Dataset Information

New Drug and Biologics Approvals in 2019: A Systematic Analysis of Patient Experience Data in FDA Drug Approval Packages and Product Labels.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The FDA Patient-Focused Drug Development Initiative was launched to ensure the incorporation of the patient voice into drug development and evaluation. Since 2017, the FDA must publish a statement outlining patient experience data (PED) considered in the approval of new drugs. This study investigated the presence and role of PED in drug approval and translation into product label claims.

Methods

PED reported in approval packages of the 48 drugs approved by FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research in 2019 was identified and categorized. PED in the form of clinical outcome assessments (COAs) was characterized by endpoint positioning and outcome. The product labels were analyzed for PED-related claims.

Results

PED was reported as relevant for 39 of 48 (81.3%) drugs approved in 2019. COAs were the predominant PED type; other PED was identified for only 9 (18.8%) drugs, and none included qualitative or patient preference studies. COAs were the only type of PED for which associated claims were identified in the product labels. 27 out of 48 (56.3%) labels contained one or more efficacy claims based on COAs; of these, patient-reported outcomes were the most prevalent with claims identified in 19 labels (39.6%).

Conclusion

There are ample opportunities for incorporating PED beyond COAs to inform drug development and facilitate availability of medicines tailored to patient needs. A higher level of transparency on the role of PED in regulatory decision-making and a clear path to PED-based label claims could incentivize sponsors and enable patient empowerment in treatment decisions.

SUBMITTER: Schultz-Knudsen K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8021513 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved drug labels contain a broad array of information, ranging from adverse drug reactions (ADRs) to drug efficacy, risk-benefit consideration, and more. However, the labeling language used to describe these information is free text often containing ambiguous semantic descriptions, which poses a great challenge in retrieving useful information from the labeling text in a consistent and accurate fashion for comparative analysis across drugs. Consequently, this task has largely relied on the manual reading of the full text by experts, which is time consuming and labor intensive. METHOD: In this study, a novel text mining method with unsupervised learning in nature, called topic modeling, was applied to the drug labeling with a goal of discovering "topics" that group drugs with similar safety concerns and/or therapeutic uses together. A total of 794 FDA-approved drug labels were used in this study. First, the three labeling sections (i.e., Boxed Warning, Warnings and Precautions, Adverse Reactions) of each drug label were processed by the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities (MedDRA) to convert the free text of each label to the standard ADR terms. Next, the topic modeling approach with latent Dirichlet allocation (LDA) was applied to generate 100 topics, each associated with a set of drugs grouped together based on the probability analysis. Lastly, the efficacy of the topic modeling was evaluated based on known information about the therapeutic uses and safety data of drugs. RESULTS: The results demonstrate that drugs grouped by topics are associated with the same safety concerns and/or therapeutic uses with statistical significance (P<0.05). The identified topics have distinct context that can be directly linked to specific adverse events (e.g., liver injury or kidney injury) or therapeutic application (e.g., antiinfectives for systemic use). We were also able to identify potential adverse events that might arise from specific medications via topics. CONCLUSIONS: The successful application of topic modeling on the FDA drug labeling demonstrates its potential utility as a hypothesis generation means to infer hidden relationships of concepts such as, in this study, drug safety and therapeutic use in the study of biomedical documents.

Project description:Out-of-date or incomplete drug product labeling information may increase the risk of otherwise preventable adverse drug events. In recognition of these concerns, the United States Federal Drug Administration (FDA) requires drug product labels to include specific information. Unfortunately, several studies have found that drug product labeling fails to keep current with the scientific literature. We present a novel approach to addressing this issue. The primary goal of this novel approach is to better meet the information needs of persons who consult the drug product label for information on a drug's efficacy, effectiveness, and safety. Using FDA product label regulations as a guide, the approach links drug claims present in drug information sources available on the Semantic Web with specific product label sections. Here we report on pilot work that establishes the baseline performance characteristics of a proof-of-concept system implementing the novel approach. Claims from three drug information sources were linked to the Clinical Studies, Drug Interactions, and Clinical Pharmacology sections of the labels for drug products that contain one of 29 psychotropic drugs. The resulting Linked Data set maps 409 efficacy/effectiveness study results, 784 drug-drug interactions, and 112 metabolic pathway assertions derived from three clinically-oriented drug information sources (ClinicalTrials.gov, the National Drug File - Reference Terminology, and the Drug Interaction Knowledge Base) to the sections of 1,102 product labels. Proof-of-concept web pages were created for all 1,102 drug product labels that demonstrate one possible approach to presenting information that dynamically enhances drug product labeling. We found that approximately one in five efficacy/effectiveness claims were relevant to the Clinical Studies section of a psychotropic drug product, with most relevant claims providing new information. We also identified several cases where all of the drug-drug interaction claims linked to the Drug Interactions section for a drug were potentially novel. The baseline performance characteristics of the proof-of-concept will enable further technical and user-centered research on robust methods for scaling the approach to the many thousands of product labels currently on the market.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Pharmaceutical companies and other trial sponsors must submit certain trial results to ClinicalTrials.gov. The validity of these results is unclear. PURPOSE:To validate results posted on ClinicalTrials.gov against publicly available U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reviews on Drugs@FDA. DATA SOURCES:ClinicalTrials.gov (registry and results database) and Drugs@FDA (medical and statistical reviews). STUDY SELECTION:100 parallel-group, randomized trials for new drug approvals (January 2013 to July 2014) with results posted on ClinicalTrials.gov (15 March 2015). DATA EXTRACTION:2 assessors extracted, and another verified, the trial design, primary and secondary outcomes, adverse events, and deaths. RESULTS:Most trials were phase 3 (90%), double-blind (92%), and placebo-controlled (73%) and involved 32 drugs from 24 companies. Of 137 primary outcomes identified from ClinicalTrials.gov, 134 (98%) had corresponding data at Drugs@FDA, 130 (95%) had concordant definitions, and 107 (78%) had concordant results. Most differences were nominal (that is, relative difference <10%). Primary outcome results in 14 trials could not be validated. Of 1927 secondary outcomes from ClinicalTrials.gov, Drugs@FDA mentioned 1061 (55%) and included results data for 367 (19%). Of 96 trials with 1 or more serious adverse events in either source, 14 could be compared and 7 had discordant numbers of persons experiencing the adverse events. Of 62 trials with 1 or more deaths in either source, 25 could be compared and 17 were discordant. LIMITATION:Unknown generalizability to uncontrolled or crossover trial results. CONCLUSION:Primary outcome definitions and results were largely concordant between ClinicalTrials.gov and Drugs@FDA. Half the secondary outcomes, as well as serious events and deaths, could not be validated because Drugs@FDA includes only "key outcomes" for regulatory decision making and frequently includes only adverse event results aggregated across multiple trials. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE:National Library of Medicine.