Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2022 Dec 31;18(1):1-8.
doi: 10.1080/21645515.2021.1875762. Epub 2021 Feb 19.

Patient-reported outcomes in vaccines research: relevance for decision-making

Desmond Curran  1 , Eliazar Sabater Cabrera  1 , Linda Nelsen  2
Affiliations
Review

Patient-reported outcomes in vaccines research: relevance for decision-making

Desmond Curran et al. Hum Vaccin Immunother. .

Abstract

The development and demand for effective vaccines have witnessed an exponential growth over the last century. In the meantime, the vaccine market involves more knowledgeable stakeholders, with a shift in emphasis by regulatory agencies on understanding the patient perception and experience. The Food and Drug Administration's publication of the patient-reported outcomes (PRO) guidance has elevated the discipline of PROs and has resulted in a transition from clinician reports of patient outcomes to PROs. This review reports various research methods, which utilize PROs, including qualitative and quantitative research, clinical trials, and patient preference studies. With the advancement of electronic PRO data capture, additional advantages of PROs are being observed and utilized (e.g. as a trigger for clinical endpoints). We discuss uses and advantages of including PROs into the clinical trial program to improve efficiencies, clinical relevance and overall validity of the program in the vaccine field. (See Plain Language Summary).

Keywords: PRO instruments; Patient-reported outcomes; clinical outcomes assessments; comparative effectiveness; electronic PRO; health technology assessment; health-related quality of life; public health benefit; qualitative research; vaccines.

Plain language summary

PLAIN LANGUAGE SUMMARYWhat is the context?Potential vaccine recipients want to understand the benefits and risks of a vaccine directly from the patient perspective. Well-defined Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) provide this perspective.The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) bases their approvals for interventions on how the patients feel, function and survive, with PROs providing important quantitative estimates of how patients feel and function.What is new?The FDA and European Medicines Agency (EMA) have developed frameworks that ensure that patients’ experiences, perspectives, needs, and priorities are captured and meaningfully incorporated into drug/vaccine development and evaluation.This has led to an increased interest in PRO evaluations by other stakeholders including regulatory authorities, ministry of health, health technology assessment bodies, national immunization technical advisory groups (NITAGs), payer groups, key opinion leaders, healthcare providers and potential vaccine recipients.The availability of new technologies (e.g. smartphones) has increased the role of virtual observational and clinical studies, using mobile clinical trial platforms assessing PROs with no in-person site visits required.What is the impact?PROs may be incorporated into the research and development program of a vaccine using virtual technology, resulting in a more representative sample that is easier to recruit and retain. This introduces efficiencies and improves the clinical relevance and validity of the clinical trial program.The outputs of studies involving PROs are important to communicate the value of vaccination from a patient perspective.PRO data may also be included as inputs in public health and cost-effectiveness models, to further inform decision-makers on the value of vaccination.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Rappuoli R, De Gregorio E.. Editorial overview: vaccines: novel technologies for vaccine development. Curr Opin Immunol. 2016;41:v–vii. doi:10.1016/j.coi.2016.07.001. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Melief CJM, van Hall T, Arens R, Ossendorp F, van der Burg SH. Therapeutic cancer vaccines. J Clin Invest. 2015;125(9):3401–12. doi:10.1172/JCI80009. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. 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. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hämeen-Anttila K, Komulainen J, Enlund H, Mäkelä M, Mäkinen E, Rannanheimo P, Sipilä R. Incorporating patient perspectives in health technology assessments and clinical practice guidelines. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2016;12(6):903–13. doi:10.1016/j.sapharm.2015.12.005. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Brotherton JML. HPV prophylactic vaccines: lessons learned from 10 years experience. Future Virol. 2015;10(8):999–1009. doi:10.2217/fvl.15.60. - DOI

Publication types