OBJECTIVES: (1) To identify COPD products approved with a Patient-Reported Outcome (PRO) labeling claim in Europe and the USA; and (2) to list the differences found in Europe vs. the USA in terms of products and labeling. METHODS: The search was performed on the FDA- and EMA-approved medicinal product labels and medical reviews/scientific discussions (from January 1995 to February 2013 inclusive). RESULTS: A total of 25 COPD products were retrieved: 11 were approved by the EMA and 14 by the FDA. Only three INN were approved by both agencies (aclidinium bromide, indacaterol, and roflumilast), representing 11 products (EMA, n=8; FDA, n=3). Out of the 25 products approved, 15 have a PRO claim (EMA, n=8; FDA, n=7). When focusing on the INN approved by both agencies, the review showed that the FDA and the EMA agreed on the granting of a PRO claim (i.e., “yes” for aclidinium bromide and indacaterol, and “no” for roflumilast). The FDA and the EMA reviewed the same clinical studies. However, the labeling text differs between the agencies. The FDA label of aclidinium bromide does not provide any mention of results measured by the St. George’s Respiratory Questionnaire (SGRQ) and the Transition Dyspnoea Index (TDI), while the EMA label does. As for indacaterol, the FDA label does not mention any TDI results, while the EMA label does. Reasons for these discrepancies are found in the FDA medical reviews. The TDI has been assessed as inadequate for use as a CT endpoint. As for the SGRQ, the results met the threshold of clinically meaningful improvement in only one study. CONCLUSIONS: Our review showed that PROs are often included in COPD product labels in Europe and in the USA. Although the FDA and the EMA agree on a general level, the FDA seems more restrictive in the label wording.