Cargando…

Patient Global Impression of Benefit–Risk (PGI-BR): Incorporating Patients’ Views of Clinical Benefit–Risk into Assessment of New Medicines

INTRODUCTION: There is a need to understand how patients assess perceived benefits and risks of treatments. OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to (i) elucidate how patients evaluate treatment experiences and (ii) develop a brief patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument for use across disease areas for per...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Eek, Daniel, Halling, Katarina, Flood, Emuella, Blowfield, Matthew, Meyers, Oren, Venerus, Meredith, Paty, Jean, Hermann, Richard
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8473342/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34129206
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40264-021-01079-7
_version_ 1784574967734599680
author Eek, Daniel
Halling, Katarina
Flood, Emuella
Blowfield, Matthew
Meyers, Oren
Venerus, Meredith
Paty, Jean
Hermann, Richard
author_facet Eek, Daniel
Halling, Katarina
Flood, Emuella
Blowfield, Matthew
Meyers, Oren
Venerus, Meredith
Paty, Jean
Hermann, Richard
author_sort Eek, Daniel
collection PubMed
description INTRODUCTION: There is a need to understand how patients assess perceived benefits and risks of treatments. OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to (i) elucidate how patients evaluate treatment experiences and (ii) develop a brief patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument for use across disease areas for perceived benefit–risk evaluation of a new medicine in a clinical trial setting. METHODS: Concepts relating to patient-perceived benefit–risk were identified from literature reviews and qualitative concept elicitation interviews with patients across a variety of primary medical conditions. Draft instrument items were developed from identified concepts and evaluated for clarity, relevance and appropriateness of response options in cognitive interviews. Items were iteratively revised to address patient feedback. RESULTS: Qualitative interviews were conducted with 47 patients (primary condition: 20 oncological, 12 respiratory, 10 metabolic, 5 cardiovascular), of whom 32 contributed to concept elicitation and 42 to cognitive debriefing. Elicited concepts could be grouped into four medication-related categories: effectiveness of treatment, burden of side effects, convenience of use and overall acceptance/satisfaction. Cost, trial experience and altruism were additional concept categories unrelated to medication. The final instrument contained one item each on the medication’s effectiveness, side effects and convenience, and an overall item capturing patient benefit–risk assessment. An upfront question was included to separate out non-medication aspects of patients’ experiences. CONCLUSION: We developed a brief PRO instrument, the Patient Global Impression of Benefit–Risk (PGI-BR), which can be applied across disease areas to assess patient views of benefit–risk of a new medicine in the clinical trial setting.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8473342
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-84733422021-10-08 Patient Global Impression of Benefit–Risk (PGI-BR): Incorporating Patients’ Views of Clinical Benefit–Risk into Assessment of New Medicines Eek, Daniel Halling, Katarina Flood, Emuella Blowfield, Matthew Meyers, Oren Venerus, Meredith Paty, Jean Hermann, Richard Drug Saf Original Research Article INTRODUCTION: There is a need to understand how patients assess perceived benefits and risks of treatments. OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to (i) elucidate how patients evaluate treatment experiences and (ii) develop a brief patient-reported outcome (PRO) instrument for use across disease areas for perceived benefit–risk evaluation of a new medicine in a clinical trial setting. METHODS: Concepts relating to patient-perceived benefit–risk were identified from literature reviews and qualitative concept elicitation interviews with patients across a variety of primary medical conditions. Draft instrument items were developed from identified concepts and evaluated for clarity, relevance and appropriateness of response options in cognitive interviews. Items were iteratively revised to address patient feedback. RESULTS: Qualitative interviews were conducted with 47 patients (primary condition: 20 oncological, 12 respiratory, 10 metabolic, 5 cardiovascular), of whom 32 contributed to concept elicitation and 42 to cognitive debriefing. Elicited concepts could be grouped into four medication-related categories: effectiveness of treatment, burden of side effects, convenience of use and overall acceptance/satisfaction. Cost, trial experience and altruism were additional concept categories unrelated to medication. The final instrument contained one item each on the medication’s effectiveness, side effects and convenience, and an overall item capturing patient benefit–risk assessment. An upfront question was included to separate out non-medication aspects of patients’ experiences. CONCLUSION: We developed a brief PRO instrument, the Patient Global Impression of Benefit–Risk (PGI-BR), which can be applied across disease areas to assess patient views of benefit–risk of a new medicine in the clinical trial setting. Springer International Publishing 2021-06-15 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8473342/ /pubmed/34129206 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40264-021-01079-7 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits any non-commercial use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Original Research Article
Eek, Daniel
Halling, Katarina
Flood, Emuella
Blowfield, Matthew
Meyers, Oren
Venerus, Meredith
Paty, Jean
Hermann, Richard
Patient Global Impression of Benefit–Risk (PGI-BR): Incorporating Patients’ Views of Clinical Benefit–Risk into Assessment of New Medicines
title Patient Global Impression of Benefit–Risk (PGI-BR): Incorporating Patients’ Views of Clinical Benefit–Risk into Assessment of New Medicines
title_full Patient Global Impression of Benefit–Risk (PGI-BR): Incorporating Patients’ Views of Clinical Benefit–Risk into Assessment of New Medicines
title_fullStr Patient Global Impression of Benefit–Risk (PGI-BR): Incorporating Patients’ Views of Clinical Benefit–Risk into Assessment of New Medicines
title_full_unstemmed Patient Global Impression of Benefit–Risk (PGI-BR): Incorporating Patients’ Views of Clinical Benefit–Risk into Assessment of New Medicines
title_short Patient Global Impression of Benefit–Risk (PGI-BR): Incorporating Patients’ Views of Clinical Benefit–Risk into Assessment of New Medicines
title_sort patient global impression of benefit–risk (pgi-br): incorporating patients’ views of clinical benefit–risk into assessment of new medicines
topic Original Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8473342/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34129206
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40264-021-01079-7
work_keys_str_mv AT eekdaniel patientglobalimpressionofbenefitriskpgibrincorporatingpatientsviewsofclinicalbenefitriskintoassessmentofnewmedicines
AT hallingkatarina patientglobalimpressionofbenefitriskpgibrincorporatingpatientsviewsofclinicalbenefitriskintoassessmentofnewmedicines
AT floodemuella patientglobalimpressionofbenefitriskpgibrincorporatingpatientsviewsofclinicalbenefitriskintoassessmentofnewmedicines
AT blowfieldmatthew patientglobalimpressionofbenefitriskpgibrincorporatingpatientsviewsofclinicalbenefitriskintoassessmentofnewmedicines
AT meyersoren patientglobalimpressionofbenefitriskpgibrincorporatingpatientsviewsofclinicalbenefitriskintoassessmentofnewmedicines
AT venerusmeredith patientglobalimpressionofbenefitriskpgibrincorporatingpatientsviewsofclinicalbenefitriskintoassessmentofnewmedicines
AT patyjean patientglobalimpressionofbenefitriskpgibrincorporatingpatientsviewsofclinicalbenefitriskintoassessmentofnewmedicines
AT hermannrichard patientglobalimpressionofbenefitriskpgibrincorporatingpatientsviewsofclinicalbenefitriskintoassessmentofnewmedicines