Patient-reported symptom experiences in patients with carcinoid syndrome after participation in a study of Telotristat Etiprate: a qualitative interview approach. Clin Ther. 2016;38(4):759–768. doi: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2016.03.002.
    1. Phillips C. Use of patient diaries in critical care. Nurs Stand. 2011;26(11):35–43.
    1. Haywood KL, de Wit M, Staniszewska S, et al. Developing Patient-Reported and Relevant Outcomes: a roadmap for good practice. In: Facey K, Ploug Hansen H, A. S, eds. Patient Involvement in Health Technology Assessment. 1 ed: ADIS, 2017.
    1. EURORDIS. Breaking the access deadlock to leave no one behind. A reflection paper. Paris: EURORDIS; 2017.
    1. National Hemophilia Foundation and Green Park Collaborative. Core Outcomes for Evaluating the Comparative Effectiveness of Gene Threapy in Hemophilia. CoreHEM Project Brief, 12/06/2017.
    1. National Hemophilia Foundation and Green Park Collaboration and McMaster University. Green Park Collaborative, National Hemophilia Foundation, McMaster University announce Launch of CoreHEM Project 20/06/2017. Available from: .
    1. Skinner M, Clearfield E, Iorio A, et al. Comparing Outcomes Across Clinical Trials: Core Outcome Set for Hemophilia Gene Therapy as a Model for Other Diseases. 2017;9(5). Available from: .
    1. Facey K, Granados A, Guyatt G, et al. Generating health technology assessment evidence for rare diseases. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30(4):416–422. doi: 10.1017/S0266462314000464.
    1. Gargon E, Williamson PR, Altman DG, et al. The COMET initiative database: progress and activities update (2015) Trials. 2017;18(1):54. doi: 10.1186/s13063-017-1788-8.
    1. International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM). ICHOM and OECD sign Letter of Intent to collaborate. 2017. Available from: .
    1. Williamson PR, Altman DG, Blazeby JM, et al. Developing core outcome sets for clinical trials: issues to consider. Trials. 2012;13:132. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-13-132.
    1. Porter ME, Larsson S, Lee TH. Standardizing patient outcomes measurement. N Engl J Med. 2016;374(6):504–506. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1511701.
    1. Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). Charter of the Advisory Panel on Rare Disease. 2016. .
    1. Health Technology Assessment international (HTAi). From theory to action: developments in value frameworks to inform the allocation of health care resources. Policy Forum background paper 2017. . Accessed 01 June 2017.
    1. Morel T, Arickx F, Befrits G, et al. Reconciling uncertainty of costs and outcomes with the need for access to orphan medicinal products: a comparative study of managed entry agreements across seven European countries. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2013;8:198. doi: 10.1186/1750-1172-8-198.
    1. Avalere Health, FasterCures. Patient-Perspective Value Framework (PPVF) Version 1.0, 2017.
    1. Nelson EC, Dixon-Woods M, Batalden PB, et al. Patient focused registries can improve health, care, and science. BMJ. 2016;354:i3319. doi: 10.1136/bmj.i3319.
    1. Roberts C, Lavery C, Nicholls N, et al. Multi-stakeholder engagement leading to access to treatment for MPS IVA (Morquio syndrome type a), a model for the ultra rare disease community. Molecular Genetics and Metabolism: Elsevier. 2017;S115.
    1. Munos B, Baker PC, Bot BM, et al. Mobile health: the power of wearables, sensors, and apps to transform clinical trials. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2016;1375(1):3–18. doi: 10.1111/nyas.13117.
    1. Falcone C, Levy R. Approval of Jakafi (ruxolitinib) based on a home-grown. A Case Study. Regulatory Focus: Patient-Reported Outcome Instrument; 2012. . Accessed 01 June 2017.
    1. Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (IQWiG). Ruxolitinib for myelofibrosis: indication of considerable added benefit. 2014 15/08/2014. . Accessed 01 June 2017.
    1. pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review Process (pCODR). pCDOR Expert Review Committee Final Recommendation for Ruxolitinib for Myelofibrosis. 2013. . Accessed 01 June 2017.
    1. Bonella F, Wijsenbeek M, Molina-Molina M, et al. European idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis patient charter: a missed opportunity. Eur Respir J. 2016;48(1):283–284. doi: 10.1183/13993003.00604-2016.
    1. Saketkoo LA, Mittoo S, Frankel S, et al. Reconciling healthcare professional and patient perspectives in the development of disease activity and response criteria in connective tissue disease-related interstitial lung diseases. J Rheumatol. 2014;41(4):792–798. doi: 10.3899/jrheum.131251.
    1. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The Voice of the Patient - Idiopathic Pulmonary Fibrosis. 2014. . Accessed 01 June 2017.
    1. Wijsenbeek M. Van MM, Bonella F. New insights on patient-reported outcome measures in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: only PROMises? Curr Opin Pulm Med. 2016;22(5):434–441. doi: 10.1097/MCP.0000000000000294.
    1. Regnault A, Burlina A, Cunningham A, et al. Development and psychometric validation of measures to assess the impact of phenylketonuria and its dietary treatment on patients' and parents' quality of life: the phenylketonuria - quality of life (PKU-QOL) questionnaires. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2015;10:59. doi: 10.1186/s13023-015-0261-6.
    1. Klingels K, Goemans N. DMCN Author Podcast. 2017. Available from: .
    1. Franchignoni F, Mandrioli J, Giordano A, et al. A further Rasch study confirms that ALSFRS-R does not conform to fundamental measurement requirements. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener. 2015;16(5–6):331–337. doi: 10.3109/21678421.2015.1026829.
    1. Wicks P, Massagli MP, Wolf C, et al. Measuring function in advanced ALS: validation of ALSFRS-EX extension items. Eur J Neurol. 2009;16(3):353–359. doi: 10.1111/j.1468-1331.2008.02434.x.
    1. Schwartzapfel B. I will be heard! 2009. Available from: .
    1. Linacre J. Computer-adaptive testing-a methodology whose time has come. In: Sunhee Chae UK, Eunhwa Jeon and J. M. Linacre., ed. Development of computerized middle school achievement test. Seoul: Komesa Press; 2000.
    1. Massof RW, Hsu CT, Baker FH, et al. Visual disability variables. II: the difficulty of tasks for a sample of low-vision patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86(5):954–967. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2004.09.017.
    1. Massof RW, Hsu CT, Baker FH, et al. Visual disability variables. I: the importance and difficulty of activity goals for a sample of low-vision patients. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005;86(5):946–953. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2004.09.016.
    1. Recht M, Pipe S, Jackson S, et al. Goal attainment scaling for life – hemophilia (GOAL-hem): an innovative patient-reported outcome measure. World Federation of Hemophilia Congress; 2015.
    1. Recht M, Konkle BA, Jackson S, et al. Recognizing the need for personalization of haemophilia patient-reported outcomes in the prophylaxis era. Haemophilia. 2016;22(6):825–832. doi: 10.1111/hae.13066.
    1. Gaasterland CM, Jansen-van der Weide MC, Weinreich SS, et al. A systematic review to investigate the measurement properties of goal attainment scaling, towards use in drug trials. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16:99. doi: 10.1186/s12874-016-0205-4.
    1. Massof RW, Ahmadian L, Grover LL, et al. The activity inventory: an adaptive visual function questionnaire. Optom Vis Sci. 2007;84(8):763–774. doi: 10.1097/OPX.0b013e3181339efd.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbeidspartnere

Medisinsk tilstand

Legemiddelintervensjoner

3
Abonnere