Critical Comments by Food and Drug Administration Reviewers on Patient-Reported Outcomes in Food and Drug Administration Regulatory Submissions (2018-2021).

This article examined the inclusion of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data in new drug applications (NDAs) submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and approved from 2018 to 2021. The importance of assessing PROs, which capture patients' perspectives on the disease and treatment experience, has been underscored by many stakeholders, including regulatory authorities. Despite the increasing inclusion of PRO assessments in registration trials, inclusion of language related to PRO results in approved product labeling varies widely. This study examined FDA submission packages for NDAs approved by the FDA from 2018 to 2021 to identify critical reviewer comments related to PROs. Comments were identified and categorized by the type of criticism. Reviewers considered both oncology and nononcology indications. Assessment of PROs was included in 66.2% of the 210 submissions reviewed. Critical comments were identified in 45.3% of these applications; comments most commonly related to statistical analysis considerations, fit for purpose, and study design. Other categories of critical comment included data quality, lack of treatment benefit, administrative considerations, and miscellaneous issues. Differences were observed between oncology and nononcology NDAs with regard to the number and type of comments included in each of these categories. The findings highlight the importance of planning statistical analyses, establishing content validity, carefully considering study design, maximizing data quality, and demonstrating treatment benefit, among other issues. Overall, this study offers insight into the landscape of PRO data included in recently approved NDAs, along with recommendations for improving the quality and reporting of PROs in clinical trials. • This article examined patient-reported outcome (PRO)-related reviewer comments included in approved new drug applications (2018-2021). The insights from this review shed light on the quality of contemporary PRO strategy and implementation and on regulatory consideration for these data. • This study identifies comments on the differences in the quality of PRO data, including administration, analysis, and interpretation. Differences were particularly notable between oncology and nononcology submissions. • These findings help advance our understanding of the value of PRO data to support regulatory decision making, offering valuable guidance on improving the incorporation of the patient experience into clinical trials through the assessment of PROs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]