Cargando…
Healthcare Professionals’ Preferred Efficacy Endpoints and Minimal Clinically Important Differences in the Assessment of New Medicines for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
BACKGROUND: Registration authorities evaluate effects of new medicines for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) on airway obstruction, dyspnea, health status and exacerbations. To establish clinical relevance, minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) are used. The aim of this study w...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7016298/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32116657 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2019.01519 |
_version_ | 1783496957163995136 |
---|---|
author | Dankers, Marloes Nelissen-Vrancken, Marjorie H. J. M. G. Surminski, Sara M. K. Lambooij, Anke C. Schermer, Tjard R. van Dijk, Liset |
author_facet | Dankers, Marloes Nelissen-Vrancken, Marjorie H. J. M. G. Surminski, Sara M. K. Lambooij, Anke C. Schermer, Tjard R. van Dijk, Liset |
author_sort | Dankers, Marloes |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Registration authorities evaluate effects of new medicines for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) on airway obstruction, dyspnea, health status and exacerbations. To establish clinical relevance, minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) are used. The aim of this study was to investigate which efficacy endpoints and MCIDs healthcare professionals consider clinically relevant for new COPD medicines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 7,731 Healthcare professionals received an electronic questionnaire. Participants were asked for: 1) preferred efficacy endpoints for new COPD medicines and 2) cut-off values defining clinical relevance for forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV(1)), Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) and St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). Those cut-off values were compared to the MCIDs used by registration authorities, namely 100 ml for FEV(1), 1 unit for TDI and 4 units for SGRQ. RESULTS: 227 Healthcare professionals responded to the questionnaire. Most preferred efficacy endpoints were exacerbations (51.0%), airway obstruction (46.9%) and health status (44.9%). Mean cut-off values for TDI and SGRQ were significantly higher than the corresponding MCIDs, mean differences 1.5 (95%CI = 1.3–1.8, p < 0.001) and 7.0 (95%CI = 5.1–8.8, p < 0.001), respectively. The mean cut-off value for FEV(1) was comparable to the MCID (mean difference 2.2, 95%CI = -19.9–24.3, p = 0.84). CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare professionals largely agree with efficacy endpoints used for the evaluation of new COPD medicines. However, they seem to prefer higher cut-off values for clinical relevance for TDI and SGRQ than the registration authorities. Effects of new medicines on TDI and SGRQ that are considered clinically relevant by registration authorities do, therefore, not necessarily reflect healthcare professionals’ perspectives on clinical relevance. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7016298 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-70162982020-02-28 Healthcare Professionals’ Preferred Efficacy Endpoints and Minimal Clinically Important Differences in the Assessment of New Medicines for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Dankers, Marloes Nelissen-Vrancken, Marjorie H. J. M. G. Surminski, Sara M. K. Lambooij, Anke C. Schermer, Tjard R. van Dijk, Liset Front Pharmacol Pharmacology BACKGROUND: Registration authorities evaluate effects of new medicines for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) on airway obstruction, dyspnea, health status and exacerbations. To establish clinical relevance, minimal clinically important differences (MCIDs) are used. The aim of this study was to investigate which efficacy endpoints and MCIDs healthcare professionals consider clinically relevant for new COPD medicines. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 7,731 Healthcare professionals received an electronic questionnaire. Participants were asked for: 1) preferred efficacy endpoints for new COPD medicines and 2) cut-off values defining clinical relevance for forced expiratory volume in 1 sec (FEV(1)), Transition Dyspnea Index (TDI) and St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ). Those cut-off values were compared to the MCIDs used by registration authorities, namely 100 ml for FEV(1), 1 unit for TDI and 4 units for SGRQ. RESULTS: 227 Healthcare professionals responded to the questionnaire. Most preferred efficacy endpoints were exacerbations (51.0%), airway obstruction (46.9%) and health status (44.9%). Mean cut-off values for TDI and SGRQ were significantly higher than the corresponding MCIDs, mean differences 1.5 (95%CI = 1.3–1.8, p < 0.001) and 7.0 (95%CI = 5.1–8.8, p < 0.001), respectively. The mean cut-off value for FEV(1) was comparable to the MCID (mean difference 2.2, 95%CI = -19.9–24.3, p = 0.84). CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare professionals largely agree with efficacy endpoints used for the evaluation of new COPD medicines. However, they seem to prefer higher cut-off values for clinical relevance for TDI and SGRQ than the registration authorities. Effects of new medicines on TDI and SGRQ that are considered clinically relevant by registration authorities do, therefore, not necessarily reflect healthcare professionals’ perspectives on clinical relevance. Frontiers Media S.A. 2020-02-06 /pmc/articles/PMC7016298/ /pubmed/32116657 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2019.01519 Text en Copyright © 2020 Dankers, Nelissen-Vrancken, Surminski, Lambooij, Schermer and van Dijk http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Pharmacology Dankers, Marloes Nelissen-Vrancken, Marjorie H. J. M. G. Surminski, Sara M. K. Lambooij, Anke C. Schermer, Tjard R. van Dijk, Liset Healthcare Professionals’ Preferred Efficacy Endpoints and Minimal Clinically Important Differences in the Assessment of New Medicines for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease |
title | Healthcare Professionals’ Preferred Efficacy Endpoints and Minimal Clinically Important Differences in the Assessment of New Medicines for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease |
title_full | Healthcare Professionals’ Preferred Efficacy Endpoints and Minimal Clinically Important Differences in the Assessment of New Medicines for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease |
title_fullStr | Healthcare Professionals’ Preferred Efficacy Endpoints and Minimal Clinically Important Differences in the Assessment of New Medicines for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease |
title_full_unstemmed | Healthcare Professionals’ Preferred Efficacy Endpoints and Minimal Clinically Important Differences in the Assessment of New Medicines for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease |
title_short | Healthcare Professionals’ Preferred Efficacy Endpoints and Minimal Clinically Important Differences in the Assessment of New Medicines for Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease |
title_sort | healthcare professionals’ preferred efficacy endpoints and minimal clinically important differences in the assessment of new medicines for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease |
topic | Pharmacology |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7016298/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32116657 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphar.2019.01519 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT dankersmarloes healthcareprofessionalspreferredefficacyendpointsandminimalclinicallyimportantdifferencesintheassessmentofnewmedicinesforchronicobstructivepulmonarydisease AT nelissenvranckenmarjoriehjmg healthcareprofessionalspreferredefficacyendpointsandminimalclinicallyimportantdifferencesintheassessmentofnewmedicinesforchronicobstructivepulmonarydisease AT surminskisaramk healthcareprofessionalspreferredefficacyendpointsandminimalclinicallyimportantdifferencesintheassessmentofnewmedicinesforchronicobstructivepulmonarydisease AT lambooijankec healthcareprofessionalspreferredefficacyendpointsandminimalclinicallyimportantdifferencesintheassessmentofnewmedicinesforchronicobstructivepulmonarydisease AT schermertjardr healthcareprofessionalspreferredefficacyendpointsandminimalclinicallyimportantdifferencesintheassessmentofnewmedicinesforchronicobstructivepulmonarydisease AT vandijkliset healthcareprofessionalspreferredefficacyendpointsandminimalclinicallyimportantdifferencesintheassessmentofnewmedicinesforchronicobstructivepulmonarydisease |