Yan Xie, Yang Liu, Yunhe Qin, Geng Yin, Xiaoyuan Chen, Qibing Xie
{"title":"Patient reported outcomes in the FDA approved drugs for systemic rheumatic diseases (2013-2024).","authors":"Yan Xie, Yang Liu, Yunhe Qin, Geng Yin, Xiaoyuan Chen, Qibing Xie","doi":"10.1186/s12955-025-02386-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in systemic rheumatic diseases (SRDs) are in the forefront of clinical research. However, a comprehensive evaluation of PROs in pivotal trials supporting SRD drug approval is lacking.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>This study aims to systematically characterize the use of PROs in pivotal trials supporting the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of SRDs treatments and to assess the quality of reporting.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We reviewed the pivotal trials supporting the approval of SRD indications by FDA since July 2013 to assess the use of PROs, including specific PRO measures (PROMs) and types of endpoints designated. Quality of PRO reporting was assessed according to a modified ISOQoL criteria.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From July 1st, 2013, to June 30th, 2024, the FDA approved 43 new SRD indications based on 67 pivotal trials, with 58 trials included in the final analysis. PROs served as multiple types of endpoints in most trials. All 58 reviewed trials utilized PROs as secondary or exploratory endpoints. The numbers of trials that employed PROs as components of primary endpoints, co-primary endpoints, and key secondary endpoints, were 47(81.0%), 4(6.9%), 45(77.6%), respectively. Notably, the inclusion of PROs as components of composite primary endpoints or co-primary endpoints (100% vs. 8.3%, P < 0.001) and key secondary endpoints (93.5% vs. 16.7%, P < 0.001) were significantly higher in inflammatory arthritis compared to other SRDs. Regarding PROM types, 37 trials (63.8%) reported both generic and disease-specific PROMs, covering a broad range of domains. Quality of PRO reporting, influenced by disease type and the presence of additional PRO reports, was moderate to poor in 45 trials (81.8%). Key reporting elements, such as the PRO hypothesis, mode of PROMs completion, and extent and reasons for missing PRO data, were documented in fewer than 30% of the trials.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>PROs significantly impact SRDs drug approval decisions, especially for inflammatory arthritis. However, the overall quality of PRO reporting in pivotal trials of SRDs is suboptimal and needs improvement. Our study provides a comprehensive summary of PRO application in SRDs trials, highlighting the need for strengthening PRO utilization in non-arthritis SRDs and improving PRO reporting quality in future studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":12980,"journal":{"name":"Health and Quality of Life Outcomes","volume":"23 1","pages":"52"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12121054/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health and Quality of Life Outcomes","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-025-02386-8","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Background: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in systemic rheumatic diseases (SRDs) are in the forefront of clinical research. However, a comprehensive evaluation of PROs in pivotal trials supporting SRD drug approval is lacking.
Objective: This study aims to systematically characterize the use of PROs in pivotal trials supporting the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of SRDs treatments and to assess the quality of reporting.
Methods: We reviewed the pivotal trials supporting the approval of SRD indications by FDA since July 2013 to assess the use of PROs, including specific PRO measures (PROMs) and types of endpoints designated. Quality of PRO reporting was assessed according to a modified ISOQoL criteria.
Results: From July 1st, 2013, to June 30th, 2024, the FDA approved 43 new SRD indications based on 67 pivotal trials, with 58 trials included in the final analysis. PROs served as multiple types of endpoints in most trials. All 58 reviewed trials utilized PROs as secondary or exploratory endpoints. The numbers of trials that employed PROs as components of primary endpoints, co-primary endpoints, and key secondary endpoints, were 47(81.0%), 4(6.9%), 45(77.6%), respectively. Notably, the inclusion of PROs as components of composite primary endpoints or co-primary endpoints (100% vs. 8.3%, P < 0.001) and key secondary endpoints (93.5% vs. 16.7%, P < 0.001) were significantly higher in inflammatory arthritis compared to other SRDs. Regarding PROM types, 37 trials (63.8%) reported both generic and disease-specific PROMs, covering a broad range of domains. Quality of PRO reporting, influenced by disease type and the presence of additional PRO reports, was moderate to poor in 45 trials (81.8%). Key reporting elements, such as the PRO hypothesis, mode of PROMs completion, and extent and reasons for missing PRO data, were documented in fewer than 30% of the trials.
Conclusion: PROs significantly impact SRDs drug approval decisions, especially for inflammatory arthritis. However, the overall quality of PRO reporting in pivotal trials of SRDs is suboptimal and needs improvement. Our study provides a comprehensive summary of PRO application in SRDs trials, highlighting the need for strengthening PRO utilization in non-arthritis SRDs and improving PRO reporting quality in future studies.
背景:系统性风湿病(SRDs)患者报告的预后(PROs)处于临床研究的前沿。然而,缺乏对支持SRD药物批准的关键试验中PROs的全面评估。目的:本研究旨在系统地描述支持美国食品和药物管理局(FDA)批准SRDs治疗的关键试验中PROs的使用情况,并评估报告的质量。方法:我们回顾了自2013年7月以来支持FDA批准SRD适应症的关键试验,以评估PRO的使用,包括特定PRO测量(PROMs)和指定的终点类型。根据修改后的ISOQoL标准评估PRO报告的质量。结果:从2013年7月1日到2024年6月30日,FDA基于67项关键试验批准了43项新的SRD适应症,其中58项试验纳入最终分析。在大多数试验中,PROs作为多种类型的终点。所有58项回顾性试验均将pro作为次要或探索性终点。将PROs作为主要终点、共同主要终点和关键次要终点的试验数量分别为47项(81.0%)、4项(6.9%)和45项(77.6%)。值得注意的是,将PROs作为复合主要终点或共同主要终点的组成部分(100% vs. 8.3%, P)。结论:PROs显著影响SRDs的药物审批决定,特别是对于炎症性关节炎。然而,在SRDs的关键试验中,PRO报告的整体质量是不理想的,需要改进。我们的研究全面总结了PRO在SRDs试验中的应用,强调了在未来的研究中加强PRO在非关节炎SRDs中的应用以及提高PRO报告质量的必要性。
期刊介绍:
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes is an open access, peer-reviewed, journal offering high quality articles, rapid publication and wide diffusion in the public domain.
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes considers original manuscripts on the Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQOL) assessment for evaluation of medical and psychosocial interventions. It also considers approaches and studies on psychometric properties of HRQOL and patient reported outcome measures, including cultural validation of instruments if they provide information about the impact of interventions. The journal publishes study protocols and reviews summarising the present state of knowledge concerning a particular aspect of HRQOL and patient reported outcome measures. Reviews should generally follow systematic review methodology. Comments on articles and letters to the editor are welcome.