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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Bansal, Dipika, Bhagat, Anil, Schifano, Fabrizio, Gudala, Kapil
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