Project description:ImportanceThe size of estimated treatment effects on the basis of which the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved drugs and devices with data from nonrandomized clinical trials (non-RCTs) remains unknown.ObjectivesTo determine how often the FDA has authorized novel interventions based on non-RCTs and to assess whether there is an association of the magnitude of treatment effects with FDA requirements for additional testing in randomized clinical trials (RCTs).Data sourcesOverall, 606 drug applications for the Breakthrough Therapy designation from its inception in January 2012 were downloaded from the FDA website in January 2017 and August 2018, and 71 medical device applications for the Humanitarian Device Exemption from its inception in June 1996 were downloaded in August 2017.Study selectionApproved applications based on non-RCTs were included; RCTs, studies with insufficient information, duplicates, and safety data were excluded.Data extraction and synthesisData were extracted by 2 independent investigators. A statistical association of the magnitude of estimated effect (expressed as an odds ratio) with FDA requests for RCTs was assessed. The data were also meta-analyzed to evaluate the differences in odds ratios between applications that required further testing and those that did not. The results are reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.Main outcomes and measuresDisease, laboratory, and patient-related outcomes, including disease response or patient survival, were considered.ResultsAmong 677 drug and medical device applications, 68 (10.0%) were approved by the FDA based on non-RCTs. Estimates of effects were larger when no further RCTs were required (mean natural logarithm of the odds ratios, 2.18 vs 1.12; odds ratios, 8.85 vs 3.06; P = .03). The meta-analysis results confirmed these findings: estimated effects were approximately 2.5-fold higher for treatments or devices that were approved based on non-RCTs than for treatments or devices for which further testing in RCTs was required (6.30 [95% CI, 4.38-9.06] vs 2.46 [95% CI, 1.70-3.56]; P < .001). Overall, 9 of 677 total applications (1.3%) that were approved on the basis of non-RCTs had relative risks of 10 or greater and 12 (1.7%) had relative risks of 5 or greater. No clear threshold above which the FDA approved interventions based on the magnitude of estimated effect alone was detected.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, estimated magnitudes of effect were larger among studies for which the FDA did not require RCTs compared with studies for which it did. There was no clear threshold of treatment effect above which no RCTs were requested.

Project description:BackgroundPostmarketing commitments are clinical studies that pharmaceutical companies agree to conduct at the time of FDA approval, but which are not required by statute or regulation. As FDA increasingly adopts a lifecycle evaluation process, greater emphasis will be placed on postmarket evidence as a component of therapeutic evaluation. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to determine how often postmarketing commitments agreed upon by pharmaceutical companies at first FDA approval lead to new clinical trials and to establish the characteristics and rates of completion and dissemination of postmarketing commitments.MethodsFor new drugs and biologics approved in 2009-2012, we used public FDA documents, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Scopus, to determine postmarketing commitments and their characteristics known at the time of FDA approval; number subject to reporting requirements, for which FDA is required to make study status information available to the public ("506B studies"), and their statuses; and rates of registration and results reporting on ClinicalTrials.gov and publication in peer-reviewed journals for all clinical trials.ResultsAmong 110 novel drugs and biologics approved by the FDA between 2009 and 2012, 61 (55.5%) had at least one postmarketing commitment at the time of first approval. Of 331 total postmarketing commitments, 33 (10.0%) were for new clinical trials; 27 of these were 506B studies subject to public reporting requirements, of which 12 (44.4%) did not have a recent (i.e., up-to-date) or closed (i.e., fulfilled or released) status provided publicly by the FDA. Although two postmarketing commitments were insufficiently described in FDA records to perform searches on ClinicalTrials.gov, nearly all (28, 90.3%) of the 31 remaining postmarketing commitments for new clinical trials were registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. Among the registered trials, 23 (23 of 28, 82.1%) were classified as completed or terminated, of which 22 (95.7%) had reported results. When considering all 29 completed or terminated clinical trials, registered or unregistered on ClinicalTrials.gov, only half (14, 48.3%) were published in peer-reviewed journals.ConclusionsWhile only 15% of postmarketing commitments agreed to by pharmaceutical companies at the time of FDA approval were for new clinical trials, these trials were nearly always registered with reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov. However, only half were published, and despite FDA public reporting requirements, recent status information was often unavailable for 506B studies.

Project description:ImportanceSeveral studies have estimated the financial inputs for successful drug development. Such analyses do not capture the large investment that patient study participants commit to drug development.ObjectiveTo estimate the volume of patients required to achieve a first US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for a new anticancer drug or biologic therapy.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study included a random sample of prelicense oncology drugs and biologics with a trial site in the United States that were launched into clinical efficacy testing between January 1, 2006, and December 31, 2010. Drugs and biologics were identified using ClinicalTrials.gov registration records. Total patient enrollment was captured over an 8-year span, and each intervention was classified based on whether it received FDA approval and was deemed as having intermediate or substantial value according to the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework (ASCO-VF) score. Secondarily, the association between patient numbers and intervention characteristics was tested. Data were analyzed in February 2020.Main outcomes and measureThe prespecified primary outcome was the number of patients enrolled in prelicense trials per FDA approval.ResultsA total of 120 drugs and biologics were included in our study, with 84 (70.0%) targeted agents, 20 (16.7%) immunotherapies, and 71 (59.2%) novel agents. A total of 13 drugs and biologics (10.8%; 95% CI, 5.3%-16.8%) in our sample gained FDA approval within 8 years, of which 1 (7.7%) was deemed of intermediate value and 3 (23.1%) were deemed of substantial value using ASCO-VF scoring. Overall, 158 810 patients were enrolled in 1335 trials testing these drugs and biologics, 47 913 (30.2%) in trials that led to FDA approval and 110 897 (69.8%) in trials that did not. An estimated 12 217 (95% CI, 7970-22 215) patient study participants contributed to prelicense trials per FDA approval. The estimated number of patients needed to produce a single FDA-approved drug or biologic of intermediate or substantial ASCO-VF clinical value was 39 703 (95% CI, 19 391-177 991).Conclusions and relevanceThe results of this cohort study make visible the substantial patient investment required for prelicense oncology drug development. Such analyses can be used to devise policies that maximize the clinical impact of research on a per-patient basis.

Project description:ImportanceThe growth of cancer drug spending in the US has outpaced spending in nearly all other sectors, and an increasing proportion of the drug development pipeline is devoted to oncology. In 2018, there was a record number of drugs entering the US market.ObjectiveTo estimate the number of patients with cancer who are eligible for the newly approved drug-indication pairs, and project potential spending and use of the approvals in the US.Design, setting, participantsThis is a retrospective review of 2018 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oncology drug approvals with estimation of the eligible population. The cost of new therapy was estimated, and savings from displaced therapies were subtracted. Two-way sensitivity analysis explored uncertainty in pricing and market diffusion. Data were collected between March 1, 2019, and September 30, 2019.ExposuresData related to the cancer drug approval (ie, indications, approval pathway, basis for approval), cancer incidence, and drug price were extracted from publicly available sources, including the FDA, National Cancer Institute, and American Cancer Society websites, as well as the RED BOOK database.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the projected net expenditure in the US associated with the new therapies. The secondary outcome described how variable market diffusion and pricing permit expected levels of spending.ResultsA total of 46 oncology approvals were included in the analysis, with 17 novel drugs and 29 new indications. The average price per patient per treatment course was $150 384. From a national perspective and with 100% market diffusion, the projected net expenditure for newly approved drugs was $39.5 billion per year. To maintain the recent trend of cancer drug spending, the 2018 cancer drug approvals need to be used in fewer than 20% of eligible patients.Conclusions and relevanceNew cancer drugs approved by the FDA in 2018 would drastically increase cancer drug spending in the US if used widely. Alternatively, only low-level use of the new drugs is consistent with market forecasting.

Project description:ImportanceNew formulations of prescription drugs can improve convenience and tolerability for patients, but they also constitute manufacturer strategies to extend brand-name drug market exclusivity periods.ObjectiveTo examine whether new formulations of brand-name novel drugs were associated with novel drugs' sales and/or therapeutic value, as well as characterize first new formulations' approval timing relative to the novel drug's generic approval.Design setting and participantsThis cross-sectional study used the Drugs@FDA database to identify all novel tablet and capsule drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between 1995 and 2010 and followed through December 31, 2021.ExposuresNovel drugs' blockbuster status, defined as annual sales of $1 billion or greater, and therapeutic value, measured by (1) accelerated approval status, (2) World Health Organization Model Lists of Essential Medicines inclusion, (3) innovativeness, and (4) clinical usefulness.Main outcomes and measuresApproval of a new formulation and timing relative to a novel drug's first generic's approval.ResultsAmong the 206 novel drugs in tablet or capsule form approved by the FDA from 1995 to 2010, 81 (39.3%) were followed by an FDA-approved new formulation, and 167 (81.1%) had a generic version as of December 31, 2021. In multivariable analyses, new formulations were statistically significantly more likely among blockbuster drugs vs not (58.2% vs 27.6%; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 4.72; 95% CI, 2.26-9.87; P < .001) and those granted accelerated approval vs not (50.0% vs 37.6%; AOR, 5.48; 95% CI, 1.52-19.67; P = .009), and less likely among orphan products vs not (11.8% vs 44.8%; AOR, 0.13; 95% CI, 0.03-0.52; P = .004). Essential medicine listing vs no listing (47.8% vs 36.9%; AOR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.52-3.34; P = .56), first-in-class or advance-in-class status vs addition-to-class status (37.8% vs 40.5%; AOR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.32-1.58; P = .40), and categorization as clinically useful vs not useful (40.9% vs 44.8%; AOR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.34-1.92; P = .64) were not associated with increased likelihood of a new formulation. First new formulations were statistically significantly less likely to be approved after the novel drug's first generic approval (84.6% vs 15.4%; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study of novel drugs in tablet or capsule form approved by the FDA between 1995 and 2010, manufacturers pursued new formulations of best-selling brand-name drugs and those granted accelerated approval but did so less frequently once generic competitors entered the market. Other measures of therapeutic value were not associated with new formulations.

Project description:ImportanceWhile there have been multiple assessments of clinical trials leading to anticancer drug approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the cumulative percentage of approvals based on trials with a limitation remains uncertain.ObjectiveTo assess the percentage of clinical trials with limitations in 4 domains-lack of randomization, lack of significant overall survival advantage, inappropriate use of crossover, and use of suboptimal control arms-that led to FDA approvals from June 30, 2014, to July 31, 2019.Design, setting, and participantsThis observational analysis included all anticancer drug indications approved by the FDA from June 30, 2014, through July 31, 2019. All indications were investigated, and each clinical trial was evaluated for design, enrollment period, primary end points, and presence of a limitation in the domains of interest. The standard-of-care therapy was determined by evaluating the literature and published guidelines 1 year prior to the start of clinical trial enrollment. Crossover was examined and evaluated for optimal use. The percentage of approvals based on clinical trials with any or all limitations of interest was then calculated.Main outcomes and measuresEstimated percentage of clinical trials with limitations of interest that led to an anticancer drug marketing authorization by the FDA.ResultsA total of 187 trials leading to 176 approvals for 75 distinct novel anticancer drugs by the FDA were evaluated. Sixty-four (34%) were single-arm clinical trials, and 123 (63%) were randomized clinical trials. A total of 125 (67%) had at least 1 limitation in the domains of interest; 60 of the 125 trials (48%) were randomized clinical trials. Of all 123 randomized clinical trials, 37 (30%) lacked overall survival benefit, 31 (25%) had a suboptimal control, and 17 (14%) used crossover inappropriately.Conclusions and relevanceTwo-thirds of cancer drugs are approved based on clinical trials with limitations in at least 1 of 4 essential domains. Efforts to minimize these limitations at the time of clinical trial design are essential to ensure that new anticancer drugs truly improve patient outcomes over current standards.

Dataset Information

US Food and Drug Administration Review Time of Supplemental New Indication Approvals of Drugs and Biologics, 2017 to 2019.

Publications

US Food and Drug Administration Review Time of Supplemental New Indication Approvals of Drugs and Biologics, 2017 to 2019.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets