• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

2019 - 2023年美国食品药品监督管理局新分子实体药物批准中的患者体验数据:分析与建议

Patient Experience Data (PED) in 2019-2023 US FDA NME Drug Approvals: Analysis and Recommendations.

作者信息

Martin Jewell D, Frear Darcy, Roberts Samantha A, Dohnal Victoria A, Kieffer Cameron, Morin Steve L, Lock Ian, Balogun Aliyah, Chhina Nimi

机构信息

BioMarin (United States), San Rafael, CA, USA.

BridgeBio (United States), Palo Alto, USA.

出版信息

Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2025 Jul;59(4):859-870. doi: 10.1007/s43441-025-00788-w. Epub 2025 May 9.

DOI:10.1007/s43441-025-00788-w
PMID:40346376
Abstract

BACKGROUND

Since 2012, the United States Congress enacted several laws requiring the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to consider the voice and perspective of patients in the regulatory review process. The goal of the paper is to evaluate the implementation and impact of this provision by assessing the inclusion of Patient Experience Data (PED) (i.e., in PED Tables and benefit-risk frameworks) in approval documents for FDA approved drugs from 2019 through 2023. It builds on previous analyses by providing a comprehensive assessment of the use of PED by sponsors and FDA.

METHODS

Authors assessed whether PED was submitted and reported in approval documents of 277 drugs or biologics approved by FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and Center for Biologic Evaluation and Research (CBER). PED reported in drug approval documents and in product labels were analyzed for each indication.

RESULTS

Of the 277 approval documents analyzed, 252 included the PED Table in some form, where 179 tables were considered complete with PED. PED was included in the benefit risk framework for 85 (30%) applications and included in the label in 75 (27%) applications.

CONCLUSIONS

Efforts to standardize and improve the systematic approach to collecting and utilizing PED has been ongoing for over 10 years. Our analysis has shown that both FDA and sponsors are increasingly considering patient voice to inform drug development and decision-making; however, more transparency is needed to ensure external stakeholders understand how FDA is reviewing and considering PED to inform regulatory decision-making.

摘要

背景

自2012年以来,美国国会颁布了多项法律,要求美国食品药品监督管理局(FDA)在监管审查过程中考虑患者的意见和观点。本文的目的是通过评估2019年至2023年FDA批准药物的批准文件中患者体验数据(PED)(即PED表格和获益-风险框架)的纳入情况,来评估这一规定的实施情况和影响。它在先前分析的基础上,对申办方和FDA使用PED的情况进行了全面评估。

方法

作者评估了FDA药物评价和研究中心(CDER)以及生物制品评价和研究中心(CBER)批准的277种药物或生物制品的批准文件中是否提交并报告了PED。对每种适应症的药物批准文件和产品标签中报告的PED进行了分析。

结果

在分析的277份批准文件中,252份以某种形式包含了PED表格,其中179份表格被认为完整包含了PED。85份(30%)申请的获益-风险框架中包含了PED,75份(27%)申请的标签中包含了PED。

结论

标准化并改进收集和利用PED的系统方法的工作已经进行了十多年。我们的分析表明,FDA和申办方都越来越多地考虑患者的意见以指导药物研发和决策;然而,需要更高的透明度,以确保外部利益相关者了解FDA如何审查和考虑PED以指导监管决策。

相似文献

1
Patient Experience Data (PED) in 2019-2023 US FDA NME Drug Approvals: Analysis and Recommendations.2019 - 2023年美国食品药品监督管理局新分子实体药物批准中的患者体验数据:分析与建议
Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2025 Jul;59(4):859-870. doi: 10.1007/s43441-025-00788-w. Epub 2025 May 9.
2
Has FDA's Drug Development Tools Qualification Program Improved Drug Development?美国食品药品监督管理局(FDA)的药物开发工具资格认定计划是否改进了药物研发?
Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2025 May 4. doi: 10.1007/s43441-025-00790-2.
3
A Systematic Review of U.S. Biosimilar Approvals: What Evidence Does the FDA Require and How Are Manufacturers Responding?美国生物类似药批准的系统评价:FDA 需要什么证据,制造商如何回应?
J Manag Care Spec Pharm. 2017 Dec;23(12):1234-1244. doi: 10.18553/jmcp.2017.23.12.1234.
4
Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis.慢性斑块状银屑病的全身药理学治疗:一项网状荟萃分析。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Dec 22;12(12):CD011535. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011535.pub2.
5
Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis.系统性药理学治疗慢性斑块状银屑病:网络荟萃分析。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Apr 19;4(4):CD011535. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD011535.pub4.
6
A rapid and systematic review of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of topotecan for ovarian cancer.拓扑替康治疗卵巢癌的临床有效性和成本效益的快速系统评价。
Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(28):1-110. doi: 10.3310/hta5280.
7
A systematic review and economic evaluation of epoetin alpha, epoetin beta and darbepoetin alpha in anaemia associated with cancer, especially that attributable to cancer treatment.促红细胞生成素α、促红细胞生成素β和达比加群酯治疗癌症相关性贫血(尤其是癌症治疗所致贫血)的系统评价与经济学评估
Health Technol Assess. 2007 Apr;11(13):1-202, iii-iv. doi: 10.3310/hta11130.
8
Cost-effectiveness of using prognostic information to select women with breast cancer for adjuvant systemic therapy.利用预后信息为乳腺癌患者选择辅助性全身治疗的成本效益
Health Technol Assess. 2006 Sep;10(34):iii-iv, ix-xi, 1-204. doi: 10.3310/hta10340.
9
Eliciting adverse effects data from participants in clinical trials.从临床试验参与者中获取不良反应数据。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 Jan 16;1(1):MR000039. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000039.pub2.
10
Home treatment for mental health problems: a systematic review.心理健康问题的居家治疗:一项系统综述
Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(15):1-139. doi: 10.3310/hta5150.