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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |