Literature DB >> 21476818

Interpreting patient-reported outcome results: US FDA guidance and emerging methods.

Lori D McLeod1, Cheryl D Coon, Susan A Martin, Sheri E Fehnel, Ron D Hays.   

Abstract

In recent years, the US FDA has become more critical of instruments used to measure patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical trials. To facilitate decisions related to the approval of drugs, labels and promotional claims based on PROs, the FDA created the Study Endpoints and Label Development (SEALD) group. SEALD has developed a PRO guidance related to the use of PRO measures used to support drug approvals and label claims, including recommendations for establishing thresholds for meaningful change at the individual level (i.e., defining a responder). This article examines in detail the FDA-recommended methodology for defining a responder and analyzing responder-based PRO measure results. We also present other responder analysis approaches for consideration in furthering the precision and interpretation of this methodology.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21476818      PMCID: PMC3125671          DOI: 10.1586/erp.11.12

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res        ISSN: 1473-7167            Impact factor:   2.217


  10 in total

1.  Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life.

Authors:  K W Wyrwich; W M Tierney; F D Wolinsky
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1999-09       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  Evaluating the statistical significance of health-related quality-of-life change in individual patients.

Authors:  Ron D Hays; Marc Brodsky; M Francis Johnston; Karen L Spritzer; Ka-Kit Hui
Journal:  Eval Health Prof       Date:  2005-06       Impact factor: 2.651

3.  Use of the cumulative proportion of responders analysis graph to present pain data over a range of cut-off points: making clinical trial data more understandable.

Authors:  John T Farrar; Robert H Dworkin; Mitchell B Max
Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 3.612

4.  Approaches and recommendations for estimating minimally important differences for health-related quality of life measures.

Authors:  Ron D Hays; Sepideh S Farivar; Honghu Liu
Journal:  COPD       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 2.409

5.  Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific Quality of Life Questionnaire.

Authors:  E F Juniper; G H Guyatt; A Willan; L E Griffith
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1994-01       Impact factor: 6.437

6.  A method of comparing the areas under receiver operating characteristic curves derived from the same cases.

Authors:  J A Hanley; B J McNeil
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  1983-09       Impact factor: 11.105

7.  Clinical importance of changes in chronic pain intensity measured on an 11-point numerical pain rating scale.

Authors:  John T Farrar; James P Young; Linda LaMoreaux; John L Werth; Michael R Poole
Journal:  Pain       Date:  2001-11       Impact factor: 6.961

8.  Evaluating minimal clinically important differences for the acne-specific quality of life questionnaire.

Authors:  Lori D McLeod; Sheri E Fehnel; Jane Brandman; Tara Symonds
Journal:  Pharmacoeconomics       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 4.981

9.  Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims: draft guidance.

Authors: 
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2006-10-11       Impact factor: 3.186

10.  What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D.

Authors:  Stephen J Walters; John E Brazier
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2003-04-11       Impact factor: 3.186

  10 in total
  75 in total

Review 1.  Best (but oft-forgotten) practices: expressing and interpreting associations and effect sizes in clinical outcome assessments.

Authors:  Lori D McLeod; Joseph C Cappelleri; Ron D Hays
Journal:  Am J Clin Nutr       Date:  2016-02-10       Impact factor: 7.045

2.  The Need for a Developmentally Based Measure of Social Communication Skills.

Authors:  Somer Bishop; Cristan Farmer; Aaron Kaat; Stelios Georgiades; Stephen Kanne; Audrey Thurm
Journal:  J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry       Date:  2019-06       Impact factor: 8.829

3.  Agreement about identifying patients who change over time: cautionary results in cataract and heart failure patients.

Authors:  David Feeny; Karen Spritzer; Ron D Hays; Honghu Liu; Theodore G Ganiats; Robert M Kaplan; Mari Palta; Dennis G Fryback
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2011-10-18       Impact factor: 2.583

4.  Patient reported outcomes in GNE myopathy: incorporating a valid assessment of physical function in a rare disease.

Authors:  Christina Slota; Margaret Bevans; Li Yang; Joseph Shrader; Galen Joe; Nuria Carrillo
Journal:  Disabil Rehabil       Date:  2017-02-07       Impact factor: 3.033

5.  Predicting improvement of functioning in disability claimants.

Authors:  K Nieuwenhuijsen; L R Cornelius; M R de Boer; J W Groothoff; M H W Frings-Dresen; J J L van der Klink; S Brouwer
Journal:  J Occup Rehabil       Date:  2014-09

6.  Report of the NIH Task Force on research standards for chronic low back pain.

Authors:  Richard A Deyo; Samuel F Dworkin; Dagmar Amtmann; Gunnar Andersson; David Borenstein; Eugene Carragee; John Carrino; Roger Chou; Karon Cook; Anthony Delitto; Christine Goertz; Partap Khalsa; John Loeser; Sean Mackey; James Panagis; James Rainville; Tor Tosteson; Dennis Turk; Michael Von Korff; Debra K Weiner
Journal:  Phys Ther       Date:  2015-02

Review 7.  Working toward precision medicine approaches to treat severe obesity in adolescents: report of an NIH workshop.

Authors:  Aaron S Kelly; Marsha D Marcus; Jack A Yanovski; Susan Z Yanovski; Stavroula K Osganian
Journal:  Int J Obes (Lond)       Date:  2018-10-03       Impact factor: 5.095

Review 8.  Quality of life and technology: impact on children and families with diabetes.

Authors:  Masakazu Hirose; Elizabeth A Beverly; Katie Weinger
Journal:  Curr Diab Rep       Date:  2012-12       Impact factor: 4.810

9.  Prediction of pain outcomes in a randomized controlled trial of dose-response of spinal manipulation for the care of chronic low back pain.

Authors:  Darcy Vavrek; Mitchell Haas; Moni Blazej Neradilek; Nayak Polissar
Journal:  BMC Musculoskelet Disord       Date:  2015-08-19       Impact factor: 2.362

Review 10.  Conceptual and Analytical Considerations toward the Use of Patient-Reported Outcomes in Personalized Medicine.

Authors:  Demissie Alemayehu; Joseph C Cappelleri
Journal:  Am Health Drug Benefits       Date:  2012-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.