ArticleTherapeutic innovation & regulatory science2025
Incorporating Patient Input into the Target Product Profile.
Article in Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Target product profiles (TPP) are summaries of characteristics which drug developers expect to be necessary for a product to meet patients' needs, receive regulatory and payer approval, and differ from existing treatment options. As the experts on their own disease, patients bring invaluable perspectives to drug development, which cannot be obtained by other means. This communication reports on the development of a systematic guidance framework for a patient-focused, standardized TPP. The guidance was developed in a long-term iterative process, with crucial aspects reviewed and validated with the patient community. Five focus areas of a TPP were identified where patient perspectives are fundamental: target population, unmet need, dosage frequency and route of administration, efficacy endpoints, and acceptability of benefit/risk profile trade-offs. A guiding principle should be to incorporate patient perspectives in a systematic process starting as early as possible. A number of tools are available for obtaining patient perspectives, e.g., desk research, patient advisory boards/patient councils/online bulletin boards, focus groups with patients/caregivers, and/or in-depth interviews. When discussing the proposed process with patient representatives, they identified several key requirements for the interaction between R&D organizations and patient representatives. These include the use of clear language, respect for patients, engagement with patient experts, provision of adequate context and background information. We further discuss the relative importance of integrating patient perspectives into the different focus areas and touch upon the potential benefits to patient organizations from adapting these concepts and processes to enhance their voices in drug development.
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.