ReviewHealth and quality of life outcomes2025
Patient reported outcomes in the FDA approved drugs for systemic rheumatic diseases (2013-2024).
Review in Health and quality of life outcomes, 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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPatient-reported outcomes (PROs) in systemic rheumatic diseases (SRDs) are in the forefront of clinical research. However, a comprehensive evaluation of PROs in pivotal trials supporting SRD drug approval is lacking.
objectiveThis study aims to systematically characterize the use of PROs in pivotal trials supporting the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of SRDs treatments and to assess the quality of reporting.
methodsWe reviewed the pivotal trials supporting the approval of SRD indications by FDA since July 2013 to assess the use of PROs, including specific PRO measures (PROMs) and types of endpoints designated. Quality of PRO reporting was assessed according to a modified ISOQoL criteria.
resultsFrom July 1st, 2013, to June 30th, 2024, the FDA approved 43 new SRD indications based on 67 pivotal trials, with 58 trials included in the final analysis. PROs served as multiple types of endpoints in most trials. All 58 reviewed trials utilized PROs as secondary or exploratory endpoints. The numbers of trials that employed PROs as components of primary endpoints, co-primary endpoints, and key secondary endpoints, were 47(81.0%), 4(6.9%), 45(77.6%), respectively. Notably, the inclusion of PROs as components of composite primary endpoints or co-primary endpoints (100% vs. 8.3%, P < 0.001) and key secondary endpoints (93.5% vs. 16.7%, P < 0.001) were significantly higher in inflammatory arthritis compared to other SRDs. Regarding PROM types, 37 trials (63.8%) reported both generic and disease-specific PROMs, covering a broad range of domains. Quality of PRO reporting, influenced by disease type and the presence of additional PRO reports, was moderate to poor in 45 trials (81.8%). Key reporting elements, such as the PRO hypothesis, mode of PROMs completion, and extent and reasons for missing PRO data, were documented in fewer than 30% of the trials.
conclusionPROs significantly impact SRDs drug approval decisions, especially for inflammatory arthritis. However, the overall quality of PRO reporting in pivotal trials of SRDs is suboptimal and needs improvement. Our study provides a comprehensive summary of PRO application in SRDs trials, highlighting the need for strengthening PRO utilization in non-arthritis SRDs and improving PRO reporting quality in future studies.
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.