PROM-ising进展吗?FDA孤儿药标签中患者和临床报告结果测量的趋势。

IF 6 2区 医学 Q1 ECONOMICS
Kristen A Cribbs, Lucas T A Blackmore, Michael R McGovern, Betsy J Lahue
{"title":"PROM-ising进展吗?FDA孤儿药标签中患者和临床报告结果测量的趋势。","authors":"Kristen A Cribbs, Lucas T A Blackmore, Michael R McGovern, Betsy J Lahue","doi":"10.1016/j.jval.2025.08.020","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study examined trends in patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) and clinician-reported outcome measure (ClinROM) use in FDA orphan drug labels from 2018 to 2024, comparing PROM utilization with findings from 2002-2017.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We reviewed FDA-approved orphan drug labels for new molecular entities (NMEs) and biologic license applications (BLAs) with orphan designation from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2024. Eligible labels referenced a PROM and/or ClinROM. Data was abstracted on approval year, FDA expedited review pathway, study design, endpoint ranking, instrument category, outcomes measured, and published validation references. Descriptive and trend analyses (p<0.05) were conducted and PROM findings compared to 2002-2017 rates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 207 eligible labels from 2018-2024, 13.5% included PROMs, 10.1% included ClinROMs, and 5.3% referenced both. PROM use increased 5.2% (13.5% vs. 8.3%) from 2002-2017. PROMs were primary endpoints in >60% of 2018-2024 labels-a modest increase since 2002-2017-and ClinROMs were primary in more than three-fourths. 'Rare Disease Specific' instruments were included in <50% of PROM- and ClinROM-based labels during both review periods, one-third or fewer of which were ranked as a primary endpoint. The majority of PROM and ClinROM instruments across review periods captured symptoms and had published validation references. Significant associations (p<0.05) were observed between endpoint ranking and instrument type for labels including PROMs as well as both PROMs and ClinROMs across review periods.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PROM and ClinROM inclusion in FDA orphan drug labels is uncommon. Greater integration could improve care and better convey clinically meaningful treatment value.</p>","PeriodicalId":23508,"journal":{"name":"Value in Health","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"PROM-ising Progress? Trends in Patient- and Clinician-Reported Outcome Measures in FDA Orphan Drug Labels.\",\"authors\":\"Kristen A Cribbs, Lucas T A Blackmore, Michael R McGovern, Betsy J Lahue\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jval.2025.08.020\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This study examined trends in patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) and clinician-reported outcome measure (ClinROM) use in FDA orphan drug labels from 2018 to 2024, comparing PROM utilization with findings from 2002-2017.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We reviewed FDA-approved orphan drug labels for new molecular entities (NMEs) and biologic license applications (BLAs) with orphan designation from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2024. Eligible labels referenced a PROM and/or ClinROM. Data was abstracted on approval year, FDA expedited review pathway, study design, endpoint ranking, instrument category, outcomes measured, and published validation references. Descriptive and trend analyses (p<0.05) were conducted and PROM findings compared to 2002-2017 rates.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 207 eligible labels from 2018-2024, 13.5% included PROMs, 10.1% included ClinROMs, and 5.3% referenced both. PROM use increased 5.2% (13.5% vs. 8.3%) from 2002-2017. PROMs were primary endpoints in >60% of 2018-2024 labels-a modest increase since 2002-2017-and ClinROMs were primary in more than three-fourths. 'Rare Disease Specific' instruments were included in <50% of PROM- and ClinROM-based labels during both review periods, one-third or fewer of which were ranked as a primary endpoint. The majority of PROM and ClinROM instruments across review periods captured symptoms and had published validation references. Significant associations (p<0.05) were observed between endpoint ranking and instrument type for labels including PROMs as well as both PROMs and ClinROMs across review periods.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>PROM and ClinROM inclusion in FDA orphan drug labels is uncommon. Greater integration could improve care and better convey clinically meaningful treatment value.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":23508,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Value in Health\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":6.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Value in Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2025.08.020\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ECONOMICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Value in Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2025.08.020","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:本研究调查了2018年至2024年FDA孤儿药标签中患者报告结局指标(PROM)和临床报告结局指标(ClinROM)的使用趋势,并将PROM的使用情况与2002年至2017年的结果进行了比较。方法:回顾2018年1月1日至2024年12月31日fda批准的孤儿药新分子实体(NMEs)标签和孤儿药认定的生物制剂许可申请(bla)。合格的标签引用了PROM和/或ClinROM。数据包括批准年份、FDA快速审查途径、研究设计、终点排名、仪器类别、测量结果和已发表的验证参考文献。描述性和趋势分析(结果:在2018-2024年的207个合格标签中,13.5%包含prom, 10.1%包含clinrom, 5.3%同时引用两者。从2002年到2017年,PROM的使用量增加了5.2%(13.5%对8.3%)。prom是2018-2024年60%的主要终点,自2002-2017年以来略有增长,而clinrom是超过四分之三的主要终点。结论:FDA孤儿药标签中包含PROM和ClinROM的情况并不常见。更大的整合可以改善护理,更好地传达临床有意义的治疗价值。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
PROM-ising Progress? Trends in Patient- and Clinician-Reported Outcome Measures in FDA Orphan Drug Labels.

Objectives: This study examined trends in patient-reported outcome measure (PROM) and clinician-reported outcome measure (ClinROM) use in FDA orphan drug labels from 2018 to 2024, comparing PROM utilization with findings from 2002-2017.

Methods: We reviewed FDA-approved orphan drug labels for new molecular entities (NMEs) and biologic license applications (BLAs) with orphan designation from January 1, 2018, to December 31, 2024. Eligible labels referenced a PROM and/or ClinROM. Data was abstracted on approval year, FDA expedited review pathway, study design, endpoint ranking, instrument category, outcomes measured, and published validation references. Descriptive and trend analyses (p<0.05) were conducted and PROM findings compared to 2002-2017 rates.

Results: Among 207 eligible labels from 2018-2024, 13.5% included PROMs, 10.1% included ClinROMs, and 5.3% referenced both. PROM use increased 5.2% (13.5% vs. 8.3%) from 2002-2017. PROMs were primary endpoints in >60% of 2018-2024 labels-a modest increase since 2002-2017-and ClinROMs were primary in more than three-fourths. 'Rare Disease Specific' instruments were included in <50% of PROM- and ClinROM-based labels during both review periods, one-third or fewer of which were ranked as a primary endpoint. The majority of PROM and ClinROM instruments across review periods captured symptoms and had published validation references. Significant associations (p<0.05) were observed between endpoint ranking and instrument type for labels including PROMs as well as both PROMs and ClinROMs across review periods.

Conclusions: PROM and ClinROM inclusion in FDA orphan drug labels is uncommon. Greater integration could improve care and better convey clinically meaningful treatment value.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Value in Health
Value in Health 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
6.70%
发文量
3064
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Value in Health contains original research articles for pharmacoeconomics, health economics, and outcomes research (clinical, economic, and patient-reported outcomes/preference-based research), as well as conceptual and health policy articles that provide valuable information for health care decision-makers as well as the research community. As the official journal of ISPOR, Value in Health provides a forum for researchers, as well as health care decision-makers to translate outcomes research into health care decisions.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信