Patient Experience Data (PED) in 2019-2023 US FDA NME Drug Approvals: Analysis and Recommendations.

IF 2 4区 医学 Q4 MEDICAL INFORMATICS
Jewell D Martin, Darcy Frear, Samantha A Roberts, Victoria A Dohnal, Cameron Kieffer, Steve L Morin, Ian Lock, Aliyah Balogun, Nimi Chhina
{"title":"Patient Experience Data (PED) in 2019-2023 US FDA NME Drug Approvals: Analysis and Recommendations.","authors":"Jewell D Martin, Darcy Frear, Samantha A Roberts, Victoria A Dohnal, Cameron Kieffer, Steve L Morin, Ian Lock, Aliyah Balogun, Nimi Chhina","doi":"10.1007/s43441-025-00788-w","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Since 2012, the United States Congress enacted several laws requiring the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to consider the voice and perspective of patients in the regulatory review process. The goal of the paper is to evaluate the implementation and impact of this provision by assessing the inclusion of Patient Experience Data (PED) (i.e., in PED Tables and benefit-risk frameworks) in approval documents for FDA approved drugs from 2019 through 2023. It builds on previous analyses by providing a comprehensive assessment of the use of PED by sponsors and FDA.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Authors assessed whether PED was submitted and reported in approval documents of 277 drugs or biologics approved by FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and Center for Biologic Evaluation and Research (CBER). PED reported in drug approval documents and in product labels were analyzed for each indication.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of the 277 approval documents analyzed, 252 included the PED Table in some form, where 179 tables were considered complete with PED. PED was included in the benefit risk framework for 85 (30%) applications and included in the label in 75 (27%) applications.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Efforts to standardize and improve the systematic approach to collecting and utilizing PED has been ongoing for over 10 years. Our analysis has shown that both FDA and sponsors are increasingly considering patient voice to inform drug development and decision-making; however, more transparency is needed to ensure external stakeholders understand how FDA is reviewing and considering PED to inform regulatory decision-making.</p>","PeriodicalId":23084,"journal":{"name":"Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-025-00788-w","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"MEDICAL INFORMATICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Since 2012, the United States Congress enacted several laws requiring the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to consider the voice and perspective of patients in the regulatory review process. The goal of the paper is to evaluate the implementation and impact of this provision by assessing the inclusion of Patient Experience Data (PED) (i.e., in PED Tables and benefit-risk frameworks) in approval documents for FDA approved drugs from 2019 through 2023. It builds on previous analyses by providing a comprehensive assessment of the use of PED by sponsors and FDA.

Methods: Authors assessed whether PED was submitted and reported in approval documents of 277 drugs or biologics approved by FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and Center for Biologic Evaluation and Research (CBER). PED reported in drug approval documents and in product labels were analyzed for each indication.

Results: Of the 277 approval documents analyzed, 252 included the PED Table in some form, where 179 tables were considered complete with PED. PED was included in the benefit risk framework for 85 (30%) applications and included in the label in 75 (27%) applications.

Conclusions: Efforts to standardize and improve the systematic approach to collecting and utilizing PED has been ongoing for over 10 years. Our analysis has shown that both FDA and sponsors are increasingly considering patient voice to inform drug development and decision-making; however, more transparency is needed to ensure external stakeholders understand how FDA is reviewing and considering PED to inform regulatory decision-making.

2019-2023年美国FDA NME药物批准的患者体验数据(PED):分析和建议
背景:自2012年以来,美国国会颁布了几项法律,要求美国食品和药物管理局(FDA)在监管审查过程中考虑患者的声音和观点。本文的目标是通过评估2019年至2023年FDA批准药物的批准文件中患者体验数据(PED)(即PED表和收益-风险框架)的纳入情况,评估这一规定的实施和影响。它以先前的分析为基础,提供了对赞助商和FDA使用PED的全面评估。方法:作者对FDA药品评价与研究中心(CDER)和生物评价与研究中心(CBER)批准的277种药物或生物制剂的审批文件中是否存在PED进行了评估。分析了药品批准文件和产品标签中报告的PED的每个适应症。结果:在分析的277份批准文件中,252份以某种形式包含PED表,其中179份被认为是完整的PED表。在85个(30%)申请中,PED被纳入效益风险框架,75个(27%)申请中,PED被纳入标签。结论:标准化和完善PED收集和利用系统方法的努力已经进行了10多年。我们的分析表明,FDA和申办者越来越多地考虑患者的声音,以告知药物开发和决策;然而,需要更多的透明度,以确保外部利益相关者了解FDA如何审查和考虑PED,从而为监管决策提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science
Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science MEDICAL INFORMATICS-PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
13.30%
发文量
127
期刊介绍: Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science (TIRS) is the official scientific journal of DIA that strives to advance medical product discovery, development, regulation, and use through the publication of peer-reviewed original and review articles, commentaries, and letters to the editor across the spectrum of converting biomedical science into practical solutions to advance human health. The focus areas of the journal are as follows: Biostatistics Clinical Trials Product Development and Innovation Global Perspectives Policy Regulatory Science Product Safety Special Populations
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信