» Articles » PMID: 24449315

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

Overview
Journal JAMA
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2014 Jan 23
PMID 24449315
Citations 151
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
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.

Citing Articles

Era of surrogate endpoints and accelerated approvals: a comprehensive review on applicability, uncertainties, and challenges from regulatory, payer, and patient perspectives.

Sharma R, Gulati A, Chopra K Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2025; .

PMID: 40080138 DOI: 10.1007/s00228-025-03822-w.


Matching plus regression adjustment for the estimation of the average treatment effect on survival outcomes: a case study with mosunetuzumab in relapsed/refractory follicular lymphoma.

Di Maio D, Mitchell S, Batson S, Keeney E, Thom H BMC Med Res Methodol. 2025; 25(1):30.

PMID: 39893424 PMC: 11786573. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-025-02456-x.


Premarket Pivotal Trial End Points and Postmarketing Requirements for FDA Breakthrough Therapies.

Mooghali M, Wallach J, Ross J, Ramachandran R JAMA Netw Open. 2024; 7(8):e2430486.

PMID: 39190303 PMC: 11350476. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.30486.


Clinical Evidence Supporting FDA Approval of Gene and RNA Therapies for Rare Inherited Conditions.

Odouard I, Ballreich J, Lee B, P Socal M Paediatr Drugs. 2024; 26(6):741-752.

PMID: 39102172 DOI: 10.1007/s40272-024-00645-7.


UK Stakeholder Perspectives on Surrogate Endpoints in Cancer, and the Potential for UK Real-World Datasets to Validate Their Use in Decision-Making.

Baldwin D, Carmichael J, Cook G, Navani N, Peach J, Slater R Cancer Manag Res. 2024; 16:791-810.

PMID: 39044745 PMC: 11264281. DOI: 10.2147/CMAR.S441359.


References
1.
Schwartz L, Woloshin S . Communicating uncertainties about prescription drugs to the public: a national randomized trial. Arch Intern Med. 2011; 171(16):1463-8. DOI: 10.1001/archinternmed.2011.396. View

2.
Smith G, Pell J . Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2003; 327(7429):1459-61. PMC: 300808. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.327.7429.1459. View

3.
Dhruva S, Bero L, Redberg R . Strength of study evidence examined by the FDA in premarket approval of cardiovascular devices. JAMA. 2009; 302(24):2679-85. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2009.1899. View

4.
Psaty B, Meslin E, 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):2491-2. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2012.5545. View

5.
Miller F, Joffe S . Equipoise and the dilemma of randomized clinical trials. N Engl J Med. 2011; 364(5):476-80. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsb1011301. View