Dataset Information

Ten-Year Trends in Enrollment of Women and Minorities in Pivotal Trials Supporting Recent US Food and Drug Administration Approval of Novel Cardiometabolic Drugs.

ABSTRACT: 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.

SUBMITTER: Khan MS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7428976 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Ten-Year Trends in Enrollment of Women and Minorities in Pivotal Trials Supporting Recent US Food and Drug Administration Approval of Novel Cardiometabolic Drugs.

Khan Muhammad Shahzeb MS Shahid Izza I Siddiqi Tariq Jamal TJ Khan Safi U SU Warraich Haider J HJ Greene Stephen J SJ Butler Javed J Michos Erin D ED

Journal of the American Heart Association 20200519 11

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 availabl ...[more]

PMID: 32427023

Similar Datasets

Project description:This cross-sectional study identifies the number and class of drugs approved through the US Food and Drug Administration’s accelerated approval pathway and analyzes state Medicaid programs’ use and spending on these drugs from 2015 through 2019. Key Points Question How much do prescription drugs approved through the US Food and Drug Administration’s accelerated approval program contribute to state Medicaid program spending? Findings In this cross-sectional study of 216 drugs granted accelerated approval from 1992 through 2020, relative to all drugs paid for by Medicaid, products with accelerated approval comprised less than 1% of use. Despite their infrequent use, annual net spending on drugs with accelerated approval represented 6.4% to 9.1% of net spending on all drugs covered by Medicaid (in 2015 and 2018, respectively). Meaning Medicaid spending on drugs with accelerated approval represents an outsized amount of spending relative to their use. Importance State Medicaid programs have reported concerns about rising drug prices and spending, particularly regarding drugs entering the market through the accelerated approval program under the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The accelerated approval program enables the FDA to approve drugs on the basis of unverified surrogate end points, meaning that clinical benefits for these products are uncertain at the time of approval. However, state Medicaid programs are legally required to cover these drugs. Little is known about the set of products with accelerated approval over time, their use among Medicaid beneficiaries, or the magnitude of their financial influence on state Medicaid programs. Objective To identify the number and class of drugs approved through the FDA’s accelerated approval pathway and analyze state Medicaid programs’ use and spending on these drugs from 2015 through 2019. Design, Setting, and Participants In this cross-sectional study, biannual FDA reports were used to identify products granted accelerated approval and their associated indications approved between December 1992 and December 2020. State Medicaid Drug Utilization Data files available for 1992 through 2019 were used to estimate national totals for spending and use of outpatient drugs. Main Outcomes and Measures National Medicaid use and gross and net spending on drugs with accelerated approval from 2015 through 2019. Results Since the inception of the FDA’s accelerated approval pathway in 1992 through 2020, 216 product-indication pairs granted accelerated approval were identified, comprising 149 unique products. The composition of drugs approved through the pathway has changed over time, with 28 of 30 (93.3%) product-indication pairs receiving accelerated approval in 2020 being indicated for cancer. Relative to all outpatient prescription drugs paid for by Medicaid, products with accelerated approval ranged from 0.2% to 0.4% of use (1.3-2.4 million prescriptions annually). Despite their infrequent use, drugs with accelerated approval represented a minimum annual net spending on all drugs covered by Medicaid of 6.4% ($2.2 billion of $34.6 billion) in 2015 and a maximum of 9.1% ($2.5 billion of $27.6 billion) in 2018. Estimated annual gross spending on drugs with accelerated approval ranged from $4.2 billion to $4.9 billion over 2015 through 2019, and estimated net spending from $2.2 billion to $2.6 billion. Conclusions and Relevance In this cross-sectional study of 216 drugs granted accelerated approval, state spending on drugs approved through the FDA’s growing accelerated approval program represented an outsized amount of spending relative to use. Because drugs with accelerated approval have come to market on the basis of trials using surrogate end points, considerable amounts of this spending may have been attributable to products with unproven clinical benefits.

Project description:ImportanceClinical trial evidence used to support drug approval is typically the only information on benefits and harms that patients and clinicians can use for decision-making when novel cancer therapies become available. Various evaluations have raised concern about the uncertainty surrounding these data, and a systematic investigation of the available information on treatment outcomes for cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is warranted.ObjectiveTo describe the clinical trial data available on treatment outcomes at the time of FDA approval of all novel cancer drugs approved for the first time between 2000 and 2016.Design, setting, and participantsThis comparative effectiveness study analyzed randomized clinical trials and single-arm clinical trials of novel drugs approved for the first time to treat any type of cancer. Approval packages were obtained from drugs@FDA, a publicly available database containing information on drug and biologic products approved for human use in the US. Data from January 2000 to December 2016 were included in this study.Main outcomes and measuresRegulatory and clinical trial characteristics were described. For randomized clinical trials, summary treatment outcomes for overall survival, progression-free survival, and tumor response across all therapies were calculated, and median absolute survival increases were estimated. Tumor types and regulatory characteristics were assessed separately.ResultsBetween 2000 and 2016, 92 novel cancer drugs were approved by the FDA for 100 indications based on data from 127 clinical trials. The 127 clinical trials included a median of 191 participants (interquartile range [IQR], 106-448 participants). Overall, 65 clinical trials (51.2%) were randomized, and 95 clinical trials (74.8%) were open label. Of 100 indications, 44 indications underwent accelerated approval, 42 indications were for hematological cancers, and 58 indications were for solid tumors. Novel drugs had mean hazard ratios of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.73-0.81; I2 = 46%) for overall survival and 0.52 (95% CI, 0.47-0.57; I2 = 88%) for progression-free survival. The median tumor response, expressed as relative risk, was 2.37 (95% CI, 2.00-2.80; I2 = 91%). The median absolute survival benefit was 2.40 months (IQR, 1.25-3.89 months).Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, data available at the time of FDA drug approval indicated that novel cancer therapies were associated with substantial tumor responses but with prolonging median overall survival by only 2.40 months. Approval data from 17 years of clinical trials suggested that patients and clinicians typically had limited information available regarding the benefits of novel cancer treatments at market entry.

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:BACKGROUND:It has been previously reported that total energy intake among US preschool children (ages 2-5 years) decreased between 2003-2004 and 2009-2010. However, little is known about how intakes of beverages among US preschoolers (ages 2-5 years) changed from 2003-2004 to 2011-2012. OBJECTIVES:This paper examines changes in intakes of key beverages during this period, as well as how eating location (at home or away from home) and source (store vs. others) may have contributed to these changes. METHODS:Cross-sectional day one dietary data among children ages 2-5 years from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 2003-2004, 2005-2006, 2007-2008, 2009-2010 and 2011-2012 were used. Survey-weighted mean intakes by survey year, eating location and source were computed for total sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), milks, 100% juice, low/no-calorie beverages, 10 key beverages, total beverages and total foods. Means were compared using two-tailed z-tests with Bonferroni corrections (??<?0.05). RESULTS:Between 2003-2004 and 2011-2012, among 2-5 year olds, total caloric intake fell by 132?kcal?d(-1) , with intakes of beverages falling by 55?kcal?d(-1) . Decreases in intakes of total SSBs (-57?kcal?d(-1) ), fruit-flavoured or juice drinks containing <100% juice (juice drinks) (-37?kcal?d(-1) ), caloric soft drinks (-13?kcal?d(-1) ) and >1% fat, low-sugar milk (-42?kcal?d(-1) ) were among the major changes. By eating location, total beverage intake at home fell by 73?kcal?d(-1) . By source, total beverage intake from stores fell by 106?kcal?d(-1) . Changes in intakes occurred primarily between 2003-2004 and 2009-2010, as there were no significant differences in beverage intakes between 2009-2010 and 2011-2012. Intakes of total calories (+49?kcal?d(-1) ) and calories from foods (+53?kcal?d(-1) ) trended upward between 2009-2010 and 2011-2012, but changes were not significant. CONCLUSIONS:These findings suggest improvements in the diets of preschoolers between 2003-2004 and 2009-2010, of which stores were a major contributor.

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:Introduction: Innovative methods to increase awareness about clinical trials and address barriers associated with low participation among racial/ethnic minorities are desperately needed. African Americans comprise 5% of all clinical trial participants, and Hispanics make up 1%. Use of multimedia educational material has shown promise as an effective strategy to increase minority clinical trial enrollment. However, this approach has not been broadly implemented. We tested the effect of a video educational program on clinical trial knowledge and enrollment in a sample of oncology outpatients. Methods: A randomized controlled trial was conducted with 63 oncology patients without previous history of clinical trial participation. Participants were randomly assigned to the intervention, to watch a clinical trial educational video in the office, or to the control group which did not receive in-office education. The Clinical Trial Knowledge survey was administered before the intervention and 1 week after the intervention. Participation in clinical trials was assessed 1-year post study participation. Results for white participants and ethnic minorities were compared. Ethnicity was self-reported through the electronic health record and confirmed by self-reporting on questionnaire. Results: Sixty-three participants were recruited in this study. At 1-year follow-up, 3 participants enrolled in clinical trials in the study group which had received office-based video intervention and 2 participants enrolled in the control group (Z = 0.39, p = 0.69). These results were not statistically significant. Impact of the intervention by ethnicity could not be assessed due to low total clinical trial enrollment. The video intervention did not change knowledge, attitudes, or barriers as measured by the Clinical Trial Knowledge Survey. Minority participants did report significantly more negative beliefs and barriers to participation than white participants. Conclusions: Increasing awareness and knowledge about clinical trials in underrepresented communities is an important step to providing opportunities for participation. Future studies should focus on how to address the negative expectations of clinical trials and the greater information needs in minority populations. Tailored or personalized messaging may address negative perceptions of clinical trial participation.

Dataset Information

Ten-Year Trends in Enrollment of Women and Minorities in Pivotal Trials Supporting Recent US Food and Drug Administration Approval of Novel Cardiometabolic Drugs.

Publications

Ten-Year Trends in Enrollment of Women and Minorities in Pivotal Trials Supporting Recent US Food and Drug Administration Approval of Novel Cardiometabolic Drugs.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets