Skip to main content
Erschienen in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 5/2018

01.10.2018 | Commentary

Symposium Title: Preference Evidence for Regulatory Decisions

verfasst von: Juan Marcos Gonzalez, F. Reed Johnson, Bennett Levitan, Rebecca Noel, Holly Peay

Erschienen in: The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research | Ausgabe 5/2018

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Excerpt

Interest in regulatory use of patient-preference information has been growing in recent years [13]. Several initiatives have sought to help guide the collection, analysis, and interpretation of such information [46]. These initiatives have taken place in the context of a broader evolution in regulatory science and benefit–risk evaluations [3, 4, 7]. The Center for Devices and Radiological Health (CDRH) at the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently issued guidance for submitting preference information for regulatory reviews. Health technology assessment agencies in Europe (IQWiG [Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Healthcare] in Germany and NICE [National Institute for Health and Care Excellence] in the UK) have acknowledged the relevance of such information. In the US, recent approval of the 21st Century Cure Act, the Medical Device User Fee Act Amendments (MDUFA) IV, and the Prescription Drug User Fee Act Amendments (PDUFA) VI has also identified the need for more patient engagement in the regulatory process [8]. While there is considerable interest in patient-centered decision-making, it is still unclear how preference data should be integrated into existing regulatory procedures and criteria for new drug or device applications. It is also currently unclear what differences we should expect to see in regulatory outcomes from incorporating preference information. The evolving landscape on using preference information in the regulatory context has raised the need to continue an open dialog among regulatory agencies, industry, academia, and those at the center of this movement, patients. …
Literatur
1.
Zurück zum Zitat Ho MP, Gonzalez JM, Lerner HP, et al. Incorporating patient-preference evidence into regulatory decision making. Surg Endosc. 2015;29(10):2984–93.CrossRef Ho MP, Gonzalez JM, Lerner HP, et al. Incorporating patient-preference evidence into regulatory decision making. Surg Endosc. 2015;29(10):2984–93.CrossRef
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Johnson FR, Zhou M. Patient preferences in regulatory benefit-risk assessments: a US perspective. Value Health. 2016;19(6):741–5.CrossRef Johnson FR, Zhou M. Patient preferences in regulatory benefit-risk assessments: a US perspective. Value Health. 2016;19(6):741–5.CrossRef
3.
Zurück zum Zitat Coplan P, Noel R, Levitan B, Ferguson J, Mussen F. Development of a framework for enhancing the transparency, reproducibility and communication of the benefit–risk balance of medicines. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2011;89(2):312–5.CrossRef Coplan P, Noel R, Levitan B, Ferguson J, Mussen F. Development of a framework for enhancing the transparency, reproducibility and communication of the benefit–risk balance of medicines. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2011;89(2):312–5.CrossRef
4.
Zurück zum Zitat Ho M, Saha A, McCleary KK, et al. A framework for incorporating patient preferences regarding benefits and risks into regulatory assessment of medical technologies. Value Health. 2016;19(6):746–50.CrossRef Ho M, Saha A, McCleary KK, et al. A framework for incorporating patient preferences regarding benefits and risks into regulatory assessment of medical technologies. Value Health. 2016;19(6):746–50.CrossRef
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Bridges JFP, Hauber AB, Marshall D, et al. Conjoint Analysis applications in health—a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health. 2011;14(4):403–13.CrossRef Bridges JFP, Hauber AB, Marshall D, et al. Conjoint Analysis applications in health—a checklist: a report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health. 2011;14(4):403–13.CrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat de Bekker-Grob EW, Berlin C, Levitan B, Raza K, Christoforidi K, Cleemput I, Pelouchova J, Enzmann H, Cook N, Hansson MG. Giving patients’ preferences a voice in medical treatment life cycle: the PREFER public-private project. Patient. 2017;10(3):263–6.CrossRef de Bekker-Grob EW, Berlin C, Levitan B, Raza K, Christoforidi K, Cleemput I, Pelouchova J, Enzmann H, Cook N, Hansson MG. Giving patients’ preferences a voice in medical treatment life cycle: the PREFER public-private project. Patient. 2017;10(3):263–6.CrossRef
7.
8.
Zurück zum Zitat Postmus D, Mavris M, Hillege H, et al. Incorporating patient preferences into drug development and regulatory decision making: results from a quantitative pilot study with cancer patients, carers, and regulators. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2016;99(5):548–54.CrossRef Postmus D, Mavris M, Hillege H, et al. Incorporating patient preferences into drug development and regulatory decision making: results from a quantitative pilot study with cancer patients, carers, and regulators. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2016;99(5):548–54.CrossRef
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Katz EG, Hauber B, Gopal S, et al. Physician and patient benefit–risk preferences from two randomized long-acting injectable antipsychotic trials. Patient Preference Adherence. 2016;10:2127.CrossRef Katz EG, Hauber B, Gopal S, et al. Physician and patient benefit–risk preferences from two randomized long-acting injectable antipsychotic trials. Patient Preference Adherence. 2016;10:2127.CrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Escudier B, Porta C, Bono P, et al. Randomized, controlled, double-blind, cross-over trial assessing treatment preference for pazopanib versus sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: PISCES Study. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(14):1412–8.CrossRef Escudier B, Porta C, Bono P, et al. Randomized, controlled, double-blind, cross-over trial assessing treatment preference for pazopanib versus sunitinib in patients with metastatic renal cell carcinoma: PISCES Study. J Clin Oncol. 2014;32(14):1412–8.CrossRef
12.
Zurück zum Zitat Peay HL, Hollin I, Fischer R, Bridges JF. A community-engaged approach to quantifying caregiver preferences for the benefits and risks of emerging therapies for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Clin Ther. 2014;36(5):624–37.CrossRef Peay HL, Hollin I, Fischer R, Bridges JF. A community-engaged approach to quantifying caregiver preferences for the benefits and risks of emerging therapies for Duchenne muscular dystrophy. Clin Ther. 2014;36(5):624–37.CrossRef
13.
Zurück zum Zitat Hollin IL, Peay HL, Bridges JF. Caregiver preferences for emerging duchenne muscular dystrophy treatments: a comparison of best-worst scaling and conjoint analysis. Patient Patient Centered Outcomes Res. 2015;8(1):19–27.CrossRef Hollin IL, Peay HL, Bridges JF. Caregiver preferences for emerging duchenne muscular dystrophy treatments: a comparison of best-worst scaling and conjoint analysis. Patient Patient Centered Outcomes Res. 2015;8(1):19–27.CrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Hollin IL, Peay HL, Apkon SD, Bridges JF. Patient-centered benefit–risk assessment in duchenne muscular dystrophy. Muscle Nerve. 2017;55(5):626–34.CrossRef Hollin IL, Peay HL, Apkon SD, Bridges JF. Patient-centered benefit–risk assessment in duchenne muscular dystrophy. Muscle Nerve. 2017;55(5):626–34.CrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Johnson FR, Lancsar E, Marshall D, et al. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task force. Value Health. 2013;16(1):3–13.CrossRef Johnson FR, Lancsar E, Marshall D, et al. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR conjoint analysis experimental design good research practices task force. Value Health. 2013;16(1):3–13.CrossRef
16.
Zurück zum Zitat Hauber AB, González JM, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM, et al. Statistical methods for the analysis of discrete choice experiments: a report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2016;19(4):300–15.CrossRef Hauber AB, González JM, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM, et al. Statistical methods for the analysis of discrete choice experiments: a report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health. 2016;19(4):300–15.CrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Levitan B, Hauber AB, Damiano MG, Jaffe R, Christopher S. The ball is in your court: agenda for research to advance the science of patient preferences in the regulatory review of medical devices in the United States. Patient Patient Centered Outcomes Res. 2017;10(5):531–6.CrossRef Levitan B, Hauber AB, Damiano MG, Jaffe R, Christopher S. The ball is in your court: agenda for research to advance the science of patient preferences in the regulatory review of medical devices in the United States. Patient Patient Centered Outcomes Res. 2017;10(5):531–6.CrossRef
18.
Zurück zum Zitat Furlong P, Bridges JF, Charnas L, et al. How a patient advocacy group developed the first proposed draft guidance document for industry for submission to the US Food and Drug Administration. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2015;10(1):82.CrossRef Furlong P, Bridges JF, Charnas L, et al. How a patient advocacy group developed the first proposed draft guidance document for industry for submission to the US Food and Drug Administration. Orphanet J Rare Dis. 2015;10(1):82.CrossRef
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Administration USDoHaHSFaD. Duchenne muscular dystrophy and related dystrophinopathies: developing drugs for treatment guidance for industry. In: (CBER) CfDEaRCCfBEaR, editor. Silver Spring: Office of Communication, Outreach, and Development; 2018. Administration USDoHaHSFaD. Duchenne muscular dystrophy and related dystrophinopathies: developing drugs for treatment guidance for industry. In: (CBER) CfDEaRCCfBEaR, editor. Silver Spring: Office of Communication, Outreach, and Development; 2018.
20.
Zurück zum Zitat Aartsma-Rus A, Krieg AM. FDA approves eteplirsen for duchenne muscular dystrophy: the next chapter in the eteplirsen saga. Nucleic Acid Ther. 2017;27(1):1–3.CrossRef Aartsma-Rus A, Krieg AM. FDA approves eteplirsen for duchenne muscular dystrophy: the next chapter in the eteplirsen saga. Nucleic Acid Ther. 2017;27(1):1–3.CrossRef
21.
Zurück zum Zitat Kesselheim AS, Avorn J. Approving a problematic muscular dystrophy drug: implications for FDA policy. JAMA. 2016;316(22):2357–8.CrossRef Kesselheim AS, Avorn J. Approving a problematic muscular dystrophy drug: implications for FDA policy. JAMA. 2016;316(22):2357–8.CrossRef
22.
Zurück zum Zitat de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012;21(2):145–72.CrossRef de Bekker-Grob EW, Ryan M, Gerard K. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. Health Econ. 2012;21(2):145–72.CrossRef
23.
Zurück zum Zitat Marshall D, Bridges JFP, Hauber B, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health—how are studies being designed and reported? Patient Patient Centered Outcomes Res. 2010;3(4):249–56.CrossRef Marshall D, Bridges JFP, Hauber B, et al. Conjoint analysis applications in health—how are studies being designed and reported? Patient Patient Centered Outcomes Res. 2010;3(4):249–56.CrossRef
24.
Zurück zum Zitat Clark MD, Determann D, Petrou S, Moro D, de Bekker-Grob EW. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. PharmacoEconomics. 2014;32(9):883–902.CrossRef Clark MD, Determann D, Petrou S, Moro D, de Bekker-Grob EW. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. PharmacoEconomics. 2014;32(9):883–902.CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
Symposium Title: Preference Evidence for Regulatory Decisions
verfasst von
Juan Marcos Gonzalez
F. Reed Johnson
Bennett Levitan
Rebecca Noel
Holly Peay
Publikationsdatum
01.10.2018
Verlag
Springer International Publishing
Erschienen in
The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research / Ausgabe 5/2018
Print ISSN: 1178-1653
Elektronische ISSN: 1178-1661
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40271-018-0311-y

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 5/2018

The Patient - Patient-Centered Outcomes Research 5/2018 Zur Ausgabe