Cargando…
Role of patient-reported outcomes and other efficacy endpoints in the drug approval process in Europe (2008–2012)
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...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Atlantis Press
2015
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7320500/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26031612 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jegh.2015.04.006 |
_version_ | 1783551254451978240 |
---|---|
author | Bansal, Dipika Bhagat, Anil Schifano, Fabrizio Gudala, Kapil |
author_facet | Bansal, Dipika Bhagat, Anil Schifano, Fabrizio Gudala, Kapil |
author_sort | Bansal, Dipika |
collection | PubMed |
description | 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 endpoints 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 endpoints 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. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7320500 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2015 |
publisher | Atlantis Press |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-73205002020-07-28 Role of patient-reported outcomes and other efficacy endpoints in the drug approval process in Europe (2008–2012) Bansal, Dipika Bhagat, Anil Schifano, Fabrizio Gudala, Kapil J Epidemiol Glob Health Article 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 endpoints 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 endpoints 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. Atlantis Press 2015 2015-05-29 /pmc/articles/PMC7320500/ /pubmed/26031612 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jegh.2015.04.006 Text en © 2015 Ministry of Health, Saudi Arabia. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/). |
spellingShingle | Article Bansal, Dipika Bhagat, Anil Schifano, Fabrizio Gudala, Kapil Role of patient-reported outcomes and other efficacy endpoints in the drug approval process in Europe (2008–2012) |
title | Role of patient-reported outcomes and other efficacy endpoints in the drug approval process in Europe (2008–2012) |
title_full | Role of patient-reported outcomes and other efficacy endpoints in the drug approval process in Europe (2008–2012) |
title_fullStr | Role of patient-reported outcomes and other efficacy endpoints in the drug approval process in Europe (2008–2012) |
title_full_unstemmed | Role of patient-reported outcomes and other efficacy endpoints in the drug approval process in Europe (2008–2012) |
title_short | Role of patient-reported outcomes and other efficacy endpoints in the drug approval process in Europe (2008–2012) |
title_sort | role of patient-reported outcomes and other efficacy endpoints in the drug approval process in europe (2008–2012) |
topic | Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7320500/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26031612 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jegh.2015.04.006 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT bansaldipika roleofpatientreportedoutcomesandotherefficacyendpointsinthedrugapprovalprocessineurope20082012 AT bhagatanil roleofpatientreportedoutcomesandotherefficacyendpointsinthedrugapprovalprocessineurope20082012 AT schifanofabrizio roleofpatientreportedoutcomesandotherefficacyendpointsinthedrugapprovalprocessineurope20082012 AT gudalakapil roleofpatientreportedoutcomesandotherefficacyendpointsinthedrugapprovalprocessineurope20082012 |