Literature DB >> 14627058

Incorporating the patient's perspective into drug development and communication: an ad hoc task force report of the Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Harmonization Group meeting at the Food and Drug Administration, February 16, 2001.

Catherine Acquadro1, Rick Berzon, Dominique Dubois, Nancy Kline Leidy, Patrick Marquis, Dennis Revicki, Margaret Rothman.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The extent to which patient-based outcomes can be used to evaluate and communicate the effect of new drugs and devices is a subject of much debate. Criteria for evaluating the scientific quality of data to support health-related quality of life (HRQL) and other patient-based labeling and promotional claims in the United States and Europe have been proposed by various scientists and organizations. Since March 2000, a working group composed of members of the International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL), the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR), the Pharmaceutical Manufacturer's Association Health Outcomes Committee (PhRMA-HOC), and the European Regulatory Issues on Quality of Life Assessment (ERIQA) met to discuss and coordinate the various recommendations by their respective groups and address the need to harmonize outcomes review criteria within and across United States and European regulatory agencies. Over time, the discussion expanded from HRQL outcomes to include any outcome based on data provided by the patient or patient proxy, that is, patient-reported outcomes (PROs). The working group therefore became known as the PRO Harmonization Group.
METHODS: Working with a member of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), four key issues requiring clarification were identified: how PROs are defined and put into operation for research purposes; the added value of PROs in the drug review and evaluation process; selected questions related to the PRO measurement and research methodology; and the interest and demand for PRO information by decision makers. On February 15, 2001, all members of the PRO Harmonization Group attended a meeting in Rockville, Maryland, to discuss these four issues further, and on February 16, 2001, a formal presentation was made to representatives from various departments and reviewing divisions of the FDA. These presentations are summarized in this report.
RESULTS: All participants agreed that PROs are important for understanding the impact of treatment on patient functioning and well-being. They also stressed the need to communicate PRO information to key decision makers, including regulatory agencies, clinicians, patients and their families, and payers. Finally, the meeting resulted in plans for continuing the dialogue on PRO measurement and interpretation.
SUMMARY: The February 16, 2001, meeting represented an important step in harmonizing efforts across various organizations and in opening a dialogue with the FDA around major issues related to methodologic standards for measuring and interpreting PROs in the drug evaluation process.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14627058     DOI: 10.1046/j.1524-4733.2003.65309.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Value Health        ISSN: 1098-3015            Impact factor:   5.725


  156 in total

1.  The role of funding and policies on innovation in cancer drug development.

Authors:  P Kanavos; R Sullivan; G Lewison; W Schurer; S Eckhouse; Z Vlachopioti
Journal:  Ecancermedicalscience       Date:  2010-02-03

2.  Felicitometric hermeneutics: interpreting quality of life measurements.

Authors:  Charles J Kowalski; Jan L Bernheim; Nancy Adair Birk; Peter Theuns
Journal:  Theor Med Bioeth       Date:  2012-06

3.  Health-related quality of life as an outcome variable in Parkinson's disease.

Authors:  Pablo Martinez-Martin; Mónica M Kurtis
Journal:  Ther Adv Neurol Disord       Date:  2012-03       Impact factor: 6.570

Review 4.  Quality of life after surgery of the alimentary tract.

Authors:  Marco Scarpa
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2010-10-28       Impact factor: 5.742

5.  Understanding and Assessing the Impact of Alcoholism on Quality of Life: A Systematic Review of the Content Validity of Instruments Used to Assess Health-Related Quality of Life in Alcoholism.

Authors:  Matthew D Reaney; Colin Martin; Jane Speight
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2008-07-01       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 6.  Patient-reported outcomes (PRO's) in glaucoma: a systematic review.

Authors:  S Vandenbroeck; S De Geest; T Zeyen; I Stalmans; F Dobbels
Journal:  Eye (Lond)       Date:  2011-03-18       Impact factor: 3.775

Review 7.  Patient-reported outcomes (PROs): an approach to evaluate treatment efficacy of Chinese medicine or integrative medicine.

Authors:  Li Zhao; Kelvin Chan
Journal:  Chin J Integr Med       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 1.978

Review 8.  Pharmacovigilance during the pre-approval phases: an evolving pharmaceutical industry model in response to ICH E2E, CIOMS VI, FDA and EMEA/CHMP risk-management guidelines.

Authors:  Craig G Hartford; Kasia S Petchel; Hani Mickail; Susana Perez-Gutthann; Mary McHale; John M Grana; Paula Marquez
Journal:  Drug Saf       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 5.606

9.  Documenting the rationale and psychometric characteristics of patient reported outcomes for labeling and promotional claims: the PRO Evidence Dossier.

Authors:  Dennis A Revicki; Ari Gnanasakthy; Kevin Weinfurt
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2007-02-01       Impact factor: 4.147

10.  Patient-reported outcomes of pain and physical functioning in neurofibromatosis clinical trials.

Authors:  Pamela L Wolters; Staci Martin; Vanessa L Merker; James H Tonsgard; Sondra E Solomon; Andrea Baldwin; Amanda L Bergner; Karin Walsh; Heather L Thompson; Kathy L Gardner; Cynthia M Hingtgen; Elizabeth Schorry; William N Dudley; Barbara Franklin
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2016-08-16       Impact factor: 9.910

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.