Quality of Life Research

, 16:717

Documenting the rationale and psychometric characteristics of patient reported outcomes for labeling and promotional claims: the PRO Evidence Dossier

  • Dennis A. Revicki
  • Ari Gnanasakthy
  • Kevin Weinfurt
Review Paper

Abstract

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMEA) are willing to consider including information on patient reported outcomes (PROs) in product labeling and advertising. Pharmaceutical industry researchers must provide sufficient evidence supporting PRO benefit before an approval may be granted. This report describes the purpose and content of a PRO Evidence Dossier, which consists of important information supporting PRO claims. The dossier should be completed by pharmaceutical industry or other researchers to document the planning of the PRO assessment strategy, psychometric evidence, desired target labeling statements, and the clinical trial evidence of PRO benefits. The systematic reporting and documentation of information on the rationale for including PROs, rationale for the selection of specific PRO instruments, evidence on the psychometric qualities of the PRO measures, and guidelines for interpreting PRO findings will facilitate achieving a PRO labeling or promotional claim. Combining all the relevant information into a single document will facilitate the review and evaluation process for clinical and regulatory reviewers. The PRO Evidence Dossier may also be helpful to industry and academic researchers in identifying further information that will need to be developed to support the clinical development program and the PRO endpoints.

Keywords

Labeling  Evidence dossier Patient reported outcomes Regulatory agencies Pharmaceutical industry 

References

  1. 1.
    Wilke, R. J., Burke, L. B., & Erickson, P. (2004). Measuring treatment impact: A review of patient-reported outcomes and other efficacy endpoints in approved labels. Control Clinical Trials, 25, 535–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Food and Drug Administration. (February 2006). Guidance for industry –patient-reported outcome measures: Use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Silver Spring, MD: FDA.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use. (July 2005). Reflection Paper on the regulatory guidance for the use of Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQL) measures in the evaluation of medicinal products. London: EMEA.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act, 1997. Available at http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance. Accessed September 9, 2004.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lohr, K. (2002). Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: Attributes and review criteria. Quality of Life Research, 11, 193–05.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Patrick, D. L., & Chiang, Y. P. (2000). Measurement of health outcomes in treatment effectiveness evaluations: Conceptual and methodological challenges. Medical Care, 38, (9 Suppl): II14–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hays, R., & Revicki, D. A. (2005). Reliability and validity, including responsiveness. In P. Fayers, & R. Hays (Eds.), Assessing quality of life in clinical trials (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fayers, P., & Hays, R. (Eds.), (2005). Assessing quality of life in clinical trials (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Leidy, N. K., Revicki, D. A., & Geneste, B. (1999). Recommendations for evaluating the validity of quality of life claims for labeling and promotion. Value in Health, 2, 113–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Revicki, D. A., Osoba, D., Fairclough, D., Barofsky, I., Berzon, R., Leidy, N. K., & Rothman M. (2000). Recommendations on health related quality of life research to support labeling and promotional claims in the United States. Quality of Life Research, 9, 887–00.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Acquadro, C., Berzon, R., Dubois, D., Kline Leidy, N., Marquis, P., Revicki, D., & Rothman, M. (2003). Incorporating the patient’s perspective into drug development and communication: An ad hoc task force report of the patient-reported outcomes (PRO) harmonization group meeting at the Food and Drug Administration, February 16, 2001. Value in Health, 6, 522–31.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wilson, I. B. & Cleary, P. D. (1995). Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life A conceptual model of patient outcomes. JAMA, 273, (1):59–5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lynn, M. R. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research, 35, 382–85.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Guilford, J. P. (1954). Psychometric methods New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Jones, P. W., Quirk, F. H., Baveystock, C. M., & Littlejohns, P. A. (1992). Self-completed measure for chronic airflow limitation –the St George’s Respiratory Questionnaire. American Review of Respiratory Disease, 145, 1321–327.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ware, J. E., Snow, K. K., Kosinski, M., & Gandek, B. (1993). SF-36 Health survey: Manual and interpretation guide. Boston, Massachusetts: The Health Institute, New England Medical Center.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Guyatt, G., Osoba, D., Wu, A., Wyrwich, K., & Norman, G. (2002) Methods to explain the clinical significance of health status measures. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 77, 371–83.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sloan, J. A., Cella, D., & Hays, R. D. (2005). Clinical significance of patient-reported questionnaire data: Another step toward consensus. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 58, 1217–219.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Revicki, D. A., Cella, D., Hays, R. D., Sloan, J. A., Lenderking, W. R., & Aaronson, N. K. (2006). Responsiveness and minimal important differences for patient reported outcomes. Health Quality of Life Outcomes, 4, 70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wyrwich, K. W., Bullinger, M., Aaronson, N., Hays, R. D., Patrick, D. L., Symonds, T., & Sloan, J. A. (2005). Estimating clinically significant differences in quality of life outcomes. Quality of Life Research, 14, 285–95.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Revicki, D. A. (2000). Reporting analyses for clinical trials. In P. Fayers, & R. Hays, (Eds.), Assessing quality of life in clinical trials 2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Efficace, F., Bottomly, A., Osoba, D., Gotay, C., Flechtner, H., D’Haese, S., & Zurlo, A. (2003). Beyond the development of health-related quality-of-life (HRQOL) measures: A checklist for evaluating HRQOL outcomes in cancer clinical trials–does HRQOL evaluation in prostate cancer research inform clinical decision making? Journal of Clinical Oncology, 21, 3502–511.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Szende, A., Leidy, N. K., & Revicki, D. A. (2005). Health-related quality of life and other patient-reported outcomes in the European centralized drug regulatory process: A review of guidance documents and performed authorizations of medicinal products 1995 to 2003. Value in Health, 8, 534–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy. (2005). The AMCP format for formulary submissions version 2.1. Alexandria, VA: Academy of managed Care Pharmacy.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    National Institute for Clinical Excellence (2004). A guide for manufacturers and sponsors contributing to a technology appraisal London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dennis A. Revicki
    • 1
  • Ari Gnanasakthy
    • 2
  • Kevin Weinfurt
    • 3
  1. 1.Center for Health Outcomes ResearchUnited Biosource CorporationBethesdaUSA
  2. 2.Novartis PharmaceuticalsEast HanoverUSA
  3. 3.Duke UniversityDurhamUSA

Personalised recommendations