Taylor P.C.,University of Oxford |
Moore A.,Endpoint Development and Outcomes Assessment |
Moore A.,ICE Creates Ltd |
Vasilescu R.,Pfizer |
And 2 more authors.
Rheumatology International | Year: 2016
While rheumatologists often focus on treatment targets, for many patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA), control over pain and fatigue, as well as sustaining physical function and quality of life (QoL), is of primary importance. This literature review aimed at examining patients’ and physicians’ treatment aspirations, and identifying the unmet needs for patients with RA receiving ongoing treatment. Searches were performed using MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Econlit literature databases for articles published from 2004 to 2014 in the English language. Published literature was screened to identify articles reporting the unmet needs in RA. We found that, despite the wide range of available treatments, RA continues to pose a substantial humanistic and economic burden on patients, and there are still unmet needs across key domains such as pain, physical function, mental function, and fatigue. These findings suggest that there is a need for further treatment advances in RA that address these domains of contemporary unmet need. © 2016, The Author(s).
Kastien-Hilka T.,Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute |
Kastien-Hilka T.,University of Basel |
Kastien-Hilka T.,University of Cape Town |
Abulfathi A.,Stellenbosch University |
And 5 more authors.
Health and Quality of Life Outcomes | Year: 2016
Introduction: Tuberculosis (TB) is a leading cause of morbidity and mortality in South Africa. Clinical parameters are important objective outcomes in TB; however they often are not directly correlated with subjective well-being of the patient, but can be assessed using patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures. Health-related quality of life (HRQOL) is a specific PRO generally multi-dimensional in nature and includes physical, mental and social health domains. The inclusion of HRQOL PROs in trials and clinical practice can provide additional information beyondclinical and microbiological parameters. Furthermore, HRQOL may be associated with medication adherence. This review focuses on patient-reported HRQOL and its association with medication adherence in TB patients in South Africa. Methods: A comprehensive search strategy was developed focusing on the impact of TB on patient-reported HRQOL,the existence of a conceptual framework of TB-specific HRQOL, determinants of medication adherence and the association of HRQOL with medication adherence. Data were extracted from all identified articles and additionaldata extraction was performed by two independent reviewers with special focus on longitudinal studies in order to understand changes of HRQOL and adherence over time. Research gaps were identified with regard to patient-reported HRQOL and medication adherence. Results: A total of 66 articles met the eligibility criteria. Ten HRQOL studies and one adherence study used a longitudinal design, none of these in South Africa. A variety of different generic and disease-specific HRQOL measures were identified in the articles. In South Africa four HRQOL and five adherence studies (non-longitudinal) were published. Similar factors (socio-demographic, socio-economic, disease-related, therapy-related and psycho-social aspects) affect HRQOL and adherence. Although standard TB treatment improved all health domains, psychological well-being and social functioning remained impaired in microbiologically cured patients after treatment. Conclusion: While evidence of TB impact on HRQOL and medication adherence and their association exists, it is verylimited for the South African situation. No valid and reliable TB-specific HRQOL measures were identified in this systematicreview. An assessment of HRQOL in TB patients in South Africa is required as this may assist with improving current disease management programmes, medication adherence and national treatment guidelines. © 2016 Kastien-Hilka et al.
Shields A.,Endpoint Development and Outcomes Assessment |
Coon C.,Outcometrix |
Hao Y.,Novartis |
Krohe M.,Endpoint Development and Outcomes Assessment |
And 4 more authors.
Expert Review of Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research | Year: 2015
This paper describes ways to approach the conceptual and practical challenges associated with interpreting the clinical meaning of scores produced by patient reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires, particularly when used to inform efficacy decisions for regulatory approval for oncology products. Score interpretation estimates are not inherent to PRO questionnaires per se, instead, vary dependent upon sample and study design characteristics. Scores from PRO measures can be interpreted at the individual and group level, and each carries its own set of statistics for evaluating differences. Oncology researchers have a variety of methods and data analytic strategies available to support their score interpretation needs, which should be considered in the context of their a priori knowledge of the target patient population, the hypothesized effects of treatment, the study design and assessment schedule, and the inferences and decisions to be made from the PRO data. © 2015 Novartis.
Zagadailov E.,Global Health Economics Outcomes Research |
Fine M.,HealthNet |
Shields A.,Endpoint Development and Outcomes Assessment
American Health and Drug Benefits | Year: 2013
Background: A patient-reported outcome (PRO) is a subjective report that comes from a patient without interpretation by a clinician. Because of the increasingly significant role of PROs in the development and evaluation of new medicines, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued a formal guidance to describe how PRO instruments will be reviewed and evaluated with respect to claims in approved medical product labeling. Meanwhile, PROs continue to appear in oncology clinical trials more frequently; however, it is unclear how payers and policymakers can use PRO data in the context of decision-making for cancer treatments. Objective: The objective of this article is to discuss the challenges and opportunities of incorporating oncology-related PRO data into payer decision-making. Discussion: Payer concerns with PRO instruments are often related to issues regarding measurement, relevance, quality, and interpretability of PROs. Payers may dismiss PROs that do not independently predict improved outcomes. The FDA guidance released in 2009 demonstrates, as evidenced by the case of ruxolitinib, how PRO questionnaires can be generated in a relevant, trustworthy, and meaningful way, which provides an opportunity for payers and policy decision makers to focus on how to use PRO data in their decision-making. This is particularly relevant in oncology, where a recent and sizable number of clinical trials include PRO measures. Conclusion: As an increasing number of oncology medications enter the market with product labeling claims that contain PRO data, payers will need to better familiarize themselves with the opportunities associated with PRO questionnaires when making coverage decisions. PRO measures will continue to provide valuable information regarding the risk-benefit profile of novel agents. As such, PRO measures may provide evidence that should be considered in payers' decisions and discussions; however, the formal role of PROs and the pertinence of PROs in decision-making has yet to be understood.