Dataset Information

Variation in the estimated costs of pivotal clinical benefit trials supporting the US approval of new therapeutic agents, 2015-2017: a cross-sectional study.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVES:Little is routinely disclosed about the costs of the pivotal clinical trials that provide the key scientific evidence of the treatment benefits of new therapeutic agents. We expand our earlier research to examine why the estimated costs may vary 100-fold. DESIGN:A cross-sectional study of the estimated costs of the pivotal clinical trials supporting the approval of 101 new therapeutic agents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration from 2015 to 2017. METHODS:We licensed a software tool used by the pharmaceutical industry to estimate the likely costs of clinical trials to be conducted by contract research organisations. For each trial we collected 52 study characteristics. Linear regression was used to assess the most important factors affecting costs. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:The mean and 95% CI of 225 pivotal clinical trials using varying assumptions. We also assessed median estimated costs per patient, per clinic visit and per drug. RESULTS:Measured as pivotal trials cost per approved drug, the 101 new molecular entities had an estimated median cost of US$48?million (IQR US$20?million-US$102?million). The 225 individual clinical trials had a median estimate of US$19?million (IQR US$12?million-US$33?million) per trial and US$41 413 (IQR, US$29 894-US$75 047) per patient. The largest single factor driving cost was the number of patients required to establish the treatment effects and varied from 4 patients to 8442. Next was the number of trial clinic visits, which ranged from 2 to 166. Our statistical model showed trial costs rose exponentially with these two variables (R2=0.696, F=257.9, p<0.01). CONCLUSIONS:The estimated costs are modest for measuring the benefits of new therapeutic agents but rise exponentially as more patients and clinic visits are required to establish a drug effect.

SUBMITTER: Moore TJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7295430 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Variation in the estimated costs of pivotal clinical benefit trials supporting the US approval of new therapeutic agents, 2015-2017: a cross-sectional study.

Moore Thomas J TJ Heyward James J Anderson Gerard G Alexander G Caleb GC

BMJ open 20200611 6

<h4>Objectives</h4>Little is routinely disclosed about the costs of the pivotal clinical trials that provide the key scientific evidence of the treatment benefits of new therapeutic agents. We expand our earlier research to examine why the estimated costs may vary 100-fold.<h4>Design</h4>A cross-sectional study of the estimated costs of the pivotal clinical trials supporting the approval of 101 new therapeutic agents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration from 2015 to 2017.<h4>Methods</ ...[more]

PMID: 32532786

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceA critical question in health care is the extent of scientific evidence that should be required to establish that a new therapeutic agent has benefits that outweigh its risks. Estimating the costs of this evidence of efficacy provides an important perspective.ObjectiveTo estimate costs and assess scientific characteristics of pivotal efficacy trials that supported the approval of new therapeutic agents by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from 2015 to 2016.Design and settingThis study identified 59 novel therapeutic drugs using the annual summary reports from the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. ClinicalTrials.gov, FDA reviews, and peer-reviewed publications that were publicly available in 2017 were used to identify 52 characteristics of each efficacy trial. Costs were calculated with a global clinical trial cost assessment tool available to contract research organizations and pharmaceutical sponsors.Main outcomes and measuresEstimated mean cost and 95% CIs based on industry benchmark data from 60 countries. Measures of trials' scientific characteristics included trial design (no control group, placebo, and active drug), end point (surrogate outcome, clinical scale, and clinical outcome), patient enrollment, and treatment duration.ResultsA total of 138 pivotal clinical trials provided the basis for approval of 59 new therapeutic agents by the FDA from 2015 to 2016, with a median estimated cost of $19.0 million (interquartile range, $12.2 million-$33.1 million). Estimated costs ranged from less than $5 million for trials without a control group for 3 orphan drugs with fewer than 15 patients each to $346.8 million (95% CI, $252.0 million-$441.5 million) for a noninferiority trial with end points assessing clinical benefit. Twenty-six of 138 trials (18.8%) were uncontrolled, with a mean estimated cost of $13.5 million (95% CI, $10.1 million-$16.9 million). Trials designed with placebo or active drug comparators had an estimated mean cost of $35.1 million (95% CI, $25.4 million-$44.8 million). Costs also varied by trial end point, treatment duration, patient enrollment, and therapeutic area.Conclusions and relevanceThe highest-cost trials were those in which the new agent had to be proved to be noninferior with clinical benefit end points compared with an agent already available or those that required larger patient populations to achieve statistical power to document smaller treatment effects or accrue infrequently occurring end points.

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: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:BackgroundSingle-arm trials (SATs) can sometimes be used to support marketing authorization of anticancer medicinal products in the European Union. The level and durability of antitumor activity of the product as well as context are important aspects to determine the relevance of trial results. The aim of this study is to provide details on the contextualization of trial results and to evaluate the magnitude of benefit of medicinal products approved based on SATs.Materials and methodsWe focused on anticancer medicinal products for solid tumors approved on the basis of SAT results (2012-2021). Data were retrieved from European public assessment reports and/or published literature. The benefit of these medicinal products was evaluated via the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO)-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (MCBS).ResultsEighteen medicinal products were approved based on 21 SATs-few medicinal products were supported by >1 SAT. For the majority of clinical trials, a clinically relevant treatment effect was (pre)specified (71.4%) and most often an accompanying sample size calculation was provided. For 10 studies, each testing a different medicinal product, a justification for the threshold for a clinically relevant treatment effect could be identified. At least 12 out of 18 applications included information to facilitate the contextualization of trial results, including six supportive studies. Of the pivotal SATs analyzed (n = 21), three were assigned an ESMO-MCBS score of 4, which corresponds to 'substantial' benefit.ConclusionsThe clinical relevance of the treatment effects shown by medicinal products for solid tumors tested in SATs is dependent on the effect size and context. To better facilitate regulatory decision making, prespecifying and motivating a clinically relevant effect and aligning the sample size to that effect is important. External controls may facilitate in the contextualization process, but the associated limitations must be addressed.

Project description:BackgroundCardiovascular disease (CVD) has become an increasingly common limitation to effective anticancer therapy. Yet, whether CVD events were consistently reported in pivotal trials supporting contemporary anticancer drugs is unknown.ObjectivesThe authors sought to evaluate the incidence, consistency, and nature of CVD event reporting in cancer drug trials.MethodsFrom the Drugs@FDA, clinicaltrials.gov, MEDLINE, and publicly available U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug reviews, all reported CVD events across latter-phase (II and III) trials supporting FDA approval of anticancer drugs from 1998 to 2018 were evaluated. The primary outcome was the report of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as incident myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, coronary revascularization, atrial fibrillation, or CVD death, irrespective of treatment arm. The secondary outcome was report of any CVD event. Pooled reported annualized incidence rates of MACE in those without baseline CVD were compared with reported large contemporary population rates using relative risks. Population risk differences for MACE were estimated. Differences in drug efficacy using pooled binary endpoint hazard ratios on the basis of the presence or absence of reported CVD were also assessed.ResultsOverall, there were 189 trials, evaluating 123 drugs, enrolling 97,365 participants (58.5 ± 5 years, 46.0% female, 72.5% on biologic, targeted, or immune-based therapies) with 148,138 person-years of follow-up. Over a median follow-up of 30 months, 1,148 incidents of MACE (375 heart failure, 253 myocardial infarction, 180 strokes, 65 atrial fibrillation, 29 revascularizations, and 246 CVD deaths; 792 in the intervention vs. 356 in the control arm; p < 0.01) were reported from the 62.4% of trials noting any CVD. The overall weighted-average incidence was 542 events per 100,000 person-years (716 per 100,000 in the intervention arm), compared with 1,408 among similar-aged non-cancer trial subjects (relative risk: 0.38; p < 0.01), translating into a risk difference of 866. There was no association between reporting CVD events and drug efficacy (hazard ratio: 0.68 vs. 0.67; p = 0.22).ConclusionsAmong pivotal clinical trials linked to contemporary FDA-approved cancer drugs, reported CVD event rates trail expected population rates.

Project description:Generalized pustular psoriasis (GPP) is a chronic, rare, and potentially life-threatening inflammatory disease, characterized by the rapid and widespread eruption of small, sterile pustules with surrounding skin erythema. Abnormal signaling of the interleukin-36 (IL-36) pathway appears to have a central role in GPP immunopathology, and provides a rational therapeutic target. Spesolimab is a first-in-class humanized monoclonal antibody that binds specifically to the IL-36 receptor, and antagonizes IL-36 signaling. Spesolimab obtained regulatory approval in the United States (US) in September 2022 for use in the treatment of GPP flares in adults, and was subsequently approved for GPP flare treatment in many other countries across the world. Recently, regulatory approval was granted for subcutaneous dosing of spesolimab for treatment of GPP when not experiencing a flare. Here, we review data from two key clinical trials that supported the initial US regulatory approval; namely, the phase 1 proof-of-concept trial (ClinicalTrials.gov ID, NCT02978690), and Effisayil™ 1 (NCT03782792), which remains the largest and only randomized clinical trial in patients experiencing GPP flares published to date. In the phase 1 proof-of-concept trial, a Generalized Pustular Psoriasis Physician Global Assessment (GPPGA) score of 0 or 1 (clear or almost clear skin) was attained in 5/7 (71%) patients by week 1 and in all 7 patients by week 4; and the mean percent improvement in the Generalized Pustular Psoriasis Area and Severity Index (GPPASI) score from baseline was 59.0% at week 1, 73.2% at week 2, and 79.8% at week 4. In Effisayil™ 1, a GPPGA pustulation subscore of 0 (no visible pustules) was achieved in 19/35 (54%) patients receiving spesolimab at the end of week 1, versus 1/18 (6%) receiving placebo (difference, 49 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 21 to 67; P<0.001); and a GPPGA total score of 0 or 1 was achieved by 15/35 (43%) patients in the spesolimab group, versus 2/18 (11%) patients in the placebo group (difference, 32 percentage points; 95% CI, 2 to 53; P = 0.02). Infections at week 1 were reported in 6/35 (17%) patients receiving spesolimab and in 1/18 (6%) patients receiving placebo. These data demonstrate the efficacy and safety of spesolimab in providing rapid and sustained clinical improvement for patients with GPP flares, which translates into improved quality of life, by offering a targeted therapy for GPP.

Dataset Information

Variation in the estimated costs of pivotal clinical benefit trials supporting the US approval of new therapeutic agents, 2015-2017: a cross-sectional study.

Publications

Variation in the estimated costs of pivotal clinical benefit trials supporting the US approval of new therapeutic agents, 2015-2017: a cross-sectional study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets