Abstract
Interest in measuring qualitative aspects of life that are most closely related to health and healthcare has increased in recent years. Methods of describing patients’ subjective health status now incorporate standardised measures, and several psychometric measures are available. Despite the thousands of empirical and conceptual papers in the medical and pharmacological literature on health-related quality of life (HR-QOL), the value of such measures in the regulatory process is still being debated.
We conducted an assessment to understand and document the position of the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA) on the use of HR-QOL measures in studies conducted for regulatory purposes. Official documents produced and circulated by the EMEA containing recommendations on trial design, conduct and analysis for sponsors and scientific experts were independently reviewed by authors to document the position of the Agency on the specific topic of HR-QOL. All documents found in the Agency website on 30 September 1999 were identified and then assessed to: (i) identify diseases or drugs for which formal HR-QOL assessment is recommended; (ii) identify measures and methods recommended; and (iii) evaluate the reliability of recommendations across documents.
Of the 189 documents retrieved, none focused directly on health-related quality of life. A few explicit recommendations were identified for 13 specific drugs or conditions. These recommendations were mostly general and vague, and used nonstandard terminology. In addition, terminology and recommendations were not consistent across documents and, in at least one case, were in contrast with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidelines.
EMEA guidelines incorporating quality-of-life outcomes are welcomed but it is obvious that more detailed guidance is required. Closer collaboration between the EMEA and the FDAis also recommended. Experts from different disciplines should be involved in the preparation of such documents to assure the necessary technical expertise and the representativeness of the various counterparts.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Testa MA, Simonson DC. Assessment of quality of life outcomes. N Engl J Med 1996; 334: 835–40
Guyatt GH, Feeny DH, Patrick DL. Measuring health related quality of life. Ann Intern Med 1993; 118: 622–9
Ware JE. Standards for validating health measures: definition and content. J Chronic Dis 1987; 40: 473–80
Bergner M. Measurement of health status. Med Care 1985; 23: 696–704
Spilker B, Revicki DA. Taxonomy of quality of life. In: Spilker B, editor. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. 2nd ed. Philadelphia (PA): Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1995: 25–31
Fitzpatrick R, Fletcher AE, Gore SM, et al. Quality of life measures in health care. I: applications and issues on measurement. BMJ 1992; 305: 1074–7
Stewart AL, Ware JE. Measuring functioning and well-being. The Medical Outcomes Study approach. Durham (NC): Duke University Press, 1992
Tarlov AR, Ware JE, Greenfield S, et al. The Medical Outcome Study: an application of methods for monitoring the results of medical care. JAMA 1989; 262: 925–30
Patrick DL, Deyo RA. Generic and disease-specific measures in assessing health status and quality of life. Med Care 1989; 27 (3): S217–S232
Nunnally JC. Psychometric theory. 2nd ed. New York (NY): McGraw-Hill, 1978
Dupuy HJ. The Psychological General Well-Being (PGWB) Index. In: Wenger NK, Mattson ME, Furberg CD, et al., editors. Assessment of quality of life in clinical trials of cardiovascular therapies. New York (NY): Le Jacq, 1984: 170–83
Ware Jr JE. SF-36 Health Survey. Manual and interpretation guide. Boston (MA): The Health Institute, New England Medical Center, 1993
Hunt SM, McEwen J, McKenna SP. Measuring health status. London: Croom Helm, 1986
Medical Outcomes Trust (MOT). The SAC Instrument review process: the instrument review criteria. MOT Bulletin 1995 Sep; 3 (4)
Bamfi F, Olivieri A, Arpinelli F, et al. Measuring quality of life in dyspeptic patients: development and validation of a new specific health status questionnaire: final report from the Italian QPD project involving 4000 patients. Am J Gastroenterol 1999 Mar; 94: 730–8
Wilson IB, Cleary PD. Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life: a conceptual model of patient outcomes. JAMA 1995; 273: 59–65
Epstein RS, Sherwood LM. From outcomes research to disease management: a guide for perplexed. Ann Intern Med 1996; 124: 832–7
Harris Jr JM. Disease management: new wine in new bottles? Ann Inter Med 1996; 124: 838–42
Apolone G, Mosconi P. Review of the concept of quality of life assessment and discussion of the present trend in clinical research. Nephrol Dial Transplant 1998; 13: 65–9
Goodyear MDE, Fraumeni A. Incorporating quality of life assessment into clinical cancer trials. In: Spilker B, editor. Quality of life and pharmacoeconomics in clinical trials. 2nd ed. Philadelphia (PA): Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1995: 1003–13
Gill TM, Feistein AR. Acritical appraisal of the quality of quality-of-life measurements. JAMA 1994; 272: 619–26
Berzon RA, Simeon GP, Simpson Jr RL, et al. Quality of life bibliography and index: 1993 update. Qual Life Res 1995; 4 (1): 53–74
Curtis JR, Martin DP, Martin TR. Patients-assessed health outcomes in chronic lung disease: what are they, how do they help us, and where do we go from here? Am J Respir Crit Care Med 1997; 156: 1032–9
Outcomes of cancer treatment for technology assessment and cancer treatment guidelines. American Society of Clinical Oncology. J Clin Oncol 1996; 14 (2): 671–9
International League Against Epilepsy (ILAE) Commission Report. Commission on outcome measurement in epilepsy, 1994–1997: final report. Epilepsy 1998; 39: 213–31
Leplège A, Hunt S. The problem of quality of life in medicine. JAMA 1997; 278 (1): 47–50
Apolone G. Defining and measuring quality of life in medicine [letter]. JAMA 1998; 279 (6): 431
Quality of life and regulatory issues. Report of a meeting held in Vienna, Austria, November 4, 5, 1997. Qual Life Newsletter 1998 Mar 12–13; special issue
European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA) [online]. Available from: URL: www.eudra.org/en_home.htm [Accessed 2000 Dec 12]
Wiklund I, Apolone G, Acquadro C, et al., for the ERIQA Group. A comparison of the EMEA and FDA draft guidelines in congestive heart failure (CHF) with particular reference to quality of life outcomes [abstract]. 4th Annual Meeting of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR); 1999 May 23–26; Washington, DC
Acknowledgements
This document is based on theoretical and empirical work by several investigators whose main papers are cited in the references. The study was conducted independently of, but partially funded by, GlaxoWellcome Italy, Verona (Italy) and MAPI Research Institute, Lyon (France). In addition, we thank the members of European Regulatory Issues on QoL Assessment (ERIQA) group who commented and revised a preliminary version of this document.
This study was presented in part at the 4th Annual International Meeting of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR); 1999 May 23–26; Washington, DC, USA.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Apolone, G., De Carli, G., Brunetti, M. et al. Health-Related Quality of Life (HR-QOL) and Regulatory Issues. Pharmacoeconomics 19, 187–195 (2001). https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200119020-00005
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/00019053-200119020-00005