To view enhanced digital features for this article go to https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.7756664.
The traditional model of evaluating treatments based primarily on primary outcome measures has stumbled in its application to rare disease. Rare disease clinical trials face the methodological challenges of small, heterogeneous patient populations and relatively few validated, disease-specific outcome measures. Incorporating qualitative research into rare disease clinical trials may help sponsors, regulators, payers, and prescribers to better understand the real-world and patient-specific impact of a potential therapy. This paper provides a methodologic overview of the use of Patient and Caregiver Perception of Change (PPC and CPC) Assessments utilizing patient and caregiver video interviews to complement the data captured by traditional endpoints in rare disease clinical trials.
Incorporating qualitative patient and caregiver video interviews into clinical trials allows for the rigorous capture of patient experiences and caregiver observations. Interview guides informed by input from key stakeholders provide the opportunity to solicit structured feedback on experiences before, during, and after the clinical trial. Patients and caregivers can complete their video interviews in a study mobile application, and interview transcripts are analyzed by independent coders. Themes are summarized by the treatment group and individual patient, which adds context to the clinical outcome measures of how patients feel and function, as well as elucidates the degree of change that is meaningful to patients and caregivers. The qualitative results can be compared to the data captured in clinical trials to assess data concordance.
Capturing patient experience data with sufficient rigor allows it to contribute to the body of evidence utilized in regulatory, payer, and prescriber decision-making. Adding PPC and CPC Assessments to rare disease clinical trials offers an innovative and powerful way to tap into the unique insights of patients and their families to develop a fuller picture of the patient experience in the clinical trial.
Stealth BioTherapeutics Inc.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. Rare diseases: common issues in drug development—guidance for industry. Silver Spring, MD; 2019.
Kempf L, Goldsmith JC, Temple R. Challenges of developing and conducting clinical trials in rare disorders. Am J Med Genet A. 2018;176:773–83. CrossRef
Slade A, Isa F, Kyte D, et al. Patient reported outcome measures in rare diseases: a narrative review. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2018;13:61. CrossRef
NIH. FAQs About Rare Diseases | Genetic and Rare Diseases Information Center (GARD)—an NCATS Program [Internet]. 2017. https://rarediseases.info.nih.gov/diseases/pages/31/faqs-about-rare-diseases. Accessed 19 Sept 2018.
RARE Diseases: Facts and statistics [Internet]. Global Genes. 2012. http://globalgenes.org/rare-diseases-facts-statistics/. Accessed 19 Sept 2018.
NIH. Rare disease day at NIH 2018 [Internet]. National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. 2018. https://ncats.nih.gov/rdd. Accessed 19 Sept 2018.
Augustine EF, Adams HR, Mink JW. Clinical trials in rare disease: challenges and opportunities. J Child Neurol. 2013;28:1142–50. CrossRef
Benjamin K, Vernon MK, Patrick DL, Perfetto E, Nestler-Parr S, Burke L. Patient-reported outcome and observer-reported outcome assessment in rare disease clinical trials: an ISPOR COA emerging good practices task force report. Value Health. 2017;20:838–55. CrossRef
Nony P, Kurbatova P, Bajard A, et al. A methodological framework for drug development in rare diseases. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2014;9:164.
Bharmal M, Guillemin I, Marrel A, et al. How to address the challenges of evaluating treatment benefits-risks in rare diseases? A convergent mixed methods approach applied within a Merkel cell carcinoma phase 2 clinical trial. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2018;13:95.
Morel T, Cano SJ. Measuring what matters to rare disease patients—reflections on the work by the IRDiRC taskforce on patient-centered outcome measures. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2017;12:171.
Heneghan C, Goldacre B, Mahtani KR. Why clinical trial outcomes fail to translate into benefits for patients. Trials. 2017;18:122.
Basch E, Bennett AV. Patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials of rare diseases. J Gen Intern Med. 2014;29:801–3. CrossRef
Ghosh A, Shapiro E, Rust S, et al. Recommendations on clinical trial design for treatment of mucopolysaccharidosis type III. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2017;12:117. CrossRef
Shapiro EG, Escolar ML, Delaney KA, Mitchell JJ. Assessments of neurocognitive and behavioral function in the mucopolysaccharidoses. Mol Genet Metab. 2017;122:8–16. CrossRef
Woodcock J. The future of drug and device development: balancing benefit and risk [Internet]. 2016. https://cardiac-safety.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/S1_1_Woodcock.pdf. Accessed 17 Dec 2018.
114th Congress. 21st Century Cures Act, H.R. 34 [Internet]. 2016. https://www.congress.gov/114/bills/hr34/BILLS-114hr34enr.pdf. Accessed 6 Nov 2018.
Van Norman GA. Drugs, devices, and the FDA: part 1: an overview of approval processes for drugs. JACC Basic Transl Sci. 2016;1:170–9. CrossRef
Dabrowska A, Thaul S. How FDA approves drugs and regulates their safety and effectiveness [Internet]. 2018;31. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R41983.pdf. Accessed 2 Oct 2018.
Sasinowski FJ. Quantum of effectiveness evidence in FDA’s approval of orphan drugs: cataloging FDA’s flexibility in regulating therapies for persons with rare disorders. Drug Inf J. 2012;46:238–63. CrossRef
Sasinowski FJ, Panico EB, Valentine JE. Quantum of effectiveness evidence in FDA’s approval of orphan drugs: update, July 2010 to June 2014. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2015;49:680–97.
Pollack A. Advisers to FDA. Vote against Duchenne muscular dystrophy drug. N Y Times [Internet]. 2016. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/26/business/muscular-dystrophy-drug-fda-sarepta-eteplirsen.html. Accessed 21 Sept 2018.
Hogan M. What is efficacy? Defining a clinically meaningful change: a caregiver’s perspective on assessment of neurocognitive outcomes in people with inborn errors in metabolism. FDA; 2015.
Picavet E, Cassiman D, Simoens S. Reimbursement of orphan drugs in Belgium: what (else) matters? Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2014;9:139. CrossRef
Nicod E, Kanavos P. Scientific and social value judgments for orphan drugs in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2016;32:218–32. CrossRef
Young A, Menon D, Street J, Al-Hertani W, Stafinski T. A checklist for managed access programmes for reimbursement co-designed by Canadian patients and caregivers. Health Expect. 2018;21:973–80. CrossRef
Mincarone P, Leo CG, Sabina S, et al. Reimbursed price of orphan drugs: current strategies and potential improvements. Public Health Genomics. 2017;20:1–8. CrossRef
Simoens S. Pricing and reimbursement of orphan drugs: the need for more transparency. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2011;6:42. CrossRef
Young A, Menon D, Street J, Al-Hertani W, Stafinski T. Exploring patient and family involvement in the lifecycle of an orphan drug: a scoping review. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2017;12:188. CrossRef
Douglas CMW, Wilcox E, Burgess M, Lynd LD. Why orphan drug coverage reimbursement decision-making needs patient and public involvement. Health Policy Amst Neth. 2015;119:588–96. CrossRef
Janoudi G, Amegatse W, McIntosh B, Sehgal C, Richter T. 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;11:164.
Cohen JP, Awatin JG. Patient access to orphan drugs. Expert Opin Orphan Drugs. 2017;5:923–32. CrossRef
Department of Health and Human Services. Guidelines for providing public comment to the Mainecare DUR Committee [Internet]. Augusta, Maine; 2011. http://www.mainecarepdl.org/sites/default/files/ghs-files/dur-miscellaneous/2011-01-19/guidelines-providing-public-comment-mainecare-dur-committee-1-18-11.pdf. Accessed 2 Oct 2018.
Iowa Medicaid Drug Utilization Review Commission. Public comment policy [Internet]. Iowa. https://www.iadur.org/. Accessed 2 Oct 2018.
California HealthCare Foundation. In or out: an examination of Medicaid’s coverage determination policies [Internet]. 2015. https://www.chcf.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/12/PDF-InOutMedicaidDetermination.pdf. Accessed 15 Feb 2019.
Hunter A, Facey K, Thomas V, et al. EUPATI Guidance for patient involvement in medicines research and development: health technology assessment. Front Med. 2018;5:231 CrossRef
Haerry D, Landgraf C, Warner K, et al. EUPATI and patients in medicines research and development: guidance for patient involvement in regulatory processes. Front Med. 2018;5:230.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. Patient-focused drug development: collecting comprehensive and representative input. Silver Spring, MD; 2018.
Bloom D, Beetsch J, Harker M, et al. The rules of engagement: CTTI recommendations for successful collaborations between sponsors and patient groups around clinical trials. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2018;52:206–13.
Chalasani M, Vaidya P, Mullin T. Enhancing the incorporation of the patient’s voice in drug development and evaluation. Res Involv Engagem. 2018;4:10.
FDA. Patient-focused drug development guidance public workshop: methods to identify what is important to patients and select, develop or modify fit-for-purpose clinical outcomes assessments [Internet]. 2018. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/NewsEvents/UCM620707.pdf. Accessed 25 Sept 2018.
Dashiell-Aje E, Kovacs S. Opportunities: a regulatory perspective on the development of suitable clinical outcome assessments for rare diseases. DIA Global Forum: Driving Insights to Action; 2018.
Saketkoo L, 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;41:792–8. CrossRef
CDER FDA. The voice of the patient: a series of reports from the U.S. Food and drug administration’s patient-focused drug development initiative—idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis. 2015. Silver Spring: US Food and Drug Administration.
FDA. FDA briefing document: peripheral and central nervous system drugs advisory committee meeting—NDA 206488 Eteplirsen [Internet]. 2016. https://www.fdanews.com/ext/resources/files/2016/01/01-15-FDA-eteplirsen.pdf?1520854314. Accessed 6 Nov 2018.
Aartsma-Rus A, Krieg AM. FDA approves eteplirsen for duchenne muscular dystrophy: the next chapter in the eteplirsen saga. Nucleic Acid Ther. 2017;27:1–3. CrossRef
The Jett Foundation. Jett foundation to present patient centered outcomes report to FDA advisory committee on Duchenne treatment [Internet]. https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/jett-foundation-to-present-patient-centered-outcomes-report-to-fda-advisory-committee-on-duchenne-treatment-300256548.html. Accessed 17 Dec 2017.
The Jett Foundation. Jett foundation report to FDA: patient and caregiver input on benefits and risks of eteplirsen [Internet]. 2015. https://www.jettfoundation.org/blog/2017/5/16/jett-foundations-patient-reported-outcome-report-on-exondys-51. Accessed 17 Dec 2018.
Gelhorn HL, Kulke MH, O’Dorisio T, Yang QM, Jackson J, Jackson S, 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;38:759–68. CrossRef
Kulke MH, Hörsch D, Caplin ME, et al. Telotristat ethyl, a tryptophan hydroxylase inhibitor for the treatment of carcinoid syndrome. J Clin Oncol. 2016;35:14–23. CrossRef
Anthony L, Ervin C, Lapuerta P, et al. Understanding the patient experience with carcinoid syndrome: exit interviews from a randomized, placebo-controlled study of telotristat ethyl. Clin Ther. 2017;39:2158–68. CrossRef
FDA. Press announcements—FDA approves Xermelo for carcinoid syndrome diarrhea [Internet]. 2017. https://www.fda.gov/newsevents/newsroom/pressannouncements/ucm544035.htm. Accessed 24 Sept 2018.
Lewin S, Glenton C, Oxman AD. Use of qualitative methods alongside randomised controlled trials of complex healthcare interventions: methodological study. BMJ. 2009;339:b3496. CrossRef
O’Reilly-Shah VN. Factors influencing healthcare provider respondent fatigue answering a globally administered in-app survey. PeerJ [Internet]. 2017;5. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5600176/. Accessed 15 Feb 2015.
Egleston BL, Miller SM, Meropol NJ. The impact of misclassification due to survey response fatigue on estimation and identifiability of treatment effects. Stat Med. 2011;30:3560–72. CrossRef
FDA. CDRH patient-reported outcomes (PRO) compendium—FDA [Internet]. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/OfficeofMedicalProductsandTobacco/CDRH/CDRHVisionandMission/UCM588577.xlsx. Accessed 15 Feb 2019.
Evidera. Pharmaceutical products approved by the FDA with PRO label information; updated through Q1 2018 [Internet]. 2018. https://www.evidera.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/PRO-Label-Database-FDA-list-Q1-2018-.pdf. Accessed 15 Feb 2019.
Kovacs S. FDA perspective on clinical outcome assessments [Internet]. IMMPACT XX Meeting; 2017. http://www.immpact.org/static/meetings/Immpact20/Kovacs%20Presentation.pdf. Accessed 15 Feb 2019.
FDA. Amitiza (Lubiprostone) Label, NDA021908 [Internet]. 2008. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2008/021908s005lbl.pdf. Accessed 15 Feb 2019.
FDA. Evoxac (Cevimeline HCI), Medical Review Part 1, NDA 020989 [Internet]. 2000. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2000/20-989_Evoxac_medr_P1.pdf. Accessed 15 Feb 2019.
FDA. Austedo (deutetrabenazine), Medical Review, NDA208082 [Internet]. 2016. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2017/208082Orig1s000MedR.pdf. Accessed 15 Feb 2019.
FDA. Kybella (deoxycholic acid), Medical Review, NDA 206333 [Internet]. 2015. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2015/206333Orig1s000MedR.pdf. Accessed 15 Feb 2019.
FDA. Simponi (golimumab), Medical Review, BLA 125289 [Internet]. 2009. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2009/125289_MedR_P1.pdf. Accessed 15 Feb 2019.
FDA. Savella (milnacipran HCL), Medical Review, NDA 022256 [Internet]. 2008. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2009/022256s000_MedR_P1.pdf. Accessed 15 Feb 2019.
FDA. Banzel (rufinamide), Medical Review, NDA 021911 [Internet]. 2008. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2008/021911s000_MedR_P1.pdf. Accessed 15 Feb 2019.
O’Cathain A, Goode J, Drabble SJ, Thomas KJ, Rudolph A, Hewison J. Getting added value from using qualitative research with randomized controlled trials: a qualitative interview study. Trials. 2014;15:215. CrossRef
- The Case for the Use of Patient and Caregiver Perception of Change Assessments in Rare Disease Clinical Trials: A Methodologic Overview
Marielle G. Contesse
James E. Valentine
Tracy E. Wall
Mindy G. Leffler
- Springer Healthcare
Advances in Therapy
Print ISSN: 0741-238X
Elektronische ISSN: 1865-8652
Neu im Fachgebiet Innere Medizin
Meistgelesene Bücher aus der Inneren Medizin
Mail Icon II