Patient‐reported, observer‐reported and performance outcomes in qualification procedures at the European Medicines Agency 2013–2018

Résumé fourni par la source

AIMS: To describe characteristics of applicant, tool, outcomes, regulatory responses and general learnings from European Medicines Agency (EMA) Qualification Procedures on patient-reported outcomes (PROs), observer-reported outcomes (ObsROs) and performance outcomes (PerfOs) finalized between January 2013 and December 2018. METHODS: Descriptive analysis, and qualitative review of the regulatory outcomes of the study procedures. RESULTS: Seventeen qualification programmes for PROs, 6 for ObsRO tools and 11 for PerfO tools were submitted by consortia, large and small/medium companies. Gastroenterology and neurology were the most frequent therapeutic areas. There was a high level of regulators' partial agreement (above 70%) with applicant's approaches with constructive input; EMA published Letters of Support for PRO (6), ObsRO (2) and PerfO (4) tools, and Qualification Opinions on PROs (2) and PerfOs (1). General issues related to Qualification Procedures on PROs raised by EU regulatorsincluded: population, appropriate studies to demonstrate ability to detect change, tool validation in interventional trials, anchoring, identification of the minimally important difference, item selection, weighting, and multiple domains. In addition, specific issues for ObsROs and PerfO tools validation are identified. CONCLUSIONS: Regulators discussed principles and challenges of validation tailored to specific setting in tool development, providing constructive feedback. Regulatory outputs supportive of further development were published in over one-third of programs. We encourage applicants intending to use or develop novel PRO, ObsRO and PerfO tools that will generate evidence for regulatory submissions on medicines to consider Qualification procedures for novel methods to seek feedback on the development and validation of these tools.

Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.