Dataset Information

Unwarranted claims of drug efficacy in pharmaceutical sales visits: are drugs approved on the basis of surrogate outcomes promoted appropriately?

ABSTRACT:

Aims

This study compares physicians' recall of the claims of benefits on cardiovascular disease and diabetes made by pharmaceutical sales representatives for drugs approved on the basis of a surrogate outcome, i.e., an off-label claim, compared with those approved on the basis of a serious morbidity or mortality (clinical) outcome.

Methods

Physicians in primary care practices in Montreal, Vancouver, Sacramento and Toulouse, who saw sales representatives as part of their usual practice and served a non-referral population, were contacted in blocks of 25 from a randomized list of all physicians practising in the relevant metropolitan area. We compared how frequently physicians reported that sales reps made claims of serious morbidity or mortality (clinically meaningful) benefits for drugs approved on the basis of surrogate outcomes vs. drugs approved on the basis of clinical outcomes.

Results

There were 448 promotions for 58 unique brand name cardiovascular and diabetes drugs. Claims of clinically meaningful benefit were reported in 156 (45%) of the 347 promotions for surrogate outcome drugs, constituting unwarranted efficacy claims, i.e., off-label promotion. Claims of clinical benefit were reported in 72 of the 101 promotions (71%) for drugs approved on the basis of clinical outcomes, adjusted OR = 0.3 (95% CI 0.2, 0.6), P < 0.001.

Conclusions

Claims of efficacy made in sales visit promotions for drugs approved only on the basis of surrogate outcomes extended beyond the regulator-approved efficacy information for the product in almost half of promotions. Unapproved claims of drug efficacy constitute a form of off-label promotion and merit greater attention from regulators.

SUBMITTER: Habibi R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5651306 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Unwarranted claims of drug efficacy in pharmaceutical sales visits: are drugs approved on the basis of surrogate outcomes promoted appropriately?

Habibi Roojin R Lexchin Joel J Mintzes Barbara B Holbrook Anne A

British journal of clinical pharmacology 20170819 11

<h4>Aims</h4>This study compares physicians' recall of the claims of benefits on cardiovascular disease and diabetes made by pharmaceutical sales representatives for drugs approved on the basis of a surrogate outcome, i.e., an off-label claim, compared with those approved on the basis of a serious morbidity or mortality (clinical) outcome.<h4>Methods</h4>Physicians in primary care practices in Montreal, Vancouver, Sacramento and Toulouse, who saw sales representatives as part of their usual prac ...[more]

PMID: 28664660

Similar Datasets

Project description:OBJECTIVES:To define a series of clinical trial transparency measures and apply them to large pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies and their 2014 FDA-approved drugs. DESIGN:Cross-sectional descriptive analysis of all clinical trials supporting 2014 Food and Drugs Administration (FDA)-approved new drug applications (NDAs) for novel drugs sponsored by large companies. DATA SOURCES:Data from over 45 sources, including Drugs@FDA.gov, ClinicalTrials.gov, corporate and international registries; PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, corporate press releases, Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filings and personal communications with drug manufacturers. OUTCOME MEASURES:Trial registration, results reporting, clinical study report (CSR) synopsis sharing, biomedical journal publication, and FDA Amendments Acts (FDAAA) compliance, analysed on the drug level. RESULTS:The FDA approved 19 novel new drugs, sponsored by 11 large companies, involving 553 trials, in 2014. We analysed 505 relevant trials. Per drug, a median of 100% (IQR 86%-100%) of trials in patients were registered, 71% (IQR 57%-100%) reported results or shared a CSR synopsis, 80% (70%-100%) were published and 96% (80%-100%) were publicly available in some form by 13 months after FDA approval. Disclosure rates were lower at FDA approval (65%) and improved significantly by 6 months post FDA approval. Per drug, a median of 100% (IQR 75%-100%) of FDAAA-applicable trials were compliant. Half of reviewed drugs had publicly disclosed results for all trials in patients in our sample. One trial was uniquely registered in a corporate registry, and not ClinicalTrials.gov; 0 trials were uniquely registered in international registries. CONCLUSIONS:Among large pharmaceutical companies and new drugs, clinical trial transparency is high based on several standards, although opportunities for improvement remain. Transparency is markedly higher for trials in patients than among all trials supporting drug approval, including trials in healthy volunteers. Ongoing efforts to publicly track companies' transparency records and recognise exemplary companies may encourage further progress.

Project description:Importance:High costs and risks of research and development (R&D) have been used to justify the high prices of cancer drugs. However, what the return on R&D investment is, and by extension what a justifiable price might be, is unclear. Objective:To compare incomes from the sales of cancer drugs with the estimated R&D costs. Design, Setting, and Participants:This observational study used global pharmaceutical industry sales data to quantify the cumulative incomes generated from the sales of cancer drugs for companies that have held patents or marketing rights (originator companies). All cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration from 1989 to 2017 were identified from the United States Food and Drug Administration's website and literature. Itemized product sales data were extracted from the originator companies' consolidated financial reports. For drugs with data missing in specific years, additional data was sought from other public sources, or where necessary, estimated values from known reported values. Drugs were excluded if there were missing data for half or more of the years since approval. Data analysis was conducted from May 2018 to October 2018. Main Outcomes and Measures:Sales data were expressed in 2017 US dollars with adjustments for inflation. Cumulative incomes from the sales of these drugs were compared against the R&D costs estimated in the literature, which had been adjusted for the costs of capital and trial failure (risk adjusted). Results:Of the 156 US Food and Drug Administration-approved cancer drugs identified, 99 drugs (63.5%) had data for more than half of the years since approval and were included in the analysis. There was a median of 10 years (range, 1-28 years) of sales data with 1040 data points, 79 (7.6%) of which were estimated. Compared with the total risk-adjusted R&D cost of $794 million (range, $2827-$219 million) per medicine estimated in the literature, by the end of 2017, the median cumulative sales income was $14.50 (range, $3.30-$55.10) per dollar invested for R&D. Median time to fully recover the maximum possible risk-adjusted cost of R&D ($2827 million) was 5 years (range, 2-10 years; n?=?56). Cancer drugs continued to generate billion-dollar returns for the originator companies after the end-of-market exclusivity, particularly for biologics. Conclusions and Relevance:Cancer drugs, through high prices, have generated returns for the originator companies far in excess of possible R&D costs. Lowering prices of cancer drugs and facilitating greater competition are essential for improving patient access, health system's financial sustainability, and future innovation.

Project description:ImportanceApproximately one-third of cancer drugs are approved based on response rate (RR)-the percentage of patients whose tumors shrink beyond an arbitrary threshold-typically assessed in a single-arm study.ObjectiveTo characterize RR end points used by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for cancer drug approval.Design, setting, and participantsA retrospective review of FDA-approved drug indications in oncology from 2006 to 2018.ExposuresData related to cancer type, line of therapy (first-line, second-line, or third-or-later-line treatment for advanced/metastatic disease), type of FDA approval pathway, trial design, sample size, and level of innovation were extracted.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the RR used as the basis for FDA approval. The secondary outcome was rate of complete response.ResultsEighty-five indications for 59 cancer drugs were identified, 32 (38%) received regular approval, and 53 (62%) were granted accelerated approval. Twenty-nine (55%) accelerated approvals were later converted to regular approval. Of these, 6 (21%) approvals showed overall survival benefit, 16 (55%) later established progression-free survival benefit, and 7 (24%) continued to use RR but gained regular approval. The median RR among the 85 indications was 41% (interquartile range [IQR], 27%-58%). Among them, 14 of 85 (16%) had an RR less than 20%, 28 of 85 (33%) had an RR less than 30%, and 40 of 85 (47%) had an RR less than 40%. The median complete RR for 81 participants was 6% (IQR, 2%-22%). The median sample size among studies leading to approval was 117 (IQR, 76-182; range, 18-1052 participants). Drugs with accelerated approval pending confirmatory data had lower RR compared with drugs that have completed most postmarketing efficacy requirements (median, 28%; IQR, 15%-50% vs median, 42%; IQR, 31%-58%; P = .02).Conclusions and relevanceMany cancer drugs approved on the basis of response rate offer numerically low or modest response rates. Most premarket studies accrue more than 100 patients. Some of these drugs could potentially be tested in premarket randomized clinical trials measuring directly end points that demonstrate clinical benefit.

Dataset Information

Unwarranted claims of drug efficacy in pharmaceutical sales visits: are drugs approved on the basis of surrogate outcomes promoted appropriately?

Aims

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Unwarranted claims of drug efficacy in pharmaceutical sales visits: are drugs approved on the basis of surrogate outcomes promoted appropriately?

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets