Literature DB >> 26715217

Incorporating patient preferences into drug development and regulatory decision making: Results from a quantitative pilot study with cancer patients, carers, and regulators.

D Postmus1,2, M Mavris1, H L Hillege2, T Salmonson1,3, B Ryll4, A Plate5, I Moulon1, H-G Eichler1, N Bere1, F Pignatti1.   

Abstract

Currently, patient preference studies are not required to be included in marketing authorization applications to regulatory authorities, and the role and methodology for such studies have not been agreed upon. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) conducted a pilot study to gain experience on how the collection of individual preferences can inform the regulatory review. Using a short online questionnaire, ordinal statements regarding the desirability of different outcomes in the treatment of advanced cancer were elicited from 139 participants (98 regulators, 29 patient or carers, and 12 healthcare professionals). This was followed by face-to-face meetings to gather feedback and validate the individual responses. In this article we summarize the EMA pilot study and discuss the role of patient preference studies within the regulatory review. Based on the results, we conclude that our preference elicitation instrument was easy to implement and sufficiently precise to learn about the distribution of the participants' individual preferences.
© 2015 American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26715217     DOI: 10.1002/cpt.332

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther        ISSN: 0009-9236            Impact factor:   6.875


  34 in total

1.  Symposium Title: Preference Evidence for Regulatory Decisions.

Authors:  Juan Marcos Gonzalez; F Reed Johnson; Bennett Levitan; Rebecca Noel; Holly Peay
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 3.883

2.  Quality-adjusted survival of nivolumab plus ipilimumab or nivolumab alone versus ipilimumab alone among treatment-naive patients with advanced melanoma: a quality-adjusted time without symptoms or toxicity (Q-TWiST) analysis.

Authors:  David F McDermott; Ruchit Shah; Komal Gupte-Singh; Javier Sabater; Linlin Luo; Marc Botteman; Sumati Rao; Meredith M Regan; Michael Atkins
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2018-09-06       Impact factor: 4.147

3.  The Ball is in Your Court: Agenda for Research to Advance the Science of Patient Preferences in the Regulatory Review of Medical Devices in the United States.

Authors:  Bennett Levitan; A Brett Hauber; Marina G Damiano; Ross Jaffe; Stephanie Christopher
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 4.  From promising molecules to orphan drugs: Early clinical drug development.

Authors:  Marc Dooms
Journal:  Intractable Rare Dis Res       Date:  2017-02

5.  How Do Members of the Duchenne and Becker Muscular Dystrophy Community Perceive a Discrete-Choice Experiment Incorporating Uncertain Treatment Benefit? An Application of Research as an Event.

Authors:  John F P Bridges; Jui-Hua Tsai; Ellen Janssen; Norah L Crossnohere; Ryan Fischer; Holly Peay
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2019-04       Impact factor: 3.883

6.  Use of Patient Preference Studies in HTA Decision Making: A NICE Perspective.

Authors:  Jacoline C Bouvy; Luke Cowie; Rosemary Lovett; Deborah Morrison; Heidi Livingstone; Nick Crabb
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 3.883

7.  Developing an instrument to assess patient preferences for benefits and risks of treating acute myeloid leukemia to promote patient-focused drug development.

Authors:  Jaein Seo; B Douglas Smith; Elihu Estey; Ernest Voyard; Bernadette O' Donoghue; John F P Bridges
Journal:  Curr Med Res Opin       Date:  2018-04-27       Impact factor: 2.580

8.  A Systematic Review of Discrete Choice Experiments in Oncology Treatments.

Authors:  Hannah Collacott; Vikas Soekhai; Caitlin Thomas; Anne Brooks; Ella Brookes; Rachel Lo; Sarah Mulnick; Sebastian Heidenreich
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2021-05-05       Impact factor: 3.883

9.  A Quality-adjusted Time Without Symptoms or Toxicity (Q-TWiST) Analysis of Nivolumab Versus Everolimus in Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma (aRCC).

Authors:  Ruchitbhai Shah; Marc Botteman; Caitlyn T Solem; Linlin Luo; Justin Doan; David Cella; Robert J Motzer
Journal:  Clin Genitourin Cancer       Date:  2019-05-31       Impact factor: 2.872

10.  Investigating Patients' Preferences to Inform Drug Development Decisions: Novel Insights from a Discrete Choice Experiment in Migraine.

Authors:  Aleksandra Torbica; Carla Rognoni; Rosanna Tarricone
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-05-05       Impact factor: 3.390

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.