Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37659000›Full record

ReviewApplied health economics and health policy2023

The Assessment of Patient-Reported Outcomes for the Authorisation of Medicines in Europe: A Review of European Public Assessment Reports from 2017 to 2022.

Michela Meregaglia, Francesco Malandrini, Stefania Angelini, Oriana Ciani

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Applied health economics and health policy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

21 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Improving our understanding of the quality of life of patients with metastatic or recurrent/persistent anal cancer: a systematic review.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2025
    Pooled it
  5. The mere-measurement effect of patient-reported outcomes: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2025
    Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Quality of life in oncology drug approvals: evidence from Swiss decisions in relation to global regulatory trends.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Michela MeregagliaCentro di Ricerche sulla Gestione dell'Assistenza Sanitaria e Sociale (CERGAS), SDA Bocconi School of Management, Via Sarfatti 10, 20141, Milan, Italy.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0092-5970
Francesco MalandriniCentro di Ricerche sulla Gestione dell'Assistenza Sanitaria e Sociale (CERGAS), SDA Bocconi School of Management, Via Sarfatti 10, 20141, Milan, Italy.
Stefania AngeliniRoche S.p.A., Monza, Italy.
Oriana CianiCentro di Ricerche sulla Gestione dell'Assistenza Sanitaria e Sociale (CERGAS), SDA Bocconi School of Management, Via Sarfatti 10, 20141, Milan, Italy. oriana.ciani@unibocconi.it.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3607-0508

Funding

Roche Italia PRO4ALL
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesHealth regulators have progressively increased their attention and focus on patient-reported outcomes (PROs), driven by the diffusion of a patient-centred approach to the drug development process. This study investigates the consideration of PROs and their measures (PROMs) in the authorisation of medicines in Europe.

methodsAll medicines for human use authorised or refused by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in the period 2017-2022 were identified, and corresponding European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) were downloaded for review. Medicine and PROs/PROM characteristics were systematically recorded. A multivariate logistic regression was performed to identify variables associated with the use of patient-reported evidence in EPARs.

resultsOverall, 497 EPARs of authorised medicines and 19 EPARs of refused medicines were analysed; of these, 240 (48.3%) and 10 (52.6%), respectively, reported any use of PROs/PROMs (p = 0.710). For authorised medicines, the likelihood of using PROs/PROMs was negatively affected by generic (OR = 0.01, p < 0.001) and biosimilar status (OR = 0.46, p = 0.013) and positively affected by orphan status (OR = 1.41, p = 0.177). The use of PROMs (50.6% in 2017 vs 47.9% in 2022) did not show a clear pattern over the 6-year period considered (p = 0.758) and was particularly uncommon in some therapeutic areas (e.g., 15.2% in infectious diseases). A total of 816 dyads of PROs/PROMs were identified. On average each EPAR considered 1.6 (range: 0-14) instruments. Patient-reported outcomes were typically secondary (53.3%) and exploratory endpoints (18.8%); in one-third of cases (32.5%), they assessed generic quality of life. Among the PROMs, 227 (27.8%) targeted general population; EQ-5D (11.0%), SF-36/SF-12 (5.9%) and EORTC QLQ-C30 (5.6%) were the instruments most frequently used.

conclusionsThis study suggests PROs/PROMs are considered in less than half of total medicine assessments and even more rarely in some disease areas. The adoption of PROs is key in EMA strategy to 2025 and would be facilitated by consensus development on their measures and optimisation of data collection.

Indexed as

Biosimilar PharmaceuticalsQuality of LifeData CollectionDrugs, GenericEuropeHumansPatient Reported Outcome MeasuresBiosimilar PharmaceuticalsDrugs, Generic

Identifiers

PMID37659000
PMCPMC10627987

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.