This article concerns development and use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in clinical trials to evaluate medical products. A PRO is any report coming directly from patients, without interpretation by physicians or others, about how they function or feel in relation to a health condition and its therapy. PRO instruments are used to measure these patient reports. PROs provide a unique perspective on medical therapy, because some effects of a health condition and its therapy are known only to patients. Properly developed and evaluated PRO instruments also have the potential to provide more sensitive and specific measurements of the effects of medical therapies, thereby increasing the efficiency of clinical trials that attempt to measure the meaningful treatment benefits of those therapies. Poorly developed and evaluated instruments may provide misleading conclusions or data that cannot be used to support product labeling claims. We review selected major challenges from Food and Drug Administration's perspective in using PRO instruments, measures, and end points to support treatment benefit claims in product labeling. These challenges highlight the need for sponsors to formulate desired labeling claim(s) prospectively, to acquire and document information needed to support these claim(s), and to identify existing instruments or develop new and more appropriate PRO instruments for evaluating treatment benefit in the defined population in which they will seek claims.

Information derived from pharmaceutical marketing databases on the use of 12 nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs in 1983 is presented. Estimates of population exposure, regularity of treatment, average daily dose, age and sex distributions of users, concomitant use of other drugs, associated diagnoses, and trends in use are provided. Utilization patterns were similar for 8 of the nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs, with differing patterns seen for mefenamic acid, oxyphenbutazone, phenylbutazone, and zomepirac.

Health care professionals should consider the teratogenic and toxic risk profiles of antibiotics to assist in making prescribing decisions for pregnant and lactating women. These may become especially important if anti-infective countermeasures are required to protect the health, safety, and survival of individuals exposed to pathogenic bacteriologic agents that may occur from bioterrorist acts.

Scientifically valid data on the safety of drug use during pregnancy are a significant public health need. Data are rarely available on the fetal effects of in utero exposure in human pregnancies, particularly when a drug is first marketed. Data from animal reproductive toxicology studies, which function as a screen for potential human teratogenicity, are usually all that is available in a product's labelling. For practising clinicians, translating known animal risks into an accurate assessment of teratogenic risks in their patients is very difficult, if not impossible. Without human data on the effects of in utero drug exposure, it is difficult for physicians and other healthcare providers (e.g. genetic counsellors) to adequately counsel patients about fetal risks. Therefore, a pregnant woman may decide to unnecessarily terminate a wanted pregnancy or forego needed drug therapy. In spite of the lack of data on the safety of drug use during human pregnancies, pregnant women are exposed to drugs either as prescribed therapy or inadvertently before pregnancy is known (over one-half of pregnancies are unplanned). Because little is known about the teratogenic potential of a drug in humans before marketing, post-marketing surveillance of drug use in pregnancy is critical to the detection of drug-induced fetal effects. The existing passive mechanism of spontaneous reporting of adverse drug effects is inadequate to routinely detect drug-induced fetal risks or lack of such risks. Therefore, post-marketing pregnancy exposure registries are being increasingly used to proactively monitor for major fetal effects and to describe margins of safety associated with drug exposure during pregnancy. However, differing methodological rigour has been applied to the development of pregnancy exposure registries. It is important that all pregnancy registries develop epidemiologically sound written study protocols a priori. It is only through the use of rigorous methodology and procedures that data from pregnancy exposure registries will withstand scientific scrutiny. Successful recruitment of an adequate number of exposed pregnancies, aggressive follow-up, and complete and accurate ascertainment of pregnancy outcome are critical attributes of a well-designed registry.