Pennifer Erickson1, Richard Willke, Laurie Burke. 1. Department of Public Health Sciences, Penn State College of Medicine, 1316 Deerfield Dr., State College, PA 16803, USA. pae6@psu.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To facilitate development and evaluation of a PRO instrument conceptual framework, we propose two tools--a PRO concept taxonomy and a PRO instrument hierarchy. FDA's draft guidance on patient reported outcome (PRO) measures states that a clear description of the conceptual framework of an instrument is useful for evaluating its adequacy to support a treatment benefit claim for use in product labeling the draft guidance, however does not propose tools for establishing or evaluating a PRO instrument's conceptual framework. METHODS: We draw from our review of PRO concepts and instruments that appear in prescription drug labeling approved in the United States from 1997 to 2007. RESULTS: We propose taxonomy terms that define relationships between PRO concepts, including "family,""compound concept," and "singular concept." Based on the range of complexity represented by the concepts, as defined by the taxonomy, we propose nine instrument orders for PRO measurement. The nine orders range from individual event counts to multi-item, multiscale instruments. CONCLUSION: This analysis of PRO concepts and instruments illustrates that the taxonomy and hierarchy are applicable to PRO concepts across a wide range of therapeutic areas and provide a basis for defining the instrument conceptual framework complexity. Although the utility of these tools in the drug development, review, and approval processes has not yet been demonstrated, these tools could be useful to improve communication and enhance efficiency in the instrument development and review process.
OBJECTIVE: To facilitate development and evaluation of a PRO instrument conceptual framework, we propose two tools--a PRO concept taxonomy and a PRO instrument hierarchy. FDA's draft guidance on patient reported outcome (PRO) measures states that a clear description of the conceptual framework of an instrument is useful for evaluating its adequacy to support a treatment benefit claim for use in product labeling the draft guidance, however does not propose tools for establishing or evaluating a PRO instrument's conceptual framework. METHODS: We draw from our review of PRO concepts and instruments that appear in prescription drug labeling approved in the United States from 1997 to 2007. RESULTS: We propose taxonomy terms that define relationships between PRO concepts, including "family,""compound concept," and "singular concept." Based on the range of complexity represented by the concepts, as defined by the taxonomy, we propose nine instrument orders for PRO measurement. The nine orders range from individual event counts to multi-item, multiscale instruments. CONCLUSION: This analysis of PRO concepts and instruments illustrates that the taxonomy and hierarchy are applicable to PRO concepts across a wide range of therapeutic areas and provide a basis for defining the instrument conceptual framework complexity. Although the utility of these tools in the drug development, review, and approval processes has not yet been demonstrated, these tools could be useful to improve communication and enhance efficiency in the instrument development and review process.
Authors: Bryce B Reeve; Kathleen W Wyrwich; Albert W Wu; Galina Velikova; Caroline B Terwee; Claire F Snyder; Carolyn Schwartz; Dennis A Revicki; Carol M Moinpour; Lori D McLeod; Jessica C Lyons; William R Lenderking; Pamela S Hinds; Ron D Hays; Joanne Greenhalgh; Richard Gershon; David Feeny; Peter M Fayers; David Cella; Michael Brundage; Sara Ahmed; Neil K Aaronson; Zeeshan Butt Journal: Qual Life Res Date: 2013-01-04 Impact factor: 4.147
Authors: Michaela A Dinan; Kate L Compton; Jatinder K Dhillon; Bradley G Hammill; Esi Morgan Dewitt; Kevin P Weinfurt; Kevin A Schulman Journal: Med Care Date: 2011-04 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Alain M Schoepfer; Radoslaw Panczak; Marcel Zwahlen; Claudia E Kuehni; Michael Coslovsky; Elisabeth Maurer; Nadine A Haas; Jeffrey A Alexander; Evan S Dellon; Nirmala Gonsalves; Ikuo Hirano; John Leung; Christian Bussmann; Margaret H Collins; Robert O Newbury; Giovanni De Petris; Thomas C Smyrk; John T Woosley; Pu Yan; Guang-Yu Yang; Yvonne Romero; David A Katzka; Glenn T Furuta; Sandeep K Gupta; Seema S Aceves; Mirna Chehade; Carine Blanchard; Alex Straumann; Ekaterina Safroneeva Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2015-03-03 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Alain M Schoepfer; Alex Straumann; Radoslaw Panczak; Michael Coslovsky; Claudia E Kuehni; Elisabeth Maurer; Nadine A Haas; Yvonne Romero; Ikuo Hirano; Jeffrey A Alexander; Nirmala Gonsalves; Glenn T Furuta; Evan S Dellon; John Leung; Margaret H Collins; Christian Bussmann; Peter Netzer; Sandeep K Gupta; Seema S Aceves; Mirna Chehade; Fouad J Moawad; Felicity T Enders; Kathleen J Yost; Tiffany H Taft; Emily Kern; Marcel Zwahlen; Ekaterina Safroneeva Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2014-08-23 Impact factor: 22.682
Authors: Ekaterina Safroneeva; Alex Straumann; Michael Coslovsky; Marcel Zwahlen; Claudia E Kuehni; Radoslaw Panczak; Nadine A Haas; Jeffrey A Alexander; Evan S Dellon; Nirmala Gonsalves; Ikuo Hirano; John Leung; Christian Bussmann; Margaret H Collins; Robert O Newbury; Giovanni De Petris; Thomas C Smyrk; John T Woosley; Pu Yan; Guang-Yu Yang; Yvonne Romero; David A Katzka; Glenn T Furuta; Sandeep K Gupta; Seema S Aceves; Mirna Chehade; Jonathan M Spergel; Alain M Schoepfer Journal: Gastroenterology Date: 2015-11-14 Impact factor: 22.682