Dataset Information

Under-representation of elderly in clinical trials: An analysis of the initial approval documents in the Food and Drug Administration database.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

To evaluate the availability of pharmacokinetic, safety and efficacy analyses specifically targeted at elderly, prior to the authorization of drugs.

Methods

A cross-sectional, structured review of publicly available initial approval documents of Food and Drug Administration-approved drugs was performed. The 10 most frequently on-label prescribed drug classes, drugs with known pharmacokinetic differences in the elderly or drugs that are relatively contraindicated in elderly (e.g. anticholinergics or benzodiazepines) were included in the analyses.

Results

In total, 1129 unique active pharmaceutical ingredients were found eligible for the analyses, of these, 506 were found in the Food and Drug Administration database (45%). The initial approval documents were available for 182 drugs. For the majority of the drugs, the initial approval documents in the database showed information on pharmacokinetics in elderly (n = 113; 62%). Furthermore, over time, the availability of information with regard to elderly increased statistically significantly from 0% in the period 1970-1979 to 76% for the period 2010-2018. Information on safety and efficacy was less frequently present, i.e. 42% and 45%, respectively and, moreover, the availability of information did not improve over time.

Conclusion

The under-representation of elderly in clinical trials thereby challenging the external validity of benefit/risk assessments of launched drugs was confirmed. Priority should be given to a study population that is representative for the target population.

SUBMITTER: Ruiter R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6422639 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Under-representation of elderly in clinical trials: An analysis of the initial approval documents in the Food and Drug Administration database.

Ruiter Rikje R Burggraaf Jacobus J Rissmann Robert R

British journal of clinical pharmacology 20190223 4

<h4>Aims</h4>To evaluate the availability of pharmacokinetic, safety and efficacy analyses specifically targeted at elderly, prior to the authorization of drugs.<h4>Methods</h4>A cross-sectional, structured review of publicly available initial approval documents of Food and Drug Administration-approved drugs was performed. The 10 most frequently on-label prescribed drug classes, drugs with known pharmacokinetic differences in the elderly or drugs that are relatively contraindicated in elderly (e ...[more]

PMID: 30681181

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus disease (COVID-19) has caused a pandemic threatening millions of people worldwide. Yet studies specifically assessing the geriatric population are scarce. We aimed to examine the participation of elderly patients in therapeutic or prophylactic trials on COVID-19.MethodsIn this review, randomized controlled trials (RCTs; n = 12) comparing therapeutic or prophylactic interventions registered on preprint repositories and/or published since December 2019 were analyzed. We searched in PubMed, leading journals websites, and preprint repositories for RCTs and large observational studies. We aimed to describe the age of included patients, the presence of an upper age limit and of adjusted analyses on age, any exclusion criteria that could limit participation of elderly adults such as comorbidities, cognitive impairment, limitation of life expectancy; and the assessment of long-term outcomes such as the need of rehabilitation or institutionalization. Mean participant ages were reported and compared with observational studies.ResultsTwelve RCTs assessing drug therapy for COVID-19 were included. Mean age of patients included in RCTs was 56.3 years. An upper age limit was applied in three published trials (25%) and in 200/650 (31%) trials registered at clinicaltrials.gov . One trial reported a subgroup analysis in patients ≥65. Patients were excluded for liver-function abnormalities in eight trials, renal disease in six, cardiac disease or risk of torsade de pointes in five, and four for cognitive or mental criteria, which are frequent comorbidities in the oldest patients. Only three trials allowed a family member to provide consent. Patients enrolled in RCTs were on average 20 years younger than those included in large (n ≥ 1000) observational studies. Seven studies had as their primary outcome a clinical endpoint, but none reported cognitive, functional or quality of life outcomes or need for rehabilitation or long-term care facility placement.ConclusionsElderly patients are clearly underrepresented in RCTs, although they comprise the population hardest hit by the COVID-19 pandemic. Long-term outcomes such as the need of rehabilitation or institutionalization were not reported. Future investigations should target specifically this vulnerable population.

Project description:ImportanceTo date, an empirical evaluation of the quality of control arms in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) leading to anticancer drug approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not been undertaken.ObjectiveWe sought to estimate the percentage of RCTs that used a control arm deemed suboptimal and led to FDA approval of anticancer drugs from January 1, 2013, to July 31, 2018.Design, setting, and participantsThis quality improvement study included 143 anticancer drug approvals granted by the FDA from January 1, 2013, to July 31, 2018. All approvals based on single-arm studies (48 approvals) were excluded. Approvals based on RCTs were further investigated and each trial was analyzed for design, time of patient accrual, control arm, and primary end point. Standard-of-care therapy was determined by evaluating the literature and published guidelines 1 year prior to the start of trial enrollment. The percentage of approvals based on RCTs that used suboptimal control arms was then calculated. The quality of the control arm was deemed suboptimal if the choice of control agent was restricted to exclude a recommended agent, the control arm was specified but the recommended agent was unspecified, and if prior RCT data had demonstrated that the control agent was inferior to an available alternative.Main outcomes and measuresEstimated percentage of RCTs that used suboptimal control arms that led to FDA approval of anticancer agents between January 1, 2013, to July 31, 2018.ResultsA total of 145 studies that led to 143 drug approvals between January 1, 2013, and July 31, 2018, were included. Of these studies, 48 single-arm studies were excluded. The remaining 97 studies led to 95 drug approvals. Of these 95 approvals, 16 (17%) were based on RCTs with suboptimal control arms; 15 were international trials, and 1 was conducted in the United States. The type of approval was regular in 15 trials and accelerated in 1 trial. When categorized by the nature of suboptimal control, 4 (25%) trials omitted active treatment in control arm by limiting investigator's choice, 11 (63%) trials omitted active treatment in the control arm by using a control agent known to be inferior to other available agents or not allowing combinations, and 1 (13%) trial used a previously used treatment in the control arm with a known lack of benefit associated with reexposure.Conclusions and relevanceAlthough anticancer drug approvals are increasing, a proportion of these drugs are reaching the market without proven superiority to what is considered the standard of care at the time of patient enrollment in pivotal trials. The choice of control arm should be optimized to ensure that new anticancer agents being marketed are truly superior to what most clinicians would prescribe outside a clinical trial setting.

Project description:Background In 1993, the US Food and Drug Administration established guidelines to increase diversity by sex and race/ethnicity of participants in clinical trials supporting novel drug approvals. In this study we investigated the 10-year trends of participation of women and minorities in pivotal trials supporting approval of new molecular entities in cardiometabolic drugs from January 2008 to December 2017. Methods and Results A list of new molecular entities was abstracted from publicly available data at Drugs@Fda. Sex and race/ethnicity data were collected from trial publications. Linear regression analysis was performed to assess the relation between drug approval year and proportion of women and minorities enrolled. Thirty-five novel cardiovascular (n=24) and diabetes mellitus (n=11) drugs were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration during the study period. The median number of participants supporting each drug was 5930 (interquartile range, 3175-10 942). Women represented 36% (n=108 052) of trial participants (n=296 163). Women were underrepresented compared with their proportion of the disease population in trials of coronary heart disease (participation-to-prevalence ratio, 0.52), heart failure (participation-to-prevalence ratio, 0.58), and acute coronary syndrome (participation-to-prevalence ratio, 0.68). Among trial participants, 81% were white, 4% black, 12% Asian, and 11% Hispanic/Latino. There was no significant association between enrollment of women (P=0.29) or underrepresented minorities (P=0.45) with the drug approval year. Conclusions Over the past decade (2008-2017), women and minorities, particularly blacks, have continued to be inadequately represented in pivotal cardiometabolic clinical trials that support US Food and Drug Administration approval of new molecular entities. This may have major implications in determining efficacy of such therapies in these groups, and may impair generalizability of trial results to routine clinical practice.

Project description:ImportanceThe US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants accelerated approval according to surrogate measures of numerous drug indications for serious or life-threatening illnesses such as infectious diseases and cancer. Investigators, including the FDA, have evaluated the program's regulatory and clinical consequences in oncology, but evaluation of nononcology drugs is lacking.ObjectiveTo evaluate the accelerated approval program for nononcology drug indications over a period of 26 years.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study used publicly available data on FDA nononcology drug indications granted accelerated approval from June 1992 through May 2018, with preapproval and confirmatory trials for approved drugs. Data were analyzed from February to April 2022.Main outcomes and measuresThe study estimated the median time from accelerated approval to occurrence of regulatory outcomes such as regular approval conversion, postapproval boxed warning label changes, confirmatory trial completion, and confirmatory trial results publication.ResultsThe FDA granted accelerated approval of 48 drugs for 57 nononcology indications, including 23 (40%) HIV treatments, supported by 93 preapproval trials. Forty-three indications (75%) were converted to regular approval at a median time of 53.1 (95% CI, 38.7 to 70.2) months from accelerated approval. There were postapproval label modifications on boxed warnings in 27 indications (47%) with a median time of 248.6 (95% CI, 51.8 to not estimable) months from accelerated approval. Of the 86 required confirmatory trials, 17 (20%) had not fulfilled the postapproval requirements. The median time to confirmatory trial completion was 39.4 (95% CI, 30.7 to 47.9) months. Nine trials (10%) failed to verify clinical efficacy, but only 1 of 8 indications assessed (2%) was withdrawn owing to the failed confirmatory trial, which was 136 months after approval. Results were published in 56 completed confirmatory trials (65%), with the median time being 52.5 (95% CI, 35.6 to 82.2) months from accelerated approval to publication.Conclusions and relevanceAlthough the program expedited the approval of nononcology drug indications by a median (IQR) of 53.1 (26.8-133.2) months, safety-related label modifications were often added in boxed warnings after approval, and clinical efficacy was sometimes not confirmed. The study findings and long follow-up period suggest that comprehensive evaluation of such drugs may take more than a decade.

Project description:Publication bias compromises the validity of evidence-based medicine, yet a growing body of research shows that this problem is widespread. Efficacy data from drug regulatory agencies, e.g., the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), can serve as a benchmark or control against which data in journal articles can be checked. Thus one may determine whether publication bias is present and quantify the extent to which it inflates apparent drug efficacy.FDA Drug Approval Packages for eight second-generation antipsychotics-aripiprazole, iloperidone, olanzapine, paliperidone, quetiapine, risperidone, risperidone long-acting injection (risperidone LAI), and ziprasidone--were used to identify a cohort of 24 FDA-registered premarketing trials. The results of these trials according to the FDA were compared with the results conveyed in corresponding journal articles. The relationship between study outcome and publication status was examined, and effect sizes derived from the two data sources were compared. Among the 24 FDA-registered trials, four (17%) were unpublished. Of these, three failed to show that the study drug had a statistical advantage over placebo, and one showed the study drug was statistically inferior to the active comparator. Among the 20 published trials, the five that were not positive, according to the FDA, showed some evidence of outcome reporting bias. However, the association between trial outcome and publication status did not reach statistical significance. Further, the apparent increase in the effect size point estimate due to publication bias was modest (8%) and not statistically significant. On the other hand, the effect size for unpublished trials (0.23, 95% confidence interval 0.07 to 0.39) was less than half that for the published trials (0.47, 95% confidence interval 0.40 to 0.54), a difference that was significant.The magnitude of publication bias found for antipsychotics was less than that found previously for antidepressants, possibly because antipsychotics demonstrate superiority to placebo more consistently. Without increased access to regulatory agency data, publication bias will continue to blur distinctions between effective and ineffective drugs.

Dataset Information

Under-representation of elderly in clinical trials: An analysis of the initial approval documents in the Food and Drug Administration database.

Aims

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Under-representation of elderly in clinical trials: An analysis of the initial approval documents in the Food and Drug Administration database.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets