Dataset Information

Exploratory analysis of comparative clinical trials used for marketing approval in patients with type 2 diabetes in Japan.

ABSTRACT:

Background/objectives

The results of phase 2 and 3 clinical trials, which justify decisions regarding marketing approval for new drugs, are used for comparison of drugs in the post-marketing phase. A number of meta-analyses of approved antidiabetics have been performed, but the heterogeneity of trials has not been fully examined. The aim of this study was to explore factors that may influence baseline HbA1c in trial samples and treatment outcomes (i.e. HbA1c reductions and effect sizes), with the goal of providing unbiased and fair retrospective comparisons between different antidiabetics.

Method

We conducted three meta-regression analyses using 78 randomized or non-randomized comparative phase 2 or 3 trials of 24 approved antidiabetics in Japan, conducted from 1987 to 2012.

Results

Baseline HbA1c of each arm was higher in phase 2 trials, trials with a greater number of subjects, trials with a lower proportion of male subjects, trials of combination therapy, or trials with longer subject disease duration. Entry criteria were different among drug classes and caused variations in baseline HbA1c. HbA1c reductions were larger in non-randomized trials, trials with a shorter treatment period, or trials with a lower proportion of male subjects. Effect sizes were larger in phase 2 trials, or trials of combination therapy. Larger effect sizes were observed in drugs with later market entry for alpha-glucosidase inhibitors and glinides.

Conclusion

Baseline HbA1c, an important characteristic of subjects enrolled in trials of antidiabetics, differed significantly across trials. Differences in features of study subjects were caused by explicit stipulations in eligibility criteria of HbA1c and also by other conditions (e.g. trial design, regulatory guidance, treatment guideline) and/or interventions of investigators and pharmaceutical companies that were specific to drugs and trials. Healthcare professionals should carefully consider these heterogeneities in trials used for marketing approval review when making a retrospective comparison to select the best treatment option for patients.

SUBMITTER: Kaneko R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6329034 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Exploratory analysis of comparative clinical trials used for marketing approval in patients with type 2 diabetes in Japan.

Kaneko Reina R Ono Shunsuke S

SAGE open medicine 20190108

<h4>Background/objectives</h4>The results of phase 2 and 3 clinical trials, which justify decisions regarding marketing approval for new drugs, are used for comparison of drugs in the post-marketing phase. A number of meta-analyses of approved antidiabetics have been performed, but the heterogeneity of trials has not been fully examined. The aim of this study was to explore factors that may influence baseline HbA1c in trial samples and treatment outcomes (i.e. HbA1c reductions and effect sizes), ...[more]

PMID: 30671243

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThis research reviewed major Clinical Trial Registries (CTRs) and assessed the availability of fields on quality assurance for approved medicines used as Investigational Medicinal Products (IMPs) in phase IV clinical trials.MethodsTwo reviewers independently assessed CTRs of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICJME) and of World Health Organization (WHO) platforms. Each CTR was checked by two reviewers on availability of fields on brand name, manufacturer's name, approval status, approving authority, compliance with Good Manufacturing Practices, and quality testing. In case of discrepancy, consensus was sought between the two reviewers.ResultsOf 19 identified CTRs, 8 and 6 belonged to WHO and ICMJE, respectively, while 5 were equally part of both platforms. All CTRs had an 'intervention' field where data on IMPs and IMP comparators are captured. The Canadian CTR used 'drug name' rather than 'intervention'. The EU, Peruvian, and UK CTRs had fields for 'brand name'. However, only the EU CTR had fields for 'manufacturer's name', 'approval status', and 'approving authority'. None of the CTRs had fields on 'compliance with Good Manufacturing Practices' or 'quality testing'.ConclusionThis study demonstrates that none of the CTRs of ICMJE and WHO platforms has adequate fields to establish that the source of post-marketing IMPs is of assured quality. This is astonishing given the lengthy requirements in WHO and ICMJE guidelines. Considering the relation between IMP quality and safety of clinical trial participants, the gap of quality assurance fields should be bridged at CTRs concurrently to adjustments of WHO and ICMJE guidelines on CTRs. Specifically, IMP quality testing addressing issues on IMP appearance, impurities, microbial contamination, and dosing should be conducted and reported before, during, and after clinical trial conduct. Until adoption of these measures, the EU CTR should be preferred for registration of phase IV clinical trials conducted in countries lacking stringent regulatory capacities.

Dataset Information

Exploratory analysis of comparative clinical trials used for marketing approval in patients with type 2 diabetes in Japan.

Background/objectives

Method

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Exploratory analysis of comparative clinical trials used for marketing approval in patients with type 2 diabetes in Japan.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets