Cargando…

Potential of patient-reported outcomes as nonprimary endpoints in clinical trials

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this research was to fully explore the impact of endpoint type (primary vs. nonprimary) on decisions related to patient-reported outcome (PRO) labeling claims supported by PRO measures and to determine if nonprimary PRO endpoints are being fully optimized. This review exam...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Gnanasakthy, Ari, Lewis, Sandra, Clark, Marci, Mordin, Margaret, DeMuro, Carla
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2013
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3667032/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23675876
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-11-83
_version_ 1782271429061902336
author Gnanasakthy, Ari
Lewis, Sandra
Clark, Marci
Mordin, Margaret
DeMuro, Carla
author_facet Gnanasakthy, Ari
Lewis, Sandra
Clark, Marci
Mordin, Margaret
DeMuro, Carla
author_sort Gnanasakthy, Ari
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The purpose of this research was to fully explore the impact of endpoint type (primary vs. nonprimary) on decisions related to patient-reported outcome (PRO) labeling claims supported by PRO measures and to determine if nonprimary PRO endpoints are being fully optimized. This review examines the use of PROs as both primary and nonprimary endpoints in support of demonstration of treatment benefit of new molecular entities (NMEs) and biologic license applications (BLAs) in the United States in the years 2000 to 2012. METHODS: All NMEs and BLAs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between January 2000 and June 2012 were identified using the FDA Drug Approval Reports Web page. Generic products granted tentative approvals were excluded. For all identified products, medical review sections from publicly available drug approval packages were reviewed to identify PRO endpoint status. Product labels (indication, clinical trials sections) were reviewed to determine the number and type of PRO claim. RESULTS: A total of 308 NMEs/BLAs were identified. Of these, 70 NMEs/BLAs (23%) were granted PRO claims. The majority of product claims were for disease- or condition-specific signs and symptoms. Of the 70 products with PRO claims, a PRO was a primary endpoint for the vast majority (57 [81%]). A total of 19 of the 70 products were granted a PRO claim based on a nonprimary endpoint. While nonprimary endpoints were used most often to support claims of improved signs or symptoms, nonprimary endpoints were much more likely to support claims of higher order impacts. CONCLUSIONS: Successful PRO labeling claims are typically based on primary endpoints assessing signs and symptoms. Based on this research, studies with PROs as primary endpoints are far more likely to facilitate positive regulatory review and acceptance of PROs in support of labeling claims. Although inclusion of PROs as nonprimary endpoints in clinical trials has its challenges, recent PRO labels granted by the FDA show that they can indeed be candidates for PRO labeling claims as long as they are supported by evidence.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3667032
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2013
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-36670322013-05-30 Potential of patient-reported outcomes as nonprimary endpoints in clinical trials Gnanasakthy, Ari Lewis, Sandra Clark, Marci Mordin, Margaret DeMuro, Carla Health Qual Life Outcomes Research BACKGROUND: The purpose of this research was to fully explore the impact of endpoint type (primary vs. nonprimary) on decisions related to patient-reported outcome (PRO) labeling claims supported by PRO measures and to determine if nonprimary PRO endpoints are being fully optimized. This review examines the use of PROs as both primary and nonprimary endpoints in support of demonstration of treatment benefit of new molecular entities (NMEs) and biologic license applications (BLAs) in the United States in the years 2000 to 2012. METHODS: All NMEs and BLAs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between January 2000 and June 2012 were identified using the FDA Drug Approval Reports Web page. Generic products granted tentative approvals were excluded. For all identified products, medical review sections from publicly available drug approval packages were reviewed to identify PRO endpoint status. Product labels (indication, clinical trials sections) were reviewed to determine the number and type of PRO claim. RESULTS: A total of 308 NMEs/BLAs were identified. Of these, 70 NMEs/BLAs (23%) were granted PRO claims. The majority of product claims were for disease- or condition-specific signs and symptoms. Of the 70 products with PRO claims, a PRO was a primary endpoint for the vast majority (57 [81%]). A total of 19 of the 70 products were granted a PRO claim based on a nonprimary endpoint. While nonprimary endpoints were used most often to support claims of improved signs or symptoms, nonprimary endpoints were much more likely to support claims of higher order impacts. CONCLUSIONS: Successful PRO labeling claims are typically based on primary endpoints assessing signs and symptoms. Based on this research, studies with PROs as primary endpoints are far more likely to facilitate positive regulatory review and acceptance of PROs in support of labeling claims. Although inclusion of PROs as nonprimary endpoints in clinical trials has its challenges, recent PRO labels granted by the FDA show that they can indeed be candidates for PRO labeling claims as long as they are supported by evidence. BioMed Central 2013-05-15 /pmc/articles/PMC3667032/ /pubmed/23675876 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-11-83 Text en Copyright © 2013 Gnanasakthy et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research
Gnanasakthy, Ari
Lewis, Sandra
Clark, Marci
Mordin, Margaret
DeMuro, Carla
Potential of patient-reported outcomes as nonprimary endpoints in clinical trials
title Potential of patient-reported outcomes as nonprimary endpoints in clinical trials
title_full Potential of patient-reported outcomes as nonprimary endpoints in clinical trials
title_fullStr Potential of patient-reported outcomes as nonprimary endpoints in clinical trials
title_full_unstemmed Potential of patient-reported outcomes as nonprimary endpoints in clinical trials
title_short Potential of patient-reported outcomes as nonprimary endpoints in clinical trials
title_sort potential of patient-reported outcomes as nonprimary endpoints in clinical trials
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3667032/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23675876
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1477-7525-11-83
work_keys_str_mv AT gnanasakthyari potentialofpatientreportedoutcomesasnonprimaryendpointsinclinicaltrials
AT lewissandra potentialofpatientreportedoutcomesasnonprimaryendpointsinclinicaltrials
AT clarkmarci potentialofpatientreportedoutcomesasnonprimaryendpointsinclinicaltrials
AT mordinmargaret potentialofpatientreportedoutcomesasnonprimaryendpointsinclinicaltrials
AT demurocarla potentialofpatientreportedoutcomesasnonprimaryendpointsinclinicaltrials