Dataset Information

Characteristics of efficacy evidence supporting approval of supplemental indications for prescription drugs in United States, 2005-14: systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To characterize the types of comparators and endpoints used in efficacy trials for approvals of supplemental indications, compared with the data supporting these drugs' originally approved indications.

Design

Systematic review.

Setting

Publicly accessible data on supplemental indications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration from 2005 to 2014.

Main outcome measures

Types of comparators (active, placebo, historical, none) and endpoints (clinical outcomes, clinical scales, surrogate) in the efficacy trials for these drugs' supplemental and original indication approvals.

Results

The cohort included 295 supplemental indications. Thirty per cent (41/136) of supplemental approvals for new indications were supported by efficacy trials with active comparators, compared with 51% (47/93) of modified use approvals and 11% (7/65) of approvals expanding the patient population (P<0.001), almost all of which related to pediatric patients (61/65; 94%). Trials using clinical outcome endpoints led to approval for 32% (44/137) of supplemental approvals for new indications, 30% (28/93) of modified indication approvals, and 22% (14/65) of expanded population approvals (P=0.29). Orphan drugs had supplemental approvals for 40 non-orphan indications, which were supported by similar proportions of trials using active comparators (28% (11/40) for non-orphan supplemental indications versus 24% (10/42) for original orphan indications; P=0.70) and clinical outcome endpoints (25% (10/40) versus 31% (13/42); P=0.55).

Conclusions

Wide variations were seen in the evidence supporting approval of supplemental indications, with the fewest active comparators and clinical outcome endpoints used in trials leading to supplemental approvals that expanded the patient population.

SUBMITTER: Wang B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4580725 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Study objectiveTo examine national trends in prescription antiobesity drug use in the United States.DesignData analysis.Data sourceThe IMS Health Vector One National and Total Patient Tracker and Encuity Research Treatment Answers databases, the Source Healthcare Analytics Source Lx database, and IMS LifeLink database.Measurements and main resultsNational drug use estimates from 1991-2011 were extracted from the IMS Health Vector One National database, and patient characteristics from 2008-2011 were extracted from the Vector One Total Patient Tracker and Encuity Research Treatment Answers databases. The Source Healthcare Analytics Source Lx database was used to examine duration of antiobesity drug use from 2002-2011, with a sensitivity analysis performed using the IMS LifeLink database. In 2011, approximately 2.74 million patients used antiobesity drugs, predominantly phentermine (2.43 million patients). The use of prescription orlistat and sibutramine was relatively uncommon. Eighty-five percent of antiobesity drug users were female, 62% were aged 17-44 years, and 4.5% had a body mass index of ≤ 24.9 kg/m(2) . Duration of use was generally short and most patients only had one episode of antiobesity drug use during the observation period. The longest episode of use was 30 days or less in 47-58% of patients. Approximately one quarter of the patients used antiobesity drugs for longer than 90 days, including phentermine and other amphetamine congeners whose labels recommend short-term use, not exceeding "a few weeks." Only 1.3-4.2% of antiobesity drug users used them for longer than 1 year. Concomitant use of two or more prescription weight-loss drugs was generally uncommon, although phentermine was dispensed during 13-16% of benzphetamine, diethylpropion, or phendimetrazine episodes of use.ConclusionPhentermine dominated the prescription weight-loss market. Despite the indication of short-term use for amphetamine congeners, duration of use was similar to other antiobesity drugs. Nevertheless, the reasons for and implications of the limited duration of use observed with all prescription antiobesity drugs deserve further investigation.

Project description:ImportanceDespite ongoing debate regarding the high prices that patients pay for prescription drugs, to our knowledge, little is known regarding the use of coupons, vouchers, and other types of copayment "offsets" that reduce patients' out-of-pocket drug spending. Although offsets reduce patients' immediate cost burden, they may encourage the use of higher-cost products and diminish health insurers' ability to optimize pharmaceutical value.ObjectiveTo examine the drugs most commonly covered by offsets, the percentage of out-of-pocket costs covered by offsets, and the characteristics of patients using offsets for retail pharmacy transactions in the United States in 2017 through 2019.Design, setting, and participantsA retrospective cohort analysis was conducted of a 5% nationally random sample of anonymized pharmacy claims from IQVIA's Formulary Impact Analyzer, which captures more than 60% of all US pharmacy transactions. This analysis focused on 631 249 individuals who used at least 1 offset between October 1, 2017, and September 30, 2019.Main outcomes and measuresOffset source, types of drugs covered by offsets, offset dollar value and percentage of out-of-pocket payment covered, and county characteristics of offset recipients.ResultsThe 631 249 individuals in the study (361 855 female participants [57.3%]; mean [SD] age, 45.7 [18.6] years) had approximately 33 million prescription fills, of which 12.8% had an offset used. Of these, 50.2% originated from a pharmaceutical manufacturer, 47.2% originated from a pharmacy or pharmacy benefit manager (PBM), and 2.6% originated from a state assistance program. A total of 80.0% of manufacturer-sponsored offsets were concentrated among 6.2% of unique products, and 79.9% of pharmacy-PBM offsets were concentrated among 4.9% of unique products. Most manufacturer offsets (88.2%) were for branded products, while most pharmacy-PBM offsets were for generic products (90.5%). The median manufacturer offset was $51.00, covering 87.1% of out-of-pocket costs; the median pharmacy-PBM offset was $16.30, covering 39.3% of out-of-pocket costs. There was no meaningful association between offset magnitude and county-level income, health insurance coverage, or race/ethnicity.Conclusions and relevanceIn this analysis of patient-level pharmacy claims from 2017 to 2019, approximately half of all offsets involved pharmacy-PBM contractual arrangements, and half were offered by manufacturers. All offsets were associated with a significant reduction in patients' out-of-pocket costs, were highly concentrated among a few drugs, and were generally not more generous among individuals in counties with lower income or larger Black or uninsured populations.

Project description:ImportanceMany patients and physicians assume that the safety and effectiveness of newly approved therapeutic agents is well understood; however, the strength of the clinical trial evidence supporting approval decisions by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not been evaluated.ObjectivesTo characterize pivotal efficacy trials (clinical trials that serve as the basis of FDA approval) for newly approved novel therapeutic agents.Design and settingCross-sectional analysis using publicly available FDA documents for all novel therapeutic agents approved between 2005 and 2012.Main outcomes and measuresPivotal efficacy trials were classified according to the following design features: randomization, blinding, comparator, and trial end point. Surrogate outcomes were defined as any end point using a biomarker expected to predict clinical benefit. The number of patients, trial duration, and trial completion rates were also determined.ResultsBetween 2005 and 2012, the FDA approved 188 novel therapeutic agents for 206 indications on the basis of 448 pivotal efficacy trials. The median number of pivotal trials per indication was 2 (interquartile range, 1-2.5), although 74 indications (36.8%) were approved on the basis of a single pivotal trial. Nearly all trials were randomized (89.3% [95% CI, 86.4%-92.2%]), double-blinded (79.5% [95% CI, 75.7%-83.2%]), and used either an active or placebo comparator (87.1% [95% CI, 83.9%-90.2%]). The median number of patients enrolled per indication among all pivotal trials was 760 (interquartile range, 270-1550). At least 1 pivotal trial with a duration of 6 months or greater supported the approval of 68 indications (33.8% [95% CI, 27.2%-40.4%]). Pivotal trials using surrogate end points as their primary outcome formed the exclusive basis of approval for 91 indications (45.3% [95% CI, 38.3%-52.2%]), clinical outcomes for 67 (33.3% [95% CI, 26.8%-39.9%]), and clinical scales for 36 (17.9% [95% CI, 12.6%-23.3%]). Trial features differed by therapeutic and indication characteristics, such as therapeutic area, expected length of treatment, orphan status, and accelerated approval.Conclusions and relevanceThe quality of clinical trial evidence used by the FDA as the basis for recent approvals of novel therapeutic agents varied widely across indications. This variation has important implications for patients and physicians as they make decisions about the use of newly approved therapeutic agents.

Project description:ImportanceHigh and continually increasing pharmaceutical drug spending is a major health and health policy concern in the United States.ObjectiveTo demonstrate trends in prices among popular brand-name prescription drugs.Design, setting, and participantsThis economic evaluation of drug prices focuses on 49 top-selling brand-name medications in the United States. Pharmacy claims data from January 1, 2012, through December 31, 2017, were obtained from Blue Cross Blue Shield Axis, a database that includes data from more than 35 million individuals with private pharmaceutical insurance. Drugs that exceeded $500 million in US sales or $1 billion in worldwide sales were examined.Main outcomes and measuresThe median sum of out-of-pocket and insurance costs paid by patients or insurers for common prescriptions, presented annually and monthly, was the primary outcome.ResultsIn total, 132 brand-name prescription drugs were identified in 2017 that met the inclusion criteria. Of this total, the study focused on 49 top-selling drugs that exceeded 100 000 pharmacy claims. Substantial cost increases among these drugs was near universal, with a 76% median cost increase from January 2012 through December 2017, and almost all drugs (48 [98%]) displaying regular annual or biannual price increases. Of the 36 drugs that have been available since 2012, 28 (78%) have seen an increase in insurer and out-of-pocket costs by more than 50%, and 16 (44%) have more than doubled in price. Insulins (ie, Novolog, Humalog, and Lantus) and tumor necrosis factor inhibitors (ie, Humira and Enbrel) demonstrated highly correlated price increases, coinciding with some of the largest growth in drug costs. Relative price changes did not differ between drugs that entered the market in the past 3 to 6 years and those that have been on the market longer (number of drugs, 13 vs 36; median, 29% increase from January 2015 through December 2017; P = .81) nor between drugs with or without a Food and Drug Administration-approved therapeutic equivalent (number of drugs, 17 vs 32; median, 79% vs 73%; P = .21). Changes in prices paid were highly correlated with third-party estimates of changes in drug net prices (ρ = 0.55; P = 3.8 × 10-5), suggesting that the current rebate system, which incentivizes high list prices and greater reliance on rebates, increases overall costs.Conclusions and relevanceThe growth of drug spending in the United States associated with government-protected market exclusivity is likely to continue; greater price transparency is warranted.

Project description:Policy Points Regulatory agencies may have limited evidence on the clinical benefits and harms of new drugs when deciding whether new therapeutic agents are allowed to enter the market and under which conditions, including whether approval is granted under special regulatory pathways and obligations to address knowledge gaps through postmarketing studies are imposed. In a matched comparison of marketing applications for cancer drugs of uncertain therapeutic value reviewed by both the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA), we found frequent discordance between the two agencies on regulatory outcomes and the use of special regulatory pathways. Both agencies often granted regular approval, even when the other agency judged there to be substantial uncertainty about drug benefits and risks that needed to be resolved through additional studies in the postmarketing period. Postmarketing studies imposed by regulators under special approval pathways to address remaining questions of efficacy and safety may not be suited to deliver timely, confirmatory evidence due to shortcomings in study design and delays, raising questions over the suitability of the FDA's Accelerated Approval and the EMA's Conditional Marketing Authorization as tools for allowing early market access for cancer drugs while maintaining rigorous regulatory standards.ContextRegulatory agencies are increasingly required to make market approval decisions for new drugs on the basis of limited clinical evidence, a situation commonly encountered in cancer. We aimed to investigate how regulators manage uncertainty in the benefit-risk profiles of new cancer drugs by comparing decisions for the world's two largest regulatory bodies-the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA)-over a 5-year period.MethodsWe systematically identified a set of cancer drug-indication pairs for which data on efficacy and safety was less complete than that required for regular approval at time of market entry from 2009 to 2013, as determined by the FDA's use of Accelerated Approval (AA) or the EMA's use of Conditional Marketing Authorization (CMA) pathways, and matched these across the two agencies. Using publicly available information, we compared regulatory pathways and outcomes, final approved indications, and postmarketing obligations imposed by the agencies.FindingsWe identified 21 cancer drug-indication pairs that received FDA AA, EMA CMA, or both. Although most applications relied on identical pivotal trials across the FDA and the EMA, regulatory pathways often differed; 57% of indications received either FDA AA or EMA CMA, and regular approval by the other agency. After approval, the EMA more often accepted single-arm studies to confirm clinical benefit compared to the FDA (75% vs. 29% of indications), and the FDA more commonly requested randomized controlled trials (85% vs. 50%). Forty-one percent of confirmatory trials after FDA AA were conducted in different populations than the approved indication, compared to 13% after EMA CMA. Both agencies relied primarily on surrogate measures of patient benefit for postmarketing obligations. After a median follow-up of 7.25 years, 40% of FDA and 61% of EMA postmarketing obligations after AA and CMA, respectively, were delayed.ConclusionsUS and European regulators often deemed early and less complete evidence on benefit-risk profiles of cancer drugs sufficient to grant regular approval, raising questions over regulatory standards for the approval of new medicines. Even when imposing confirmatory studies in the postmarketing period through special approval pathways, meaningful evidence may not materialize due to shortcomings in study design and delays in conducting required studies with due diligence.