Objectives Our objective was to identify patient-informed value elements that can be used to make value assessment more patient centered. Methods Mixed methods were used iteratively to collect and integrate qualitative and quantitative data in a four-stage process: identification (stage 1), prioritization (stage 2), refinement (stage 3), and synthesis (stage 4). Qualitative methods involved one-on-one discussions with 14 patient stakeholders from diverse medical communities representing mental health, osteoporosis, blindness, lupus, eczema, oncology, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and hypercholesterolemia. Stakeholders completed guided activities to prioritize elements important to patient healthcare decision making. Responses were summarized descriptively as frequencies and proportions. Results Stakeholders identified 94 value elements in stage 1. Of these, 42 elements remained following the stage 2 prioritization and the stage 3 refinement. During the stage 4 synthesis, the 42 patient-informed value elements comprised the principal set of value elements that were organized by 11 categories: tolerability, disease burden, forecasting, accessibility of care/ treatment, healthcare service delivery, cost incurred on the patient, cost incurred on the family, personal well-being, stigma, social well-being, and personal values. The categories fell under five domains: short-and long-term effects of treatment, treatment access, cost, life impact, and social impact. Conclusions In total, 75% of the value elements in the conceptual model were patient derived and distinct from the elements used in existing value frameworks. Recommendations for tailoring, quantifying, and applying the patient-informed value elements in distinct patient communities are provided. This provides a foundation from which future research may test patient-informed value elements in existing value frameworks and economic evaluations.

In recent years, there has been increasing recognition of the need to assess treatment benefit from the patient's perspective. The extent of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data included in labeling for rare disease treatment is largely unknown. The objective of this study was to review trends over time for PRO-based labeling granted by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for orphan drugs.Study Design: Review of FDA package inserts.Methods: Products included in this analysis were all new molecular entities (NMEs) and biologic license applications (BLAs) with orphan designations approved by the FDA from 2002 through 2017. For identified products, package inserts were reviewed to determine the number and type of PRO claim(s) granted, endpoint status, and PRO measure named. Two trends were analyzed: (1) over all years 2002 to 2017 and (2) 2002 to 2017 stratified into 3 periods (before draft FDA PRO guidance [2006], between draft and final guidance release, and after final guidance [2009] release.Results: A total of 156 NMEs and BLAs with orphan designations were approved between 2002 and 2017. Of these, 13 products (8.3%) had PRO-based labeling, and 7 of 13 were symptom-related. The percent of orphan drugs approved with PRO-based

No abstract

Background There have been ongoing efforts to understand when and how data from observational studies can be applied to clinical and regulatory decision making. The objective of this review was to assess the comparability of relative treatment effects of pharmaceuticals from observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Methods We searched PubMed and Embase for systematic literature reviews published between January 1, 1990, and January 31, 2020, that reported relative treatment effects of pharmaceuticals from both observational studies and RCTs. We extracted pooled relative effect estimates from observational studies and RCTs for each outcome, intervention-comparator, or indication assessed in the reviews. We calculated the ratio of the relative effect estimate from observational studies over that from RCTs, along with the corresponding 95% confidence interval (CI) for each pair of pooled RCT and observational study estimates, and we evaluated the consistency in relative treatment effects. Results Thirty systematic reviews across 7 therapeutic areas were identified from the literature. We analyzed 74 pairs of pooled relative effect estimates from RCTs and observational studies from 29 reviews. There was no statistically significant difference (based on the 95% CI) in relative effect estimates between RCTs and observational studies in 79.7% of pairs. There was an extreme difference (ratio < 0.7 or > 1.43) in 43.2% of pairs, and, in 17.6% of pairs, there was a significant difference and the estimates pointed in opposite directions. Conclusions Overall, our review shows that while there is no significant difference in the relative risk ratios between the majority of RCTs and observational studies compared, there is significant variation in about 20% of comparisons. The source of this variation should be the subject of further inquiry to elucidate how much of the variation is due to differences in patient populations versus biased estimates arising from issues with study design or analytical/statistical methods.

Introduction:No one can argue on the importance of health in one's life. However, the value of health in the context of other priorities for individuals is not always as clear. Further, patients' experience with the healthcare system is rarely contrasted with the service providers' expectations. The aim of this paper is to examine and compare patients' and providers' own definitions of health and their perceptions of the healthcare delivery experience from the lens of residents and providers in West Baltimore, Maryland.Methods: This was a qualitative study with semi-structured focus groups (15 sessions) and individual in-depth interviews (21 interviews) with 94 participants. Two independent coders thematically analysed the transcripts.Results: Patients identified five areas where health systems can help them stay healthy or become healthier: affordability and costs of care; accessibility; clinician/ patient communication; addressing social determinants; and stigma and trust.Providers acknowledged that the healthcare experience is not always perfect. While the medical team focuses on conversations that enhance medical care, patients are expecting providers to touch on subjects beyond medical care.Conclusions: Patients and providers need to consider that although they have a common value towards health, there is still a gap in what users expect and what providers can offer. To further align those expectations, there is a need for increasing involvement of patient in care administration and improving dialogue between the parties about these differences.