Skip to main content
Top
Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research 4/2007

01-05-2007 | Review Paper

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

Auteurs: Dennis A. Revicki, Ari Gnanasakthy, Kevin Weinfurt

Gepubliceerd in: Quality of Life Research | Uitgave 4/2007

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail

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.
Literatuur
1.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference 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. 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.
3.
go back to reference 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. 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.
4.
go back to reference Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act, 1997. Available at http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance. Accessed September 9, 2004. Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act, 1997. Available at http://​www.​fda.​gov/​cder/​guidance.​ Accessed September 9, 2004.
5.
go back to reference Lohr, K. (2002). Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: Attributes and review criteria. Quality of Life Research, 11, 193–05.CrossRef Lohr, K. (2002). Assessing health status and quality-of-life instruments: Attributes and review criteria. Quality of Life Research, 11, 193–05.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference 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.PubMed 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.PubMed
7.
go back to reference 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. 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.
8.
go back to reference Fayers, P., & Hays, R. (Eds.), (2005). Assessing quality of life in clinical trials (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. Fayers, P., & Hays, R. (Eds.), (2005). Assessing quality of life in clinical trials (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
9.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
11.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Lynn, M. R. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research, 35, 382–85.CrossRefPubMed Lynn, M. R. (1986). Determination and quantification of content validity. Nursing Research, 35, 382–85.CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Guilford, J. P. (1954). Psychometric methods New York: McGraw-Hill. Guilford, J. P. (1954). Psychometric methods New York: McGraw-Hill.
15.
go back to reference 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.PubMed 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.PubMed
16.
go back to reference 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. 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.
17.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference 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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
20.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference 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. 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.
22.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference 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.CrossRefPubMed 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.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy. (2005). The AMCP format for formulary submissions version 2.1. Alexandria, VA: Academy of managed Care Pharmacy. Academy of Managed Care Pharmacy. (2005). The AMCP format for formulary submissions version 2.1. Alexandria, VA: Academy of managed Care Pharmacy.
25.
go back to reference National Institute for Clinical Excellence (2004). A guide for manufacturers and sponsors contributing to a technology appraisal London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence. National Institute for Clinical Excellence (2004). A guide for manufacturers and sponsors contributing to a technology appraisal London: National Institute for Clinical Excellence.
Metagegevens
Titel
Documenting the rationale and psychometric characteristics of patient reported outcomes for labeling and promotional claims: the PRO Evidence Dossier
Auteurs
Dennis A. Revicki
Ari Gnanasakthy
Kevin Weinfurt
Publicatiedatum
01-05-2007
Uitgeverij
Springer Netherlands
Gepubliceerd in
Quality of Life Research / Uitgave 4/2007
Print ISSN: 0962-9343
Elektronisch ISSN: 1573-2649
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-006-9153-5

Andere artikelen Uitgave 4/2007

Quality of Life Research 4/2007 Naar de uitgave