The Use of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures in Rare Diseases and Implications for Health Technology Assessment

Abstract

Background Patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) are used in health technology assessment (HTA) to measure patient experiences with disease and treatment, allowing a deeper understanding of treatment impact beyond clinical endpoints. Developing and administering PROMs for rare diseases poses unique challenges because of small patient populations, disease heterogeneity, lack of natural history knowledge, and short-term studies. Objective This research aims to identify key factors to consider when using different types of PROMs in HTA for rare disease treatments (RDTs). Methods A scoping review of scientific and grey literature was conducted, with no date or publication type restrictions. Information on the advantages of and the challenges and potential solutions when using different types of PROMs for RDTs, including psychometric properties, was extracted and synthesized. Results Of 79 records from PubMed, 32 were included, plus 12 records from the grey literature. PROMs for rare diseases face potential data collection and psychometric challenges resulting from small patient populations and disease heterogeneity. Generic PROMs are comparable across diseases but not sensitive to disease specificities. Disease-specific instruments are sensitive but do not exist for many rare diseases and rarely provide the utility values required by some HTA bodies. Creating new PROMs is time and resource intensive. Potential solutions include pooling data (multi-site/international data collection), using computer-assisted technology, or using generic and disease-specific PROMs in a complementary way. Conclusions PROMs are relevant in HTA for RDTs but pose a number of difficulties. A deeper understanding of the potential advantages of and the challenges and potential solutions for each can help manage these difficulties.

Patient and healthcare professional eHealth literacy and needs for systemic sclerosis support: a mixed methods study

“…Moreover, given the rate of technologic advances, available eHealth literacy measures do not adequately cover current technological developments. [25][26][27] Hence, we constructed a set of pragmatic Systemic sclerosis Systemic sclerosis Systemic sclerosis items tailored to SSc, including dimensions of instruments developed by Halwas et al 28 and Vanhoof et al 29 Item selection was guided by the dimensions of eHealth literacy including 'access', 'understand and appraise' and 'apply' ICT/eHealth services (table 1). Participants were invited to provide open-ended, free text comments at the end of the questionnaire.…”

The burden of illness in patients with paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria receiving treatment with the C5-inhibitors eculizumab or ravulizumab: results from a US patient survey

“…Furthermore, data on clinical responses to treatment using validated QoL instruments in patients with PNH who are treated with C5i are scarce. Evidence suggests that data gathered from patient-reported outcome measures, including validated QoL scales, have the potential to inform patient care and benefit outcomes for patients with rare diseases [ 15 , 16 ]. Given these observations, the objectives and research question for the current study aimed to evaluate and report the medical care and living experience of C5i-treated patients with PNH, as measured by self-reported clinically relevant laboratory parameters and PNH symptoms, resource use questions, and validated QoL instruments.…”

Experienced fatigue in people with rare disorders: a scoping review on characteristics of existing research

“…We found only fifteen articles investigating validation or development of fatigue assessment tools for a rare disease patient group. This is in contrast to existing recommendations that emphasize that when choosing patient reported outcome measures (PROMs) it is important to ensure cultural and linguistic validation, and also evaluate the appropriateness for patient, condition and therapy [ 64 ]. Even if an outcome measure is found valid in one patient group, it may not necessarily be valid or appropriate for another patient groups.…”

“…The benefit of using generic PROMs are that they are comparable across diseases, and for some reference values to the general populations exist. However it is argued that generic measures may not be sensitive to disease specificities [ 64 , 65 ]. On the other hand disease-specific measures pose the challenge that they can only make comparisons within the same patient group, and developing new PROMs are time and resource demanding.…”