Cathy Anne Pinto, Tommi Tervonen, Cecilia Jimenez-Moreno, Bennett Levitan, Montse Soriano Gabarró, Cynthia Girman, Josephine M. Norquist, Brett Hauber
{"title":"美国食品和药物管理局为监管决策提交患者体验数据时的当前做法和挑战:行业调查","authors":"Cathy Anne Pinto, Tommi Tervonen, Cecilia Jimenez-Moreno, Bennett Levitan, Montse Soriano Gabarró, Cynthia Girman, Josephine M. Norquist, Brett Hauber","doi":"10.1007/s40271-023-00653-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Objectives</h3><p>To understand industry practices and challenges when submitting patient experience data (PED) for regulatory decisions by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Methods</h3><p>A two-part online survey related to collection, submission, and use of PED by FDA in regulatory decision-making (part 1) and a best-worst exercise for prioritizing potential PED initiatives (part 2) was completed by industry and contract research organization (CRO) members with ≥ 2 years of recent experience with patient-reported outcome (PRO), natural history study (NHS), or patient preference (PP) data; and direct experience with FDA filings including PED.</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Results</h3><p>A total of 50 eligible respondents (84% industry) completed part 1 of the survey, among which 46 completed part 2. Respondents mostly had PRO (86%) and PP (50%) experience. All indicated that FDA meetings should have a standing agenda item to discuss PED. Most (78%) reported meetings should occur before pivotal trials. A common challenge was justifying inclusion without knowing if and how data will be used. Most agreed that FDA and industry should co-develop the PED table in the FDA clinical review (74%), and the table should report reason(s) for not using PED (96%) in regulatory decision-making. Most important efforts to advance PED use in decision-making were a dedicated meeting pathway and expanded FDA guidance (51% each).</p><h3 data-test=\"abstract-sub-heading\">Conclusions</h3><p>FDA has policy targets expanding PED use, but challenges remain regarding pathways for PED submission and transparency in regulatory decision-making. Alignment on the use of existing meeting opportunities to discuss PED, co-development of the PED table, and expanded guidance are encouraged.</p>","PeriodicalId":501651,"journal":{"name":"The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research","volume":"13 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Current Practices and Challenges When Submitting Patient Experience Data for Regulatory Decisions by the US Food and Drug Administration: An Industry Survey\",\"authors\":\"Cathy Anne Pinto, Tommi Tervonen, Cecilia Jimenez-Moreno, Bennett Levitan, Montse Soriano Gabarró, Cynthia Girman, Josephine M. Norquist, Brett Hauber\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40271-023-00653-8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Objectives</h3><p>To understand industry practices and challenges when submitting patient experience data (PED) for regulatory decisions by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Methods</h3><p>A two-part online survey related to collection, submission, and use of PED by FDA in regulatory decision-making (part 1) and a best-worst exercise for prioritizing potential PED initiatives (part 2) was completed by industry and contract research organization (CRO) members with ≥ 2 years of recent experience with patient-reported outcome (PRO), natural history study (NHS), or patient preference (PP) data; and direct experience with FDA filings including PED.</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Results</h3><p>A total of 50 eligible respondents (84% industry) completed part 1 of the survey, among which 46 completed part 2. Respondents mostly had PRO (86%) and PP (50%) experience. All indicated that FDA meetings should have a standing agenda item to discuss PED. Most (78%) reported meetings should occur before pivotal trials. A common challenge was justifying inclusion without knowing if and how data will be used. Most agreed that FDA and industry should co-develop the PED table in the FDA clinical review (74%), and the table should report reason(s) for not using PED (96%) in regulatory decision-making. Most important efforts to advance PED use in decision-making were a dedicated meeting pathway and expanded FDA guidance (51% each).</p><h3 data-test=\\\"abstract-sub-heading\\\">Conclusions</h3><p>FDA has policy targets expanding PED use, but challenges remain regarding pathways for PED submission and transparency in regulatory decision-making. Alignment on the use of existing meeting opportunities to discuss PED, co-development of the PED table, and expanded guidance are encouraged.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":501651,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-12-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-023-00653-8\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-023-00653-8","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目标了解业界在提交患者体验数据 (PED) 供美国食品药品管理局 (FDA) 进行监管决策时的做法和面临的挑战。方法 针对 FDA 在监管决策中收集、提交和使用 PED 的情况(第 1 部分)和确定潜在 PED 计划优先次序的最佳-最差实践(第 2 部分)进行了一项由两部分组成的在线调查,参与调查的行业和合同研究组织 (CRO) 成员最近在患者报告结果 (PRO)、自然病史研究 (NHS) 或患者偏好 (PP) 数据方面拥有≥ 2 年的经验;并且在包括 PED 在内的 FDA 申报方面拥有直接经验。结果共有 50 名符合条件的受访者(84% 为行业受访者)完成了调查的第一部分,其中 46 人完成了第二部分。大多数受访者都有 PRO(86%)和 PP(50%)经验。所有受访者都表示,食品药物管理局会议应该有一个讨论 PED 的常设议程项目。大多数受访者(78%)表示,会议应在关键试验之前召开。一个共同的挑战是,在不知道是否和如何使用数据的情况下,如何证明纳入的合理性。大多数人同意 FDA 和业界应在 FDA 临床审查中共同制定 PED 表(74%),该表应报告监管决策中不使用 PED 的原因(96%)。为推动在决策中使用 PED 而做出的最重要努力是专门的会议途径和扩大 FDA 指南(各占 51%)。结论 FDA 有扩大 PED 使用的政策目标,但在 PED 提交途径和监管决策透明度方面仍存在挑战。我们鼓励在利用现有会议机会讨论 PED、共同开发 PED 表格和扩大指导方面保持一致。
Current Practices and Challenges When Submitting Patient Experience Data for Regulatory Decisions by the US Food and Drug Administration: An Industry Survey
Objectives
To understand industry practices and challenges when submitting patient experience data (PED) for regulatory decisions by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Methods
A two-part online survey related to collection, submission, and use of PED by FDA in regulatory decision-making (part 1) and a best-worst exercise for prioritizing potential PED initiatives (part 2) was completed by industry and contract research organization (CRO) members with ≥ 2 years of recent experience with patient-reported outcome (PRO), natural history study (NHS), or patient preference (PP) data; and direct experience with FDA filings including PED.
Results
A total of 50 eligible respondents (84% industry) completed part 1 of the survey, among which 46 completed part 2. Respondents mostly had PRO (86%) and PP (50%) experience. All indicated that FDA meetings should have a standing agenda item to discuss PED. Most (78%) reported meetings should occur before pivotal trials. A common challenge was justifying inclusion without knowing if and how data will be used. Most agreed that FDA and industry should co-develop the PED table in the FDA clinical review (74%), and the table should report reason(s) for not using PED (96%) in regulatory decision-making. Most important efforts to advance PED use in decision-making were a dedicated meeting pathway and expanded FDA guidance (51% each).
Conclusions
FDA has policy targets expanding PED use, but challenges remain regarding pathways for PED submission and transparency in regulatory decision-making. Alignment on the use of existing meeting opportunities to discuss PED, co-development of the PED table, and expanded guidance are encouraged.