No abstract

Digital health technology tools (DHTT) are technologies such as apps, smartphones, and wearables that remotely acquire healthrelated information from individuals. They have the potential advantages of objectivity and sensitivity of measurement, richness of high-frequency sensor data, and opportunity for passive collection of health-related data. Thus, DHTTs promise to provide patient phenotyping at an order of granularity several times greater than is possible with traditional clinical research tools. While the conceptual development of novel DHTTs is keeping pace with technological and analytical advancements, an as yet unaddressed gap is how to develop robust and meaningful outcome measures based on sensor data. Here, we describe two roadmaps which were developed to generate outcome measures based on DHTT data: one using a data-centric approach and the second a patientcentric approach. The data-centric approach to develop digital outcome measures summarizes those sensor features maximally sensitive to the concept of interest, exemplified with the quantification of disease progression. The patient-centric approach summarizes those sensor features that are optimally relevant to patients' functioning in everyday life. Both roadmaps are exemplified for use in tracking disease progression in observational and clinical interventional studies, and with a DHTT designed to evaluate motor symptom severity and symptom experience in Parkinson's disease. Use cases other than disease progression (e.g., case-finding) are considered summarily. DHTT research requires methods to summarize sensor data into meaningful outcome measures. It is hoped that the concepts outlined here will encourage a scientific discourse and eventual consensus on the creation of novel digital outcome measures for both basic clinical research and clinical drug development.

No abstract

A case is presented of angina manifesting itself initially solely as vertex and occipital headache, accompanied by EKG changes, provoked by exercise and relieved by rest. It was totally relieved by coronary bypass surgery and, later, by angioplasty. Its mechanism is probably a variation on the neural convergence usually invoked to explain the more typical chest pain angina.

Establishing meaningful change thresholds for Clinical Outcome Assessments (COA) is critical for score interpretation. While anchor- and distribution-based statistical methods are well-established, qualitative approaches are less frequently used. This commentary summarizes and expands on a symposium presented at the International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) 2017 annual conference, which provided an overview of qualitative methods that can be used to support understanding of meaningful change thresholds on COAs. Further published literature and additional examples from multiple disease areas which have also qualitatively explored the concept of meaningful change are presented. Semi-structured interviews conducted independently from a clinical trial, exit interviews conducted in the context of a clinical trial, focus groups, vignettes and the Delphi panel method can be used to obtain data regarding meaningful change thresholds, with advantages and disadvantages to each method. Semi-structured interviews using concept elicitation (CE) or cognitive debriefing (CD) methods conducted independently from a clinical trial can be an efficient way to gain in-depth patient/caregiver insights. However, there can be challenges with reconciling heterogeneous data across diverse samples and in interpreting the qualitative insights in the context of quantitative score changes. Semi-structured qualitative interviews using CE/CD methods embedded as exit interviews in a clinical trial context with patients/caregivers can provide insights which can augment quantitative findings based on analysis of clinical trial data. However, there are logistical challenges relating to embedding the interviews in a clinical trial. Focus groups and the Delphi panel method can be valuable for reaching consensus regarding meaningful change thresholds; however, for face-to-face interactions, social desirability bias can affect responses. Finally, using vignettes and taking a mixed methods approach can aid in achieving consensus on the minimum score change endorsed by respondents as a meaningful improvement/decrement. However, the approach can be cognitively challenging for participants and reaching a consensus is not guaranteed. Anchor- and distribution- based methods remain critical in establishing responder definitions. Nonetheless, qualitative data has the potential to provide complementary support that a certain level of change on the target COA, which has been statistically supported, is truly important and meaningful for the target population.

Risdiplam is an oral, survival of motor neuron 2 (SMN2) pre-mRNA splicing modifier approved for the treatment of spinal muscular atrophy (SMA). SUNFISH (NCT02908685) Part 2, a Phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, investigated the efficacy and safety of risdiplam in type 2 and non‑ambulant type 3 SMA. The primary endpoint was met: a significantly greater change from baseline in 32-item Motor Function Measure (MFM32) total score was observed with risdiplam compared with placebo at month 12. After 12 months, all participants received risdiplam while preserving initial treatment blinding. We report 24-month efficacy and safety results in this population. Month 24 exploratory endpoints included change from baseline in MFM32 and safety. MFM‑derived results were compared with an external comparator. At month 24 of risdiplam treatment, 32% of patients demonstrated improvement (a change of ≥ 3) from baseline in MFM32 total score; 58% showed stabilization (a change of ≥ 0). Compared with an external comparator, a treatment difference of 3.12 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.67–4.57) in favor of risdiplam was observed in MFM-derived scores. Overall, gains in motor function at month 12 were maintained or improved upon at month 24. In patients initially receiving placebo, MFM32 remained stable compared with baseline (0.31 [95% CI – 0.65 to 1.28]) after 12 months of risdiplam; 16% of patients improved their score and 59% exhibited stabilization. The safety profile after 24 months was consistent with that observed after 12 months. Risdiplam over 24 months resulted in further improvement or stabilization in motor function, confirming the benefit of longer-term treatment.

The ADSD is a new patient-reported asthma symptom diary developed in accordance with the Food and Drug Administration's PRO Guidance. Evidence to date supports the content validity of the instrument. Item performance, reliability, and construct validity will be assessed in future quantitative research.

Background: The amount of assistance required to perform daily activities for individuals with Type 2 and nonambulant Type 3 spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) is often cited as meaningful for quality of life, and important to routinely assess. Methods: The SMA Independence Scale (SMAIS), a patient-reported outcome measure for individuals with SMA aged ≥12 years, and an observer-reported outcome measure for caregivers of individuals aged ≥2 years, was developed and evaluated in two phases. In Phase 1, 30 draft items were developed following review of the literature. Semi-structured interviews were then conducted with individuals with SMA and caregivers to establish content validity, resulting in a 29-item measure. In Phase 2, classical test theory and Rasch measurement theory methods were used to examine the cross-sectional and longitudinal measurement performance of the SMAIS in two independent datasets. Results: Phase 1 qualitative findings supported the relevance, acceptability, and comprehensibility of 29 items. In Phase 2, psychometric analyses indicated that the five response options were poorly discriminated and were thus collapsed to three options for subsequent analyses. Items showed statistical misfit, implying that the SMAIS was not assessing a single underlying construct. Based on conceptual evaluation of the items, and assessment of item performance, a more targeted 22-item upper limb score was derived. Reliability and validity analyses confirmed acceptable measurement properties of this score. Conclusions: Qualitative and quantitative analyses support the use of the 22-item SMAIS-Upper Limb Module in individuals with Type 2 and non-ambulant Type 3 SMA, aged ≥2 years.