Abstract
The present study aimed at systematically reviewing the role and extent of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) usage within the package of scientific evidence considered for marketing authorization (MA). All regulatory information published by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for products authorized between January 2008 and December 2012 and appearing in the European Public Assessment Report (EPAR) database was examined for efficacy endpoints. The end-points here considered included: PROs, clinician reported outcomes (CROs), and laboratory reported outcomes (LROs). LROs were the most frequently reported endpoints. Out of the 180 products here selected, 99 (55%), 67 (37%), and 30 (17%), respectively, used LROs, CROs and PROs as primary endpoints (PEs). PROs as any endpoints were used in 82 (46%) products. Out of these, PROs were documented as PE in 30 (37%), with 27 (33%) products having used PROs both as primary and non-PEs. PRO usage was most frequently identified with nervous system and antineoplastic agents. During the study period, the use of all the three types of end-points appeared to be static. Both the regulatory bodies and the industry should ensure complete and clear reporting of all endpoints used, including PROs, to improve transparency.
Article PDF
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
The European Medicines Agency. How we work, http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/about_us/general/general_content_000125.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac0580028a46; [accessed 13.01.2015].
The European Medicines Agency. European Public Assessment Reports: Background and context, http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/medicines/general/general_content_000433.jsp∣ [accessed 13.01.2015].
European Commission. A guideline on Summary of Product Characteristics, http://ec.europa.eu/health/files/eu-dralex/vol-2/c/smpc_guideline_rev2_en.pdf; 2009 [accessed 13.01.2015].
Chin R, Chin RY, Lee BY. Principles and practice of clinical trial medicine. London: Academic Press; 2008. p. 121 [Chapter 7: Endpoints].
Willke RJ, Burke LB, Erickson P. Measuring treatment impact: a review of patient-reported outcomes and other efficacy endpoints in approved product labels. Control Clin Trials 2004;25:535–52.
Acquadro C, Berzon R, Dubois D, Leidy NK, Marquis P, Revicki D, et al. 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 Health 2003;6:522–31.
Marquis P, Arnould B, Acquadro C, Roberts WM. Patient-reported outcomes and health-related quality of life in effectiveness studies: pros and cons. Drug Dev Res 2006;67:193–201.
Luo X, Cappelleri JC. A practical guide on incorporating and evaluating patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials. Clin Res Regul Aff 2008;25:197–211.
Hareendran A, Gnanasakthy A, Winnette R, Revicki D. Capturing patients’ perspectives of treatment in clinical trials/drug development. Contemp Clin Trials 2012;33:23–8.
Dinan MA, Compton KL, Dhillon JK, Hammill BG, Dewitt EM, Weinfurt KP, et al. Use of patient-reported outcomes in randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials. Med Care 2011;49:415–9.
Banerjee AK, Okun S, Edwards IR, Wicks P, Smith MY, Mayall SJ, et al. Patient-reported outcome measures in safety event reporting: PROSPER consortium guidance. Drug Saf 2013;36:1129–49.
Szende A, Leidy NK, Revicki D. 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 Health 2005;8:534–48.
Gnanasakthy A, Lewis S, Clark M, Mordin M, DeMuro C. Potential of patient-reported outcomes as nonprimary endpoints in clinical trials. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2013;11:83–9.
Gnanasakthy A, Mordin M, Clark M, DeMuro C, Fehnel S, Copley-Merriman C. A review of patient-reported outcome labels in the United States: 2006 to 2010. Value Health 2012;15:437–42.
Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Karvouni A, Kouri I, Ioannidis JP. Reporting and interpretation of SF-36 outcomes in randomised trials: systematic review. BMJ 2009;338:a3006.
Garratt A, Schmidt L, Mackintosh A, Fitzpatrick R. Quality of life measurement: bibliographic study of patient assessed health outcome measures. BMJ 2002;324:1417.
Gondek K, Sagnier PP, Gilchrist K, Woolley JM. Current status of patient-reported outcomes in industry-sponsored oncology clinical trials and product labels. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:5087–93.
Lipscomb J, Gotay CC, Snyder CF. Patient-reported outcomes in cancer: a review of recent research and policy initiatives. CA Cancer J Clin 2007;57:278–300.
Kalyoncu U, Dougados M, Daures JP, Gossec L. Reporting of patient-reported outcomes in recent trials in rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic literature review. Ann Rheum Dis 2009;68:183–90.
European Medicines Agency. Reflection paper on the regulatory guidance for the use of health-related quality of life (HRQL) measures in the evaluation of medicinal products, 2005. Available from: http://www.ispor.org/workpaper/EMEA-HRQL-Guidance.pdf [accessed 13.01.2015].
Willke RJ. Measuring the value of treatment to patients: patient-reported outcomes in drug development. Am Health Drug Benefits 2008;1:34–40.
Basch E. Toward patient-centered drug development in oncology. N Engl J Med 2013;369:397–400.
European Medicines Agency. European Public Assessment Reports, http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/medicines/landing/epar_search.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058001d124&startLetter=View%20all&searchTab=&keyword=Enter%20keywords&searchType=name&alreadyLoaded=true&status=Authorised&status=Withdrawn&status=Suspended&status=Refused&jsenabled=false&searchGenericType=generics&orderBy=authDate&pageNo=1; [accessed 13.01.2015].
US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims, www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf; 2009 [accessed 13.01.2015].
Doward LC, Gnanasakthy A, Baker MG. Patient reported outcomes: looking beyond the label claim. Health Qual Life Outcomes 2010;8:89.
Selby JV, Beal AC, Frank L. The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) national priorities for research and initial research agenda. JAMA 2012;307:1583–4.
Marquis P, Caron M, Emery MP, Scott JA, Arnould B, Acquadro C. The role of health-related quality of life data in the drug approval processes in the US and Europe. Pharm Med 2011;25:147–60.
Ware JE, Gandek B. The IHRQOLA Project. The SF-36 health survey: development and use in mental health research and the IHRQOLA project. Int J Ment Health 1994;23:49–73.
Shah SN, Sesti AM, Copley-Merriman K, Plante M. Quality of life terminology included in package inserts for US approved medications. Qual Life Res 2003;12:1107–17.
Erickson P, Willke RJ, Burke LB. A concept taxonomy and an instrument hierarchy: tools for establishing and evaluating the conceptual framework of a patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instrument. Value Health 2009;12:1158–67.
DeMuro C, Clark M, Mordin M, Fehnel S, Copley-Merriman C, Gnanasakthy A. Reasons for rejection of patient-reported outcome label claims: a compilation based on a review of patient-reported outcome use among new molecular entities and biologic license applications, 2006–2010. Value Health 2012;15:443–8.
Rock EP, Kennedy DL, Furness MH, Pierce WF, Pazdur R, Burke LB. Patient-reported outcomes supporting anticancer product approvals. J Clin Oncol 2007;25:5094–9.
DeMuro C, Gnanasakthy A, Mordin M, Clark M, Fehnel S, Copley-Merriman C. Assessment of PRO label claims granted by the FDA as compared to the EMA (2006–2010). Value Health 2013;16:1150–5.
EMA (Committee for medicinal products for human use [CHMP]): Draft Guideline on clinical investigation of medicinal products for the treatment of Ankylosing Spondylitis. London, 2005. CPMP/EWP/4891/03.
EMA (Consultation committee for medicinal products for human use [CHMP]): Draft Biomarkers Qualification: Guidance to applicants. London, 2008. Doc. Ref. EMA/CHMP/SAWP/72894/2008.
Banta D, Oortwijn W. Health technology assessment and health care in the European Union. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2000;16:626–35.
Gelijns AC, Brown LD, Magnell C, Ronchi E, Moskowitz AJ. Evidence, politics, and technological change. Health Aff (Millwood) 2005;24:29–40.
Banta D. The development of health technology assessment. Health Policy 2003;63:121–32.
Draborg E, Gyrd-Hansen D, Poulsen PB, Horder M. International comparison of the definition and the practical application of health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2005;21:89–95.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Involving patients and the public in NICE guidance ways to get involved and the support available. London: NICE; 2006.
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Ustekinumab for the treatment of adults with moderate to severe psoriasis. Nice technology appraisals [TA180], http://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/TA180; 2009 [accessed 13.01.2015].
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Human growth hormone (somatropin) in adults with growth hormone deficiency, http://www.nice.org.uk/guid-ance/ta64; 2003 [accessed 13.01.2015].
WellPoint. Drug submission guidelines for re-evaluation of products, indications, and formulations, http://www.amcp.org/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=12236; 2008 [accessed 04.04.2015].
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
About this article
Cite this article
Bansal, D., Bhagat, A., Schifano, F. et al. Role of patient-reported outcomes and other efficacy endpoints in the drug approval process in Europe (2008–2012). J Epidemiol Glob Health 5, 385–395 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jegh.2015.04.006
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jegh.2015.04.006