评估2006-2014年FDA关于基于临床试验的批准药品标签声明的患者报告结果(PROs)措施指南的影响

A. Palsgrove
{"title":"评估2006-2014年FDA关于基于临床试验的批准药品标签声明的患者报告结果(PROs)措施指南的影响","authors":"A. Palsgrove","doi":"10.3109/10601333.2015.1064441","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The FDA’s Guidance for Industry, Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims (i.e. “PRO Guidance”; 2009) outlines the agency’s perspectives on how PRO measures, used to support efficacy end-points in therapeutics clinical trial programs, may be evaluated by the FDA. Prior reviews have attempted to identify PRO-based statements in product labels in order to evaluate the potential impacts of the PRO guidance on the rate of approvals of PRO-based claims, but none have been enacted after 2010. An in-depth search identified drug product labels approved by the FDA from January 2006 through to December 2014, with efficacy statements supported by PRO measures. Drug product labels were sorted by chemical type and year of approval, and the differences between time periods before and after the finalization of the PRO Guidance were reviewed with statistical tests. Results showed a reduction in the overall approvals of label-based efficacy statements supported by PRO measures after 2009, which may indicate that fewer phase 3 clinical trial programs have met agency benchmarks for the inclusion of subjective assessments as primary or secondary end-points in support of therapeutic efficacy.","PeriodicalId":10446,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Research and Regulatory Affairs","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Evaluating the impacts of the FDA’s guidance for patient-reported outcomes (PROs) measures on clinical trial-based approved drug product labeling claims, 2006–2014\",\"authors\":\"A. Palsgrove\",\"doi\":\"10.3109/10601333.2015.1064441\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The FDA’s Guidance for Industry, Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims (i.e. “PRO Guidance”; 2009) outlines the agency’s perspectives on how PRO measures, used to support efficacy end-points in therapeutics clinical trial programs, may be evaluated by the FDA. Prior reviews have attempted to identify PRO-based statements in product labels in order to evaluate the potential impacts of the PRO guidance on the rate of approvals of PRO-based claims, but none have been enacted after 2010. An in-depth search identified drug product labels approved by the FDA from January 2006 through to December 2014, with efficacy statements supported by PRO measures. Drug product labels were sorted by chemical type and year of approval, and the differences between time periods before and after the finalization of the PRO Guidance were reviewed with statistical tests. Results showed a reduction in the overall approvals of label-based efficacy statements supported by PRO measures after 2009, which may indicate that fewer phase 3 clinical trial programs have met agency benchmarks for the inclusion of subjective assessments as primary or secondary end-points in support of therapeutic efficacy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":10446,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical Research and Regulatory Affairs\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical Research and Regulatory Affairs\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3109/10601333.2015.1064441\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Research and Regulatory Affairs","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3109/10601333.2015.1064441","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

FDA的行业指南,患者报告的结果(PRO)措施:用于医疗产品开发以支持标签声明(即“PRO指南”);2009年)概述了FDA如何评估用于支持治疗学临床试验项目疗效终点的PRO测量方法的观点。之前的审查试图在产品标签中识别基于PRO的声明,以评估PRO指南对基于PRO的声明批准率的潜在影响,但在2010年之后没有颁布。深入搜索了2006年1月至2014年12月期间FDA批准的药品标签,其功效声明得到了PRO措施的支持。按化学药品类型和批准年份对药品标签进行分类,并对PRO指南定稿前后时间段的差异进行统计检验。结果显示,2009年之后,由PRO措施支持的基于标签的疗效声明的总体批准数量有所减少,这可能表明,更少的3期临床试验项目达到了将主观评估作为支持治疗疗效的主要或次要终点的机构基准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Evaluating the impacts of the FDA’s guidance for patient-reported outcomes (PROs) measures on clinical trial-based approved drug product labeling claims, 2006–2014
Abstract The FDA’s Guidance for Industry, Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims (i.e. “PRO Guidance”; 2009) outlines the agency’s perspectives on how PRO measures, used to support efficacy end-points in therapeutics clinical trial programs, may be evaluated by the FDA. Prior reviews have attempted to identify PRO-based statements in product labels in order to evaluate the potential impacts of the PRO guidance on the rate of approvals of PRO-based claims, but none have been enacted after 2010. An in-depth search identified drug product labels approved by the FDA from January 2006 through to December 2014, with efficacy statements supported by PRO measures. Drug product labels were sorted by chemical type and year of approval, and the differences between time periods before and after the finalization of the PRO Guidance were reviewed with statistical tests. Results showed a reduction in the overall approvals of label-based efficacy statements supported by PRO measures after 2009, which may indicate that fewer phase 3 clinical trial programs have met agency benchmarks for the inclusion of subjective assessments as primary or secondary end-points in support of therapeutic efficacy.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Changes to protocol in the regulation of adverse drug reactions – historical and current European view Policy and regulations in light of the human body as a ‘superorganism’ containing multiple, intertwined symbiotic relationships Community pharmacists’ knowledge and perceptions on risk management plans in the Southern Region of Portugal Increasing the odds of effective drug development: Elevating regulatory affairs professionals to strategic partners Current regulatory challenges and approaches in the registration of herbal drugs in Europe
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1