ArticleHealth and quality of life outcomes2013
Potential of patient-reported outcomes as nonprimary endpoints in clinical trials.
Article in Health and quality of life outcomes, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- Developing a fit-for-purpose composite symptom score as a symptom burden endpoint for clinical trials in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma.Scientific reports · 2024Trial
- Trial
- Prospective observational study to evaluate treatment satisfaction and effectiveness in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis starting cladribine tablets (CLADREAL) in Italy.Frontiers in neurology · 2024Article
- Patient-reported outcomes in breast cancer FDA drug labels and review documents.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2021Article
- What is the future of patient-reported outcomes in sickle-cell disease?Expert review of hematology · 2020Review
- Dimethyl Fumarate in the Treatment of Relapsing-Remitting Multiple Sclerosis: Patient Reported Outcomes and Perspectives.Patient related outcome measures · 2019Review
- Evolution of Patient-Reported Outcomes and Their Role in Multiple Sclerosis Clinical Trials.Neurotherapeutics : the journal of the American Society for Experimental NeuroTherapeutics · 2017Review
- Article
- Incorporating development of a patient-reported outcome instrument in a clinical drug development program: examples from a heart failure program.Health and quality of life outcomes · 2016Article
- Systematic collection of patient reported outcome research data: A checklist for clinical research professionals.Contemporary clinical trials · 2016Article
- Clinical outcome assessments in neuro-oncology: a regulatory perspective.Neuro-oncology practice · 2016Article
- Role of patient-reported outcomes and other efficacy endpoints in the drug approval process in Europe (2008-2012).Journal of epidemiology and global health · 2015Review
- An introduction to patient-reported outcome measures in ophthalmic research.Eye (London, England) · 2014Review
- Quality of life in organ transplant recipients participating in an online transplant community.The patient · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe purpose of this research was to fully explore the impact of endpoint type (primary vs. nonprimary) on decisions related to patient-reported outcome (PRO) labeling claims supported by PRO measures and to determine if nonprimary PRO endpoints are being fully optimized.This review examines the use of PROs as both primary and nonprimary endpoints in support of demonstration of treatment benefit of new molecular entities (NMEs) and biologic license applications (BLAs) in the United States in the years 2000 to 2012.
methodsAll NMEs and BLAs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between January 2000 and June 2012 were identified using the FDA Drug Approval Reports Web page. Generic products granted tentative approvals were excluded. For all identified products, medical review sections from publicly available drug approval packages were reviewed to identify PRO endpoint status. Product labels (indication, clinical trials sections) were reviewed to determine the number and type of PRO claim.
resultsA total of 308 NMEs/BLAs were identified. Of these, 70 NMEs/BLAs (23%) were granted PRO claims. The majority of product claims were for disease- or condition-specific signs and symptoms. Of the 70 products with PRO claims, a PRO was a primary endpoint for the vast majority (57 [81%]). A total of 19 of the 70 products were granted a PRO claim based on a nonprimary endpoint. While nonprimary endpoints were used most often to support claims of improved signs or symptoms, nonprimary endpoints were much more likely to support claims of higher order impacts.
conclusionsSuccessful PRO labeling claims are typically based on primary endpoints assessing signs and symptoms. Based on this research, studies with PROs as primary endpoints are far more likely to facilitate positive regulatory review and acceptance of PROs in support of labeling claims. Although inclusion of PROs as nonprimary endpoints in clinical trials has its challenges, recent PRO labels granted by the FDA show that they can indeed be candidates for PRO labeling claims as long as they are supported by evidence.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.