Clinical Trial Evidence Supporting FDA Approval of Novel Therapeutic Agents, 2005-2012 | Cancer Biomarkers | JAMA | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Access to paid content on this site is currently suspended due to excessive activity being detected from your IP address 35.173.234.169. Please contact the publisher to request reinstatement.
1.
Schwartz  LM, Woloshin  S.  Communicating uncertainties about prescription drugs to the public: a national randomized trial.  Arch Intern Med. 2011;171(16):1463-1468.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Zhang  J, Zhang  H, Yu  CH, Li  JY, Jiang  Y.  The attitudes of oncology physicians and nurses toward phase I, II, and III cancer clinical trials.  Contemp Clin Trials. 2011;32(5):649-653.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Chen  DT, Wynia  MK, Moloney  RM, Alexander  GC.  U.S. physician knowledge of the FDA-approved indications and evidence base for commonly prescribed drugs: results of a national survey.  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2009;18(11):1094-1100.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Healy  D.  Pharmageddon. Berkeley: University of California Press; 2012.
5.
Anderson  GM, Juurlink  D, Detsky  AS.  Newly approved does not always mean new and improved.  JAMA. 2008;299(13):1598-1600.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
New Drugs: Grounds for Refusing Application; Approval of Application; “Substantial Evidence” Defined, 21 USC §355d (2010). US Government Printing Office website. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2010-title21/html/USCODE-2010-title21-chap9-subchapV-partA-sec355.htm. Accessed October 7, 2013.
7.
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Guidance for Industry: Providing Clinical Evidence of Effectiveness for Human Drugs and Biological Products. FDA website. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm078749.pdf. Accessed October 7, 2013.
8.
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Guidance for Industry: Non-Inferiority Clinical Trials [Draft Guidance]. FDA website. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM202140.pdf. Accessed October 7, 2013.
9.
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Guidance for Industry: Enrichment Strategies for Clinical Trials to Support Approval of Human Drugs and Biological Products [Draft Guidance]. FDA website. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM332181.pdf. Accessed October 7, 2013.
10.
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Guidance for Industry: Adaptive Design Clinical Trials for Drugs and Biologics [Draft Guidance]. FDA website. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM201790.pdf. Accessed October 7, 2013.
11.
Booz Allen Hamilton Inc. Independent Evaluation of FDA’s First Cycle Review Performance—Final Report. US Food and Drug Administration website. http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/UserFees/PrescriptionDrugUserFee/ucm127117.htm. Accessed October 7, 2013.
12.
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Applications for Food and Drug Administration Approval to Market a New Drug: Accelerated Approval of New Drugs for Serious or Life-Threatening Illnesses, 21 CFR §314h (2012). FDA website. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfcfr/CFRSearch.cfm?CFRPart=314. Accessed October 7, 2013.
13.
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Drugs@FDA: FDA Approved Drug Products. FDA website. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/drugsatfda/. Accessed October 7, 2013.
14.
World Health Organization (WHO) Collaborating Center for Drug Statistics Methodology. WHO website. http://www.whocc.no/atc_ddd_index/. 2013. Accessed October 7, 2013.
15.
Clement  FM, Harris  A, Li  JJ, Yong  K, Lee  KM, Manns  BJ.  Using effectiveness and cost-effectiveness to make drug coverage decisions: a comparison of Britain, Australia, and Canada.  JAMA. 2009;302(13):1437-1443.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
16.
Institute of Medicine.  Evaluation of Biomarkers and Surrogate Endpoints in Chronic Disease. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2010.
17.
Concato  J, Shah  N, Horwitz  RI.  Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs.  N Engl J Med. 2000;342(25):1887-1892.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
18.
Smith  GCS, Pell  JP.  Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials.  BMJ. 2003;327(7429):1459-1461.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
19.
Miller  FG, Joffe  S.  Equipoise and the dilemma of randomized clinical trials.  N Engl J Med. 2011;364(5):476-480.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
20.
Mitka  M.  FDA and pharma seek better ways to assess drug safety, efficacy in clinical trials.  JAMA. 2012;307(24):2576-2577.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
21.
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Innovative Drug Approvals: 2011 Report. FDA website. http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/ucm330502.htm. Accessed October 7, 2013.
22.
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). FY 2012 Innovative Drug Approvals. FDA website. http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/ReportsManualsForms/Reports/ucm276385.htm. Accessed October 7, 2013.
23.
Kesselheim  AS, Myers  JA, Avorn  J.  Characteristics of clinical trials to support approval of orphan vs nonorphan drugs for cancer.  JAMA. 2011;305(22):2320-2326.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
24.
Goldberg  NH, Schneeweiss  S, Kowal  MK, Gagne  JJ.  Availability of comparative efficacy data at the time of drug approval in the United States.  JAMA. 2011;305(17):1786-1789.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
25.
Fleming  TR, DeMets  DL.  Surrogate end points in clinical trials: are we being misled?  Ann Intern Med. 1996;125(7):605-613.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
26.
Institute of Medicine.  The Future of Drug Safety: Promoting and Protecting the Health of the Public. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2006.
27.
Institute of Medicine.  Ethical and Scientific Issues in Studying the Safety of Approved Drugs. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2012.
28.
Psaty  BM, Meslin  EM, Breckenridge  A.  A lifecycle approach to the evaluation of FDA approval methods and regulatory actions: opportunities provided by a new IOM report.  JAMA. 2012;307(23):2491-2492.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
29.
Hamburg  MA.  Shattuck lecture: innovation, regulation, and the FDA.  N Engl J Med. 2010;363(23):2228-2232.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
30.
Downing  NS, Aminawung  JA, Shah  ND, Braunstein  JB, Krumholz  HM, Ross  JS.  Regulatory review of novel therapeutics—comparison of three regulatory agencies.  N Engl J Med. 2012;366(24):2284-2293.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
31.
Dhruva  SS, Bero  LA, Redberg  RF.  Strength of study evidence examined by the FDA in premarket approval of cardiovascular devices.  JAMA. 2009;302(24):2679-2685.PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Original Investigation
January 22/29, 2014

Clinical Trial Evidence Supporting FDA Approval of Novel Therapeutic Agents, 2005-2012

Author Affiliations
  • 1Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
  • 2Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine
  • 3Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine
  • 4Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars Program, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine
  • 5Section of Health Policy and Administration, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Yale University School of Medicine
  • 6Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale–New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut
  • 7Division of Health Care Policy and Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
JAMA. 2014;311(4):368-377. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.282034
Abstract

Importance  Many 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.

Objectives  To characterize pivotal efficacy trials (clinical trials that serve as the basis of FDA approval) for newly approved novel therapeutic agents.

Design and Setting  Cross-sectional analysis using publicly available FDA documents for all novel therapeutic agents approved between 2005 and 2012.

Main Outcomes and Measures  Pivotal 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.

Results  Between 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 Relevance  The 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.

×