Methods for interpreting change over time in patient-reported outcome measures
- 1.8k Downloads
Interpretation guidelines are needed for patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures’ change scores to evaluate efficacy of an intervention and to communicate PRO results to regulators, patients, physicians, and providers. The 2009 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Guidance for Industry Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims (hereafter referred to as the final FDA PRO Guidance) provides some recommendations for the interpretation of change in PRO scores as evidence of treatment efficacy.
This article reviews the evolution of the methods and the terminology used to describe and aid in the communication of meaningful PRO change score thresholds.
Anchor- and distribution-based methods have played important roles, and the FDA has recently stressed the importance of cross-sectional patient global assessments of concept as anchor-based methods for estimation of the responder definition, which describes an individual-level treatment benefit. The final FDA PRO Guidance proposes the cumulative distribution function (CDF) of responses as a useful method to depict the effect of treatments across the study population.
While CDFs serve an important role, they should not be a replacement for the careful investigation of a PRO’s relevant responder definition using anchor-based methods and providing stakeholders with a relevant threshold for the interpretation of change over time.
KeywordsPatient-reported outcome Interpretation Anchor-based Distribution-based Change over time Quality of life Cumulative distribution function Minimal important difference Responder definition
Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire
Cumulative distribution function
Chronic Heart Failure Questionnaire
Chronic Respiratory Questionnaire
Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group
Food and drug administration
Industry Advisory Committee
International Society for Quality of Life Research
Minimal clinically important difference
Minimal important difference
Quality of life
Members of the Industry Advisory Committee (IAC), the Board of Directors of the International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL), and two anonymous reviewers offered valuable suggestions that were incorporated into this paper.
- 1.Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI). Available at: http://www.pcori.org/home.html.
- 3.Food and Drug Administration. (2009). Guidance for industry on patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Federal Register, 74(235), 65132–65133.Google Scholar
- 4.Burke, L. B., & Trenacosti, A. M. (2010). Interpretation of PRO trial results to support FDA labelling claims: the regulator perspective. International Society for Pharmacoecomomics and Outcomes Research 15th Annual International Meeting. Atlanta: GA.Google Scholar
- 12.Sloan, J. A., Cella, D., Frost, M., Guyatt, G. H., Sprangers, M., & Symonds, T. (2002). Assessing clinical significance in measuring oncology patient quality of life: Introduction to the symposium, content overview, and definition of terms. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 77(4), 367–370.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Food and Drug Administration. (2006). Draft guidance for industry on patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Federal Register, 71(23), 5862–5863.Google Scholar
- 30.Wyrwich, K., Harnam, N., Revicki, D. A., Locklear, J. C., Svedsater, H., & Endicott, J. (2009). Assessing health-related quality of life in generalized anxiety disorder using the Quality Of Life Enjoyment and Satisfaction Questionnaire. International Clinical Psychopharmacology, 24(6), 289–295.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 32.Kosinski, M., Zhao, S. Z., Dedhiya, S., Osterhaus, J. T., & Ware, J. E., Jr. (2000). Determining minimally important changes in generic and disease-specific health-related quality of life questionnaires in clinical trials of rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis and Rheumatism, 43(7), 1478–1487.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33.Eton, D. T., Cella, D., Yost, K. J., Yount, S. E., Peterman, A. H., Neuberg, D. S., et al. (2004). A combination of distribution- and anchor-based approaches determined minimally important differences (MIDs) for four endpoints in a breast cancer scale. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 57(9), 898–910.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 34.Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- 39.Nunnally, J. C., & Bernstein, I. H. (1994). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- 43.Cella, D., Eton, D. T., Fairclough, D. L., Bonomi, P., Heyes, A. E., Silberman, C., et al. (2002). What is a clinically meaningful change on the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Lung (FACT-L) Questionnaire? Results from Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) Study 5592. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 55(3), 285–295.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 45.Yost, K. J., Cella, D., Chawla, A., Holmgren, E., Eton, D. T., Ayanian, J. Z., et al. (2005). Minimally important differences were estimated for the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Colorectal (FACT-C) instrument using a combination of distribution- and anchor-based approaches. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 58(12), 1241–1251.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 46.ARICEPT Oral Solution (Donepezil Hydrochloride) [approval label]. Available at: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2004/21719lbl.pdf.
- 53.van der Linden, F. A., Kragt, J. J., van Bon, M., Klein, M., Thompson, A. J., van der Ploeg, H. M., et al. (2008). Longitudinal proxy measurements in multiple sclerosis: Patient-proxy agreement on the impact of MS on daily life over a period of two years. BMC Neurol, 8, 2.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar