Display options
Cite
Zagadailov E, Fine M, Shields A. Patient-reported outcomes are changing the landscape in oncology care: challenges and opportunities for payers. Am Health Drug Benefits. 2013;6(5):264-74
Zagadailov, E., Fine, M., & Shields, A. (2013). Patient-reported outcomes are changing the landscape in oncology care: challenges and opportunities for payers. American health & drug benefits, 6(5), 264-74.
Zagadailov, Erin, et al. "Patient-reported outcomes are changing the landscape in oncology care: challenges and opportunities for payers." American health & drug benefits vol. 6,5 (2013): 264-74.
Zagadailov E, Fine M, Shields A. Patient-reported outcomes are changing the landscape in oncology care: challenges and opportunities for payers. Am Health Drug Benefits. 2013 Jul;6(5):264-74. PMID: 24991362; PMCID: PMC4031715.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

Am Health Drug Benefits. 2013 Jul;6(5):264-74.

Patient-reported outcomes are changing the landscape in oncology care: challenges and opportunities for payers.

American health & drug benefits

Erin Zagadailov, Michael Fine, Alan Shields

Affiliations

  1. Dr Zagadailov is Manager of Global Health Economics Outcomes Research, Xcenda, Chicago, IL.
  2. Dr Fine is Medical Director, HealthNet, Huntington Beach, CA.
  3. Dr Shields is Director of Endpoint Development and Outcomes Assessment, Adelphi Values, Boston, MA.

PMID: 24991362 PMCID: PMC4031715

Abstract

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.

References

  1. Blood. 2009 Mar 26;113(13):2895-901 - PubMed
  2. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2010 Aug 20;8:89 - PubMed
  3. J Clin Oncol. 2007 Nov 10;25(32):5133-40 - PubMed
  4. Value Health. 2011 Dec;14(8):967-77 - PubMed
  5. J Clin Oncol. 2007 Nov 10;25(32):5051-7 - PubMed
  6. J Clin Oncol. 2003 Apr 1;21(7):1404-11 - PubMed
  7. J Clin Oncol. 1999 Feb;17(2):658-67 - PubMed
  8. Ecancermedicalscience. 2011;5:212 - PubMed
  9. Value Health. 2012 May;15(3):437-42 - PubMed
  10. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2006 Oct 11;4:79 - PubMed
  11. Value Health. 2009 Nov-Dec;12(8):1075-83 - PubMed
  12. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2007;(37):27-30 - PubMed
  13. Clin Cancer Res. 2012 Jun 15;18(12):3212-7 - PubMed
  14. Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res. 2010 Aug;10(4):407-20 - PubMed
  15. Control Clin Trials. 2004 Dec;25(6):535-52 - PubMed
  16. J Clin Oncol. 2007 Nov 10;25(32):5087-93 - PubMed
  17. Value Health. 2009 Jun;12(4):419-29 - PubMed
  18. Value Health. 2011 Dec;14(8):978-88 - PubMed
  19. Leuk Res. 2009 Sep;33(9):1199-203 - PubMed

Publication Types