ObjectiveThe emergence of various modes of administration for cancer treatment, including oral administration, brings into focus the importance of patient preference for administration. The purpose of this research was to evaluate the administration preferences of cancer patients, specifically between oral and intravenous (IV) treatment, as well as the factors contributing to preference.MethodsA literature search was conducted in OvidSP to identify research in which the preferences of cancer patients for oral or IV treatment have been evaluated. Data were analyzed in two stages: 1) those articles that directly compared preference between modes of administration were tallied to determine explicit preference for oral or IV treatment; and 2) all attributes associated with patient preference were documented.ResultsOf the 48 abstracts identified as part of the initial OvidSP search, eight articles were selected for full-text review. One article was removed following full-text review, and seven additional articles were identified through a gray literature search, yielding a total of 14 articles for evaluation. In Stage 1, 13 of the 14 articles compared preference, of which eleven articles (84.6%) reported that patients preferred oral treatment over IV, while two (15.4%) stated that cancer patients preferred IV treatment over oral. In Stage 2, the most frequently reported attributes contributing to preference included convenience, ability to receive treatment at home, treatment schedule, and side effects.DiscussionEvidence suggests that oncology patients prefer oral treatment to IV. Rationale for preference was due to a number of factors, including convenience, perception of efficacy, and past experience. Further evaluation should be conducted, given the limited data on patient preference in oncology.

ObjectiveAcute intermittent porphyria is a rare metabolic disorder that affects heme synthesis. Patients with acute intermittent porphyria may experience acute debilitating neurovisceral attacks that require frequent hospitalizations and negatively impact quality of life. Although clinical aspects of acute intermittent porphyria attacks have been documented, the experience of patients is not well known, particularly for those more severely affected patients who experience frequent attacks. The aim of the present study was to qualitatively characterize the experience of patients with acute intermittent porphyria who have frequent attacks, as well as the impact of the disease on daily living.MethodsPatients with acute intermittent porphyria who experience frequent attacks were recruited and took part in 2-h qualitative one-on-one interviews with a semi-structured guide. Interviews were anonymized, transcribed, and coded. The inductive coding approach targeted textual data related to acute intermittent porphyria attack symptoms, chronic symptoms, and the impact of the disease. Saturation analysis was conducted to assess whether the research elicited an adequate account of patients’ experiences.ResultsIn total, 19 patients with acute intermittent porphyria were interviewed (mean age 40 years; 79% female). Eighteen patients (95%) experienced both attack and chronic symptoms. Patients described attacks as the onset of unmanageable symptoms that generally lasted 3–5 days requiring hospitalization and/or treatment. Pain, nausea, and vomiting were considered key attack symptoms; pain, nausea, fatigue, and aspects of neuropathy (e.g., tingling and numbness) were considered key chronic symptoms.ConclusionsIn this study population of acute intermittent porphyria with frequent attacks, most patients had symptoms during and between attacks. In these patients, acute intermittent porphyria appears to have acute exacerbations as well as chronic day-to-day manifestations, and is not just intermittent as its name implies. As a result, patients reported limitations in their ability to function across multiple domains of their lives on a regular basis and not just during acute attacks.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1007/s40271-018-0319-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

ObjectivesThe aim was to document, from the perspective of the empirical literature, the primary symptoms of functional dyspepsia (FD), evaluate the extent to which existing questionnaires target those symptoms, and, finally, identify any missing evidence that would impact the questionnaires’ use in regulated clinical trials to assess treatment efficacy claims intended for product labeling.MethodsA literature review was conducted to identify the primary symptoms of FD and existing symptom-based FD patient-reported outcome (PRO) instruments. Following a database search, abstracts were screened and articles were retrieved for review. The primary symptoms of FD were organized into a conceptual model and the PRO instruments were evaluated for conceptual coverage as well as compared against evidentiary requirements presented in the FDA’s PRO Guidance for Industry.ResultsFifty-six articles and 16 instruments assessing FD symptoms were reviewed. Concepts listed in the Rome III criteria for FD (n = 7), those assessed by existing FD instruments (n = 34), and symptoms reported by patients in published qualitative research (n = 6) were summarized in the FD conceptual model. Except for vomiting, all of the identified symptoms from the published qualitative research reports were also specified in the Rome III criteria. Only three of the 16 instruments, the Dyspepsia Symptom Severity Index (DSSI), Nepean Dyspepsia Index (NDI), and Short-Form Nepean Dyspepsia Index (SF-NDI), measure all seven FD symptoms defined by the Rome III criteria. Among these three, each utilizes a 2-week recall period and 5-point Likert-type scale, and had evidence of patient involvement in development. Despite their coverage, when these instruments were evaluated in light of regulatory expectations, several issues jeopardized their potential qualification for substantiation of a labeling claim.ConclusionsNo existing PRO instruments that measured all seven symptoms adhered to the regulatory principles necessary to support product labeling. As such, the development of a new FD symptom PRO instrument is supported.

Background Novel, pragmatic, patient-centered strategies are needed to ensure fit-for-purpose patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments in clinical trial research for rare diseases such as myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML). The objective of the current study was to select supplemental items to add to the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life-Core 30 (QLQ-C30) to ensure content coverage of all important clinical concepts in patients with higher-risk (HR) MDS, low-blast count (LB) AML, and CMML, thus, improving the instrument’s ability to detect clinically meaningful treatment benefit for this context of use. Methods Our mixed methods approach comprised literature review, clinician consultation ( n = 3), and qualitative and quantitative analysis of two stages of patient interview data ( n = 14, n = 18) to select library bank items to supplement a generic cancer PRO, the EORTC QLQ-C30. Results Unique symptom ( n = 54) and impact ( n = 72) concepts were organized into conceptual frameworks of treatment benefit, compared with EORTC QLQ-C30 items and conceptual gaps identified. Supplemental items ( n = 13) addressing those gaps were selected from the EORTC Item Library and tested with patients. Supplemental item endorsement frequencies met World Health Organization Quality of Life criteria, suggesting good targeting and relevance for this sample. However, three supplemental items were confirmed as problematic based upon cognitive debriefing results, and expert clinical consultations. Ultimately, 10 supplemental items ( n = 7 symptom; n = 3 impact) were selected for the MDS/AML/CMML context. Conclusion Supplemental items were selected to enhance the conceptual coverage of the EORTC QLQ-C30 in the areas of fatigue, shortness of breath, and functioning.

The CLBP-IQ was developed in accordance with current US Food and Drug Administration guidance on instrument development. Results from both concept elicitation and cognitive debriefing interviews support the content validity of the CLBP-IQ in patients with CLBP. Future development should proceed with psychometric evaluation.