↓ Skip to main content

Incorporating development of a patient-reported outcome instrument in a clinical drug development program: examples from a heart failure program

Overview of attention for article published in Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
63 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Incorporating development of a patient-reported outcome instrument in a clinical drug development program: examples from a heart failure program
Published in
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12955-016-0529-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ingela Wiklund, Milena Anatchkova, Hafiz Oko-Osi, Robyn von Maltzahn, Dina Chau, Fady I. Malik, Donald L. Patrick, John Spertus, John R. Teerlink

Abstract

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures can be used to support label claims if they adhere to US Food & Drug Administration guidance. The process of developing a new PRO measure is expensive and time-consuming. We report the results of qualitative studies to develop new PRO measures for use in clinical trials of omecamtiv mecarbil (a selective, small molecule activator of cardiac myosin) for patients with heart failure (HF), as well as the lessons learned from the development process. Concept elicitation focus groups and individual interviews were conducted with patients with HF to identify concepts for the instrument. Cognitive interviews with HF patients were used to confirm that no essential concepts were missing and to assess patient comprehension of the instrument and items. During concept elicitation, the most frequently reported HF symptoms were shortness of breath, tiredness, fluid retention, fatigue, dizziness/light-headedness, swelling, weight fluctuation, and trouble sleeping. Two measures were developed based on the concepts: the Heart Failure Symptom Diary (HF-SD) and the Heart Failure Impact Scale (HFIS). Findings from cognitive interviews suggested that the items in the HF-SD and HFIS were relevant and well understood by patients. Multiple iterations of concept elicitation and cognitive interviews were needed based on FDA request for a broader patient population in the qualitative study. Lessons learned from the omecamtiv mecarbil PRO/clinical development program are discussed, including challenges of qualitative studies, patient recruitment, expected and actual timelines, cost, and engagement with various stakeholders. Development of a new PRO measure to support a label claim requires significant investment and early planning, as demonstrated by the omecamtiv mecarbil program.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 63 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 2%
Unknown 62 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 16%
Researcher 8 13%
Student > Master 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 6%
Other 6 10%
Unknown 22 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 21%
Psychology 8 13%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 5%
Social Sciences 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 2 3%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 27 43%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 15 September 2016.
All research outputs
#18,471,305
of 22,888,307 outputs
Outputs from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#1,671
of 2,160 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#243,646
of 321,166 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health and Quality of Life Outcomes
#26
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,888,307 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,160 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.4. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 321,166 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.