Scholarlink

Objectives <p>To identify and describe patient experience data (PED)-related guidance issued by regulatory and health technology assessment (HTA) agencies in North America, Europe, and Asia Pacific.</p> Methods <p>National agency websites were manually searched (October 2021, updated October–December 2023) to identify standalone PED guidance, and general submission/clinical trial or disease-specific guidance in four therapy areas, including PED-related recommendations. Identified documents were reviewed for requirements/expectations on types of PED; concepts of interest and instruments/tools; validation, analysis, and interpretation; study design, and endpoint definitions.</p> Results <p>A total of 34 regulatory and 21 HTA documents were reviewed across 7 and 11 agencies, respectively. Most regulatory agencies expected data collected via clinical outcome assessments; concepts of interest were similar; specific tools were not usually recommended, although the use of validated instruments was expected; and meaningful within-patient change was generally considered key to interpretation. HTA guidance on PED varied primarily based on country requirement for utility estimates to inform economic evaluation (little/no guidance beyond the concept of interest) versus interest in PED on signs, symptoms, or disease impact on functioning (generally more comprehensive details on PED expectations).</p> Conclusion <p>Through PED, patient voice is an increasingly important factor in regulatory, access, and reimbursement decision-making. Regulatory and HTA agencies in North America, Europe, and Asia Pacific have varying expectations regarding PED. This misalignment can necessitate the collection of multiple types of PED to meet all requirements (resulting in complex clinical trial protocols and significant patient burden), and lead to differences in data interpretation or gaps in the expected data. Therefore, PED measurement standards should be harmonized globally, and the collection of required PED should be ensured early during drug development to ensure decisions can be made based on valid and reliable data.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Identification and Description of Regulatory and Health Technology Assessment Agencies’ Guidance Related to Patient Experience Data in North America, Europe, and Asia Pacific

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年7月17日

查看全文
  • Laure Delbecque,
  • Juergen Zschocke,
  • Ding Ding,
  • Jiat-Ling Poon,
  • Carolina Alonzo,
  • Nancy Gabriela Pérez,
  • Shane Myrick,
  • Jennifer N. Hill

摘要

Objectives

To identify and describe patient experience data (PED)-related guidance issued by regulatory and health technology assessment (HTA) agencies in North America, Europe, and Asia Pacific.

Methods

National agency websites were manually searched (October 2021, updated October–December 2023) to identify standalone PED guidance, and general submission/clinical trial or disease-specific guidance in four therapy areas, including PED-related recommendations. Identified documents were reviewed for requirements/expectations on types of PED; concepts of interest and instruments/tools; validation, analysis, and interpretation; study design, and endpoint definitions.

Results

A total of 34 regulatory and 21 HTA documents were reviewed across 7 and 11 agencies, respectively. Most regulatory agencies expected data collected via clinical outcome assessments; concepts of interest were similar; specific tools were not usually recommended, although the use of validated instruments was expected; and meaningful within-patient change was generally considered key to interpretation. HTA guidance on PED varied primarily based on country requirement for utility estimates to inform economic evaluation (little/no guidance beyond the concept of interest) versus interest in PED on signs, symptoms, or disease impact on functioning (generally more comprehensive details on PED expectations).

Conclusion

Through PED, patient voice is an increasingly important factor in regulatory, access, and reimbursement decision-making. Regulatory and HTA agencies in North America, Europe, and Asia Pacific have varying expectations regarding PED. This misalignment can necessitate the collection of multiple types of PED to meet all requirements (resulting in complex clinical trial protocols and significant patient burden), and lead to differences in data interpretation or gaps in the expected data. Therefore, PED measurement standards should be harmonized globally, and the collection of required PED should be ensured early during drug development to ensure decisions can be made based on valid and reliable data.