Interpreting patient-reported outcome results: US FDA guidance and emerging methods - PubMed (original) (raw)

Review

Interpreting patient-reported outcome results: US FDA guidance and emerging methods

Lori D McLeod et al. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2011 Apr.

Abstract

In recent years, the US FDA has become more critical of instruments used to measure patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical trials. To facilitate decisions related to the approval of drugs, labels and promotional claims based on PROs, the FDA created the Study Endpoints and Label Development (SEALD) group. SEALD has developed a PRO guidance related to the use of PRO measures used to support drug approvals and label claims, including recommendations for establishing thresholds for meaningful change at the individual level (i.e., defining a responder). This article examines in detail the FDA-recommended methodology for defining a responder and analyzing responder-based PRO measure results. We also present other responder analysis approaches for consideration in furthering the precision and interpretation of this methodology.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1. Sample cumulative distribution function

The data used to draw this figure were generated for illustration purposes.

Figure 2

Figure 2. Sample cumulative distribution function with confidence bands

The data used to draw this figure were generated for illustration purposes. CI: Confidence interval.

Figure 3

Figure 3. Sample receiver operating characteristic curve

Data from [14].

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Juniper ER, Guyatt GH, Willan A, Griffith LE. Determining a minimal important change in a disease-specific quality of life questionnaire. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 1994;47(1):81–87. •• Provides a description of the anchor-based approach to identifying a minimal important change for a patient-reported outcome (PRO) measure.
    1. Hays RD, Farivar SS, Liu H. Approaches and recommendations for estimating minimally important differences for health-related quality of life measures. COPD: J. Chron. Obstruct. Pulmon. Dis. 2005;2:63–67. - PubMed
    1. Walters SJ, Brazier JE. What is the relationship between the minimally important difference and health state utility values? The case of the SF-6D. Health Qual. Life Outcomes. 2003;1:4. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wyrwich KW, Tierney WM, Wolinsky FD. Further evidence supporting an SEM-based criterion for identifying meaningful intra-individual changes in health-related quality of life. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 1999;52(9):861–873. •• Provides a description of the the standard error of measurement-based approach to identifying a minimal important change for a PRO measure.
    1. Farrar JT, Dworkin RH, Max MB. Use of the cumulative proportion of responders analysis graph to present pain data over a range of cutoff points: making clinical trial data more understandable. J. Pain Symptom Manage. 2006;31(4):369–377. •• Provides a working example of how a cumulative distribution function can be used to evaluate a range of responder cutoff points for an 11-point numerical pain rating scale.

Websites

    1. US Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS) [Accessed 1 December 2010];Draft guidance for industry. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims. 2006 February; www.ispor.org/workpaper/FDAPROGuidance2006.pdf. - PMC - PubMed
    1. US Department of Health and Human Services (USDHHS) [Accessed 1 December 2010];Guidance for industry. Patient-Reported Outcome Measures: Use in Medical Product Development to Support Labeling Claims. 2009 December; www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatory Information/Guidances/UCM193282.pdf. •• US FDA guidance for industry related to the development and review of PRO measures.

Publication types

MeSH terms

Grants and funding

LinkOut - more resources