Literature DB >> 28292487

A Review of Patient-Reported Outcome Labeling in the United States (2011-2015).

Ari Gnanasakthy1, Margaret Mordin2, Emily Evans3, Lynda Doward4, Carla DeMuro3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: A review of new drug approvals (NDAs) by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for 2006 to 2010 showed that 24.1% of new drugs had patient-reported outcome (PRO) labeling.
OBJECTIVES: To review PRO labeling for NDAs for 2011 to 2015 and to compare key findings reported previously.
METHODS: A review of the FDA drug approval reports for NDAs was conducted using the FDA Web site to determine the number of NDAs for the period 2011 to 2015. For all identified NDAs, drug approval package and product labeling were reviewed to identify PRO end-point status and PRO labeling. NDAs for the period 2006 to 2015 were grouped by disease category as per the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision. Data were summarized for all NDAs and for approvals in diseases that traditionally rely on PROs for evaluating treatment benefit (PRO-dependent). Results were compared with NDAs for the period 2006 to 2010.
RESULTS: In the period 2011 to 2015, 16.5% of the 182 NDAs had PRO labeling. For PRO-dependent NDAs, this figure was 46.9% and 46.0% for the period 2006 to 1010 and the period 2011 to 2015, respectively. Most of the PRO labeling for the period 2011 to 2015 was based on primary end points (76.7%). Almost all PRO labeling was for concepts proximal to the disease.
CONCLUSIONS: There is potential for increased PRO labeling, especially for drug approvals in diseases that traditionally rely on PROs for evaluating treatment benefit to satisfy regulatory needs. Less PRO labeling based on secondary end points may be indicative of drug manufacturers' reluctance to aid and enhance the value propositions of their products to all stakeholders, including patients.
Copyright © 2017 International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  FDA; PRO labeling; drug labeling; patient-reported outcomes

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 28292487     DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2016.10.006

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


  15 in total

1.  Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs) in HIV Infection: Points to Consider and Challenges.

Authors:  Antonio Antela; José Ignacio Bernardino; Juan Carlos López-Bernaldo de Quirós; Pablo Bachiller; María José Fuster-RuizdeApodaca; Jordi Puig; Silvia Rodríguez; Isabel Castrejón; Beatriz Álvarez; Marta Hermenegildo
Journal:  Infect Dis Ther       Date:  2022-09-06

2.  How Oncologists Perceive the Availability and Quality of Information Generated From Patient-Reported Outcomes (PROs).

Authors:  Michael Shea; Céline Audibert; Mark Stewart; Brittany Gentile; Diana Merino; Agnes Hong; Laura Lassiter; Alexis Caze; Jonathan Leff; Jeff Allen; Ellen Sigal
Journal:  J Patient Exp       Date:  2019-03-15

Review 3.  Patient Reported Outcomes Have Arrived: A Practical Overview for Clinicians in Using Patient Reported Outcomes in Oncology.

Authors:  Rahma Warsame; Anita D'Souza
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2019-09-25       Impact factor: 7.616

Review 4.  The importance of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials and strategies for future optimization.

Authors:  Rebecca Mercieca-Bebber; Madeleine T King; Melanie J Calvert; Martin R Stockler; Michael Friedlander
Journal:  Patient Relat Outcome Meas       Date:  2018-11-01

5.  Lower-dose prescriptions in the post-marketing situation and the influencing factors thereon.

Authors:  Akiko Ogata; Masayuki Kaneko; Mamoru Narukawa
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-06-14       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Psychometric properties of the National Eye Institute Visual Function Questionnaire (NEI-VFQ 25) in a Norwegian population of patients with neovascular age-related macular degeneration compared to a control population.

Authors:  Elma Jelin; Torbjørn Wisløff; Morten C Moe; Turid Heiberg
Journal:  Health Qual Life Outcomes       Date:  2019-08-14       Impact factor: 3.186

7.  How different are COPD-specific patient reported outcomes, health status, dyspnoea and respiratory symptoms? An observational study in a working population.

Authors:  Koichi Nishimura; Toru Oga; Kazuhito Nakayasu; Miyoko Ogasawara; Yoshinori Hasegawa; Satoshi Mitsuma
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-07-24       Impact factor: 2.692

8.  Comparison between electronic and paper versions of patient-reported outcome measures in subjects with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: an observational study with a cross-over administration.

Authors:  Koichi Nishimura; Masaaki Kusunose; Ryo Sanda; Yousuke Tsuji; Yoshinori Hasegawa; Toru Oga
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-12-18       Impact factor: 2.692

9.  New Drug and Biologics Approvals in 2019: A Systematic Analysis of Patient Experience Data in FDA Drug Approval Packages and Product Labels.

Authors:  Katrine Schultz-Knudsen; Ugne Sabaliauskaite; Johan Hellsten; Anders Blaedel Lassen; Anne Vinther Morant
Journal:  Ther Innov Regul Sci       Date:  2020-11-23       Impact factor: 1.778

10.  Patient-reported outcome measures in the management of neovascular age-related macular degeneration: a 1-year prospective study.

Authors:  Elma Jelin; Torbjørn Wisløff; Øystein Kalsnes Jørstad; Turid Heiberg; Morten Carstens Moe
Journal:  BMJ Open Ophthalmol       Date:  2019-10-03
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.