Erin Zagadailov1, Michael Fine2, Alan Shields3. 1. Dr Zagadailov is Manager of Global Health Economics Outcomes Research, Xcenda, Chicago, IL. 2. Dr Fine is Medical Director, HealthNet, Huntington Beach, CA. 3. Dr Shields is Director of Endpoint Development and Outcomes Assessment, Adelphi Values, Boston, MA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A patient-reported outcome (PRO) is a subjective report that comes from a patient without interpretation by a clinician. Because of the increasingly significant role of PROs in the development and evaluation of new medicines, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a formal guidance to describe how PRO instruments will be reviewed and evaluated with respect to claims in approved medical product labeling. Meanwhile, PROs continue to appear in oncology clinical trials more frequently; however, it is unclear how payers and policymakers can use PRO data in the context of decision-making for cancer treatments. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this article is to discuss the challenges and opportunities of incorporating oncology-related PRO data into payer decision-making. DISCUSSION: Payer concerns with PRO instruments are often related to issues regarding measurement, relevance, quality, and interpretability of PROs. Payers may dismiss PROs that do not independently predict improved outcomes. The FDA guidance released in 2009 demonstrates, as evidenced by the case of ruxolitinib, how PRO questionnaires can be generated in a relevant, trustworthy, and meaningful way, which provides an opportunity for payers and policy decision makers to focus on how to use PRO data in their decision-making. This is particularly relevant in oncology, where a recent and sizable number of clinical trials include PRO measures. CONCLUSION: As an increasing number of oncology medications enter the market with product labeling claims that contain PRO data, payers will need to better familiarize themselves with the opportunities associated with PRO questionnaires when making coverage decisions. PRO measures will continue to provide valuable information regarding the risk-benefit profile of novel agents. As such, PRO measures may provide evidence that should be considered in payers' decisions and discussions; however, the formal role of PROs and the pertinence of PROs in decision-making has yet to be understood.
BACKGROUND: A patient-reported outcome (PRO) is a subjective report that comes from a patient without interpretation by a clinician. Because of the increasingly significant role of PROs in the development and evaluation of new medicines, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a formal guidance to describe how PRO instruments will be reviewed and evaluated with respect to claims in approved medical product labeling. Meanwhile, PROs continue to appear in oncology clinical trials more frequently; however, it is unclear how payers and policymakers can use PRO data in the context of decision-making for cancer treatments. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this article is to discuss the challenges and opportunities of incorporating oncology-related PRO data into payer decision-making. DISCUSSION: Payer concerns with PRO instruments are often related to issues regarding measurement, relevance, quality, and interpretability of PROs. Payers may dismiss PROs that do not independently predict improved outcomes. The FDA guidance released in 2009 demonstrates, as evidenced by the case of ruxolitinib, how PRO questionnaires can be generated in a relevant, trustworthy, and meaningful way, which provides an opportunity for payers and policy decision makers to focus on how to use PRO data in their decision-making. This is particularly relevant in oncology, where a recent and sizable number of clinical trials include PRO measures. CONCLUSION: As an increasing number of oncology medications enter the market with product labeling claims that contain PRO data, payers will need to better familiarize themselves with the opportunities associated with PRO questionnaires when making coverage decisions. PRO measures will continue to provide valuable information regarding the risk-benefit profile of novel agents. As such, PRO measures may provide evidence that should be considered in payers' decisions and discussions; however, the formal role of PROs and the pertinence of PROs in decision-making has yet to be understood.
Authors: Donald L Patrick; Laurie B Burke; Chad J Gwaltney; Nancy Kline Leidy; Mona L Martin; Elizabeth Molsen; Lena Ring Journal: Value Health Date: 2011-10-10 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Donald L Patrick; Laurie B Burke; Chad J Gwaltney; Nancy Kline Leidy; Mona L Martin; Elizabeth Molsen; Lena Ring Journal: Value Health Date: 2011-10-13 Impact factor: 5.725
Authors: Albert Deisseroth; Edvardas Kaminskas; Joseph Grillo; Wei Chen; Haleh Saber; Hong L Lu; Mark D Rothmann; Satjit Brar; Jian Wang; Christine Garnett; Julie Bullock; Laurie B Burke; Atiqur Rahman; Rajeshwari Sridhara; Ann Farrell; Richard Pazdur Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2012-04-27 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Francisco Cervantes; Brigitte Dupriez; Arturo Pereira; Francesco Passamonti; John T Reilly; Enrica Morra; Alessandro M Vannucchi; Ruben A Mesa; Jean-Loup Demory; Giovanni Barosi; Elisa Rumi; Ayalew Tefferi Journal: Blood Date: 2008-11-06 Impact factor: 22.113
Authors: Edwin P Rock; Jane A Scott; Dianne L Kennedy; Rajeshwari Sridhara; Richard Pazdur; Laurie B Burke Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr Date: 2007
Authors: John H Powers; Kellee Howard; Todd Saretsky; Sarah Clifford; Steve Hoffmann; Lily Llorens; George Talbot Journal: Clin Infect Dis Date: 2016-08-15 Impact factor: 9.079
Authors: Markus K Schuler; Freya Trautmann; Mirko Radloff; Roman Schmädig; Leopold Hentschel; Maria Eberlein-Gonska; Thomas Petzold; Heike Vetter; Sebastian Oberlack; Gerhard Ehninger; Jochen Schmitt Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-03-16 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Alan L Shields; Yanni Hao; Meaghan Krohe; Andrew Yaworsky; Iyar Mazar; Catherine Foley; Faisal Mehmed; Denise Globe Journal: Am Health Drug Benefits Date: 2016-06
Authors: Freya Trautmann; Leopold Hentschel; Beate Hornemann; Anke Rentsch; Michael Baumann; Gerhard Ehninger; Jochen Schmitt; Markus Schuler Journal: Support Care Cancer Date: 2016-02-18 Impact factor: 3.603
Authors: Markus Schuler; Stephan Richter; Gerhard Ehninger; Martin Bornhäuser; Leopold Hentschel Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2017-06-30 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Meaghan Krohe; Yanni Hao; Roger E Lamoureux; Nina Galipeau; Denise Globe; Catherine Foley; Iyar Mazar; Jeffrey Solomon; Alan L Shields Journal: Breast Cancer (Auckl) Date: 2016-07-14