Patient Global Impression of Benefit-Risk (PGI-BR): Incorporating Patients' Views of Clinical Benefit-Risk into Assessment of New Medicines.
Journal
Drug safety
ISSN: 1179-1942
Titre abrégé: Drug Saf
Pays: New Zealand
ID NLM: 9002928
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
10 2021
10 2021
Historique:
accepted:
10
05
2021
pubmed:
16
6
2021
medline:
21
4
2022
entrez:
15
6
2021
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
There is a need to understand how patients assess perceived benefits and risks of treatments. 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. 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. 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. 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.
Identifiants
pubmed: 34129206
doi: 10.1007/s40264-021-01079-7
pii: 10.1007/s40264-021-01079-7
pmc: PMC8473342
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1059-1072Informations de copyright
© 2021. The Author(s).
Références
Reaney M, Bush E, New M, Paty J, Roborel de Climens A, Skovlund SE, et al. The potential role of individual-level benefit-risk assessment in treatment decision making: a DIA study endpoints community workstream. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2019;53(5):630–8.
doi: 10.1177/2168479018807448
European Medicines Agency. M4E(R2): Common technical document for the registration of pharmaceuticals for human use – Efficacy. 2016. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/ich-m4e-r2-common-technical-document-registration-pharmaceuticals-human-use-efficacy-step-5_en.pdf . Accessed 5 June 2020.
European Medicines Agency and US Food and Drug Administration. Terms of reference for the EMA/FDA cluster on patient engagement. 2016. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/other/terms-reference-european-medicines-agency/food-drug-administration-cluster-patient-engagement_en.pdf . Accessed 5 June 2020.
US Food and Drug Administration. M4E(R2): The CTD—Efficacy. Guidance for Industry. 2017. https://www.fda.gov/media/93569/download . Accessed 5 June 2020.
US Food and Drug Administration. Patient-focused drug development: collecting comprehensive and representative input. Guidance to industry, Food and Drug Administration staff, and other stakeholders. Draft guidance. 2018. https://www.fda.gov/media/113653/download . Accessed 5 June 2020.
European Medicines Agency. Reflection paper on the regulatory guidance for the use of health-related quality of life (HRQL) measures in the evaluation of medicinal products. 2005. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/scientific-guideline/reflection-paper-regulatory-guidance-use-healthrelated-quality-life-hrql-measures-evaluation_en.pdf . Accessed 5 June 2020.
Patrick DL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ, Leidy NK, Martin ML, Molsen E, et al. Content validity—establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO good research practices task force report: part 1—eliciting concepts for a new PRO instrument. Value Health. 2011;14(8):967–77.
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2011.06.014
Patrick DL, Burke LB, Gwaltney CJ, Leidy NK, Martin ML, Molsen E, et al. Content validity—establishing and reporting the evidence in newly developed patient-reported outcomes (PRO) instruments for medical product evaluation: ISPOR PRO Good Research Practices Task Force report: part 2—assessing respondent understanding. Value Health. 2011;14(8):978–88.
doi: 10.1016/j.jval.2011.06.013
US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures: use in medical product development to support labeling claims. 2009. https://www.fda.gov/media/77832/download . Accessed 5 June 2020.
Pharmacoepidemiological Research on Outcomes of Therapeutics (PROTECT). Monitoring benefits and risks of medicines: PROTECT results and recommendations, 18–20 February 2015, EMA, London. 2015. http://www.imi-protect.eu/symposium.shtml . Accessed 22 May 2020.
Reed S. Forum: Patient-focused benefit-risk analysis to inform regulatory decisions. Presented at ISPOR 21st Annual International Meeting, Washington, DC, USA, May 24, 2016. https://www.ispor.org/docs/default-source/presentations/695.pdf?sfvrsn=40e131bb_1 . Accessed 5 June 2020.
Smith MY, Hammad TA, Metcalf M, Levitan B, Noel R, Wolka AM, et al. Patient engagement at a tipping point—the need for cultural change across patient, sponsor, and regulator stakeholders: insights from the DIA conference, “Patient Engagement in Benefit Risk Assessment Throughout the Life Cycle of Medical Products.” Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2016;50(5):546–53.
doi: 10.1177/2168479016662902
Atkinson MJ, Sinha A, Hass SL, Colman SS, Kumar RN, Brod M, et al. Validation of a general measure of treatment satisfaction, the Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM), using a national panel study of chronic disease. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2004;2:12.
doi: 10.1186/1477-7525-2-12
Atkinson MJ, Kumar R, Cappelleri JC, Hass SL. Hierarchical construct validity of the treatment satisfaction questionnaire for medication (TSQM version II) among outpatient pharmacy consumers. Value Health. 2005;8(Suppl 1):S9-s24.
doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.00066.x
Pleil AM, Coyne KS, Reese PR, Jumadilova Z, Rovner ES, Kelleher CJ. The validation of patient-rated global assessments of treatment benefit, satisfaction, and willingness to continue—the BSW. Value Health. 2005;8(Suppl 1):S25-34.
doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2005.00069.x
Patrick DL, Dias Barbosa C, Hockley K, Arnould B. Integrating the patient perspective in the assessment of benefits and risks of medicines. In: ISPOR 17th Annual European Congress, 8–12 November 2014, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. Workshop. https://pascaleboyerbarresi.files.wordpress.com/2015/07/integrating-the-patient-perspective-in-the-assessment-of-benefits-and-risks-of-medicines.pdf . Accessed 5 June 2020.
US Food and Drug Administration. Patient preference information—voluntary submission, review in premarket approval applications, humanitarian device exemption applications, and de novo requests, and inclusion in decision summaries and device labeling. Guidance for industry, Food and Drug Administration staff, and other stakeholders. 2016. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/patient-preference-information-voluntary-submission-review-premarket-approval-applications . Accessed 5 June 2020.
Hauber AB, Johnson FR, Andrews EB. Risk–benefit analysis methods for pharmaceutical decision making—where are we now? ISPOR Connect. 2006;12(6):1–4.
US Food and Drug Administration. Patient preference information—voluntary submission, review in premarket approval applications, humanitarian device exemption applications, and de novo requests, and inclusion in decision summaries and device labeling. Guidance for industry, Food and Drug Administration staff, and other stakeholders. 2016. https://www.fda.gov/media/92593/download . Accessed 5 June 2020.
Upton F. H.R.6—21st Century Cures Act. 114th Congress (2015–2016). https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/6/text . Accessed 5 June 2020.
Thanarajasingam G, Basch E, Scher HI, Bennett AV, Mazza GL, Schwab G, et al. ‘‘Was it worth it?’’ as a novel, patient-centered metric of the tolerability of cancer therapy. Qual Life Res. 2019;28(Suppl1):S141–2 (abstract).
Pearman TP, Beaumont JL, Mroczek D, O’Connor M, Cella D. Validity and usefulness of a single-item measure of patient-reported bother from side effects of cancer therapy. Cancer. 2018;124(5):991–7.
doi: 10.1002/cncr.31133
IQVIA. IQVIA Treatment Satisfaction Questionnaire for Medication (TSQM). https://www.iqvia.com/landing/treatment-satisfaction-questionnaire-for-medication-tsqm . Accessed 5 June 2020.
Gater A, Reaney M, Findley A, Brun-Strang C, Burrows K, Nguyen-Pascal ML, et al. Development and first use of the Patient’s Qualitative Assessment of Treatment (PQAT) questionnaire in type 2 diabetes mellitus to explore individualised benefit-harm of drugs received during clinical studies. Drug Saf. 2020;43(2):119–34.
doi: 10.1007/s40264-019-00877-4
Coplan PM, Noel RA, Levitan BS, Ferguson J, Mussen F. Development of a framework for enhancing the transparency, reproducibility and communication of the benefit-risk balance of medicines. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2011;89(2):312–5.
doi: 10.1038/clpt.2010.291
Levitan BS, Andrews EB, Gilsenan A, Ferguson J, Noel RA, Coplan PM, et al. Application of the BRAT framework to case studies: observations and insights. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2011;89(2):217–24.
doi: 10.1038/clpt.2010.280