Dataset Information

Combined Pediatric and Adult Trials Submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration 2012-2018.

ABSTRACT: Despite legislation incentivizing and requiring drug companies to conduct pediatric clinical trials, there still is a 9-year delay in drug approval for pediatric labeling after the initial adult drug approval. The aim of this study was to review the experience of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with combined pediatric and adult trials as a means for expediting pediatric approval and labeling. Combined pediatric and adult trials submitted to the FDA from 2012 to 2018 were reviewed. Only the publicly available labels and reviews were utilized for this analysis. Combined trials were identified for 72 products, with a total of 156 combined adult and pediatric trials. The therapeutic areas with the largest number of combined trials were in pulmonology for products reviewed under the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (BPCA) and/or the Pediatric Research Equity Act (PREA), and hematology reviewed under the Orphan Drug Act (ODA). All drugs that utilized combined pediatric and adult clinical trials were approved simultaneously for both the adults and that part of the pediatric population. A separate pediatric subgroup efficacy analysis was reported in 57% and 48% of products under BPCA/PREA and the ODA, respectively, with a separate safety analysis in 48% and 38% of these products. When considering both BPCA/PREA and orphan drug studies, all the combined pediatric and adult trials allowed concurrent approval and labeling for part of the pediatric population at the time of the adult approval.

SUBMITTER: Tanaudommongkon I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7572516 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Combined Pediatric and Adult Trials Submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration 2012-2018.

Tanaudommongkon Irin I John Miyagi Shogo S Green Dionna J DJ Burnham Janelle M JM van den Anker John N JN Park Kyunghun K Wu Johanna J McCune Susan K SK Yao Lynne L Burckart Gilbert J GJ

Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics 20200622 5

Despite legislation incentivizing and requiring drug companies to conduct pediatric clinical trials, there still is a 9-year delay in drug approval for pediatric labeling after the initial adult drug approval. The aim of this study was to review the experience of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) with combined pediatric and adult trials as a means for expediting pediatric approval and labeling. Combined pediatric and adult trials submitted to the FDA from 2012 to 2018 were reviewed. Only ...[more]

PMID: 32394430

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe increasing prevalence of pediatric chronic disease has resulted in increased exposure to long-term drug therapy in children. The duration of recently completed drug trials that support approval for drug therapy in children with chronic diseases has not been systematically evaluated. Such information is a vital first step in forming safety pharmacovigilance strategies for drugs used for long-term therapy in children.ObjectiveTo characterize the duration of clinical trials submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for pediatric drug approvals, with a focus on drugs used for long-term therapy.Design and settingA review was performed of all safety and efficacy clinical trials conducted under the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act or the Pediatric Research Equity Act and submitted to the FDA from September 1, 2007, to December 31, 2014, to support the approval of drugs frequently used for long-term therapy in children. Statistical analysis was performed from July 1, 2015, to December 31, 2017.Main outcomes and measuresMaximum duration of trials submitted to support FDA approval of drugs for children.ResultsA total of 306 trials supporting 86 drugs intended for long-term use in children were eligible for the primary analysis. The drugs most commonly evaluated were for treatment of neurologic (25 [29%]), pulmonary (16 [19%]), and anti-infective (14 [16%]) indications. The median maximum trial duration by drug was 44 weeks (minimum, 1.1 week; maximum, 364 weeks). For nearly two-thirds of the drugs (52 [61%]), the maximum trial duration was less than 52 weeks. For 10 of the drugs (12%), the maximum trial duration was 3 years or more. Maximum duration of trials did not vary by therapeutic category, minimum age of enrollment, calendar year, or legislative mandate.Conclusions and relevancePediatric clinical trials designed to sufficiently investigate drug safety and efficacy to support FDA approval are of relatively limited duration. Given the potential long-term exposure of patients to these drugs, the clinical community should consider whether new approaches are needed to better understand the safety associated with long-term use of these drugs.

Project description:BackgroundPrevious studies of drug trials submitted to regulatory authorities have documented selective reporting of both entire trials and favorable results. The objective of this study is to determine the publication rate of efficacy trials submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in approved New Drug Applications (NDAs) and to compare the trial characteristics as reported by the FDA with those reported in publications.Methods and findingsThis is an observational study of all efficacy trials found in approved NDAs for New Molecular Entities (NMEs) from 2001 to 2002 inclusive and all published clinical trials corresponding to the trials within the NDAs. For each trial included in the NDA, we assessed its publication status, primary outcome(s) reported and their statistical significance, and conclusions. Seventy-eight percent (128/164) of efficacy trials contained in FDA reviews of NDAs were published. In a multivariate model, trials with favorable primary outcomes (OR = 4.7, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.33-17.1, p = 0.018) and active controls (OR = 3.4, 95% CI 1.02-11.2, p = 0.047) were more likely to be published. Forty-one primary outcomes from the NDAs were omitted from the papers. Papers included 155 outcomes that were in the NDAs, 15 additional outcomes that favored the test drug, and two other neutral or unknown additional outcomes. Excluding outcomes with unknown significance, there were 43 outcomes in the NDAs that did not favor the NDA drug. Of these, 20 (47%) were not included in the papers. The statistical significance of five of the remaining 23 outcomes (22%) changed between the NDA and the paper, with four changing to favor the test drug in the paper (p = 0.38). Excluding unknowns, 99 conclusions were provided in both NDAs and papers, nine conclusions (9%) changed from the FDA review of the NDA to the paper, and all nine did so to favor the test drug (100%, 95% CI 72%-100%, p = 0.0039).ConclusionsMany trials were still not published 5 y after FDA approval. Discrepancies between the trial information reviewed by the FDA and information found in published trials tended to lead to more favorable presentations of the NDA drugs in the publications. Thus, the information that is readily available in the scientific literature to health care professionals is incomplete and potentially biased.

Project description:ImportancePharmaceutical manufacturers can receive 6 additional months of market exclusivity for performing pediatric clinical trials of brand-name drugs widely used in adults. Congress created this incentive in 1997 because these drugs were being used off-label in children without such trials.ObjectiveTo review updates to drug labeling and the cost to consumers of extending market exclusivity related to the pediatric exclusivity program.DesignFrom government records, we identified 54 drugs that earned the pediatric exclusivity incentive between 2007 and 2012. We evaluated labeling changes from the pediatric studies. We then extracted trial details from clinical review documents and used industry estimates of trial costs on a per-patient basis to estimate cost of investment for trials (with a 10% cost of capital). To calculate the net return and cost to consumers during the 6-month exclusivity period, we estimated additional revenue for the 48 drugs with available information.Main outcomes and measuresFor each drug, we evaluated labeling changes and costs associated with pediatric trials under the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act and the cost to consumers of 6-month market exclusivity extensions.ResultsThe 141 trials in our sample enrolled 20 240 children (interquartile range [IQR], 2-3 trials and 127-556 patients per drug). These trials led to 29 extended indications and 3 new indications, as well as new safety information for 16 drugs. Median cost of investment for trials was $36.4 million (IQR, $16.6 to $100.6 million). Among 48 drugs with available financial information, median net return was $176.0 million (IQR, $47.0 million to $404.1 million), with a median ratio of net return to cost of investment of 680% (IQR, 80% to 1270%).Conclusions and relevanceClinical trials conducted under the US Food and Drug Administration's pediatric exclusivity program have provided important information about the effectiveness and safety of drugs used in children. The costs to consumers have been high, exceeding the estimated costs of investment for conducting the trials. As an alternative, policymakers should consider direct funding of such studies.

Project description:ObjectivesTo investigate the effectiveness of non-benzodiazepine hypnotics (Z drugs) and associated placebo responses in adults and to evaluate potential moderators of effectiveness in a dataset used to approve these drugs.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourceUS Food and Drug Administration (FDA).Study selectionRandomised double blind parallel placebo controlled trials of currently approved Z drugs (eszopiclone, zaleplon, and zolpidem).Data extractionChange score from baseline to post-test for drug and placebo groups; drug efficacy analysed as the difference of both change scores. Weighted raw and standardised mean differences with their confidence intervals under random effects assumptions for polysomnographic and subjective sleep latency, as primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes included waking after sleep onset, number of awakenings, total sleep time, sleep efficiency, and subjective sleep quality. Weighted least square regression analysis was used to explain heterogeneity of drug effects.Data synthesis13 studies containing 65 separate drug-placebo comparisons by type of outcome, type of drug, and dose were included. Studies included 4378 participants from different countries and varying drug doses, lengths of treatment, and study years. Z drugs showed significant, albeit small, improvements (reductions) in our primary outcomes: polysomnographic sleep latency (weighted standardised mean difference, 95% confidence interval -0.57 to -0.16) and subjective sleep latency (-0.33, -0.62 to -0.04) compared with placebo. Analyses of weighted mean raw differences showed that Z drugs decreased polysomnographic sleep latency by 22 minutes (-33 to -11 minutes) compared with placebo. Although no significant effects were found in secondary outcomes, there were insufficient studies reporting these outcomes to allow firm conclusions. Moderator analyses indicated that sleep latency was more likely to be reduced in studies published earlier, with larger drug doses, with longer duration of treatment, with a greater proportion of younger and/or female patients, and with zolpidem.ConclusionCompared with placebo, Z drugs produce slight improvements in subjective and polysomnographic sleep latency, especially with larger doses and regardless of type of drug. Although the drug effect and the placebo response were rather small and of questionable clinical importance, the two together produced to a reasonably large clinical response.

Project description:ObjectivesTo characterize individual participant level response distributions to acute monotherapy for major depressive disorder in randomized, placebo controlled trials submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration from 1979 to 2016.DesignIndividual participant data analysis.Population232 randomized, double blind, placebo controlled trials of drug monotherapy for major depressive disorder submitted by drug developers to the FDA between 1979 and 2016, comprising 73 388 adult and child participants meeting the inclusion criteria for efficacy studies on antidepressants.Main outcome measuresResponses were converted to Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression (HAMD17) equivalent scores where other measures were used to assess efficacy. Multivariable analyses examined the effects of age, sex, baseline severity, and year of the study on improvements in depressive symptoms in the antidepressant and placebo groups. Response distributions were analyzed with finite mixture models.ResultsThe random effects mean difference between drug and placebo favored drug (1.75 points, 95% confidence interval 1.63 to 1.86). Differences between drug and placebo increased significantly (P<0.001) with greater baseline severity. After controlling for participant characteristics at baseline, no trends in treatment effect or placebo response over time were found. The best fitting model of response distributions was three normal distributions, with mean improvements from baseline to end of treatment of 16.0, 8.9, and 1.7 points. These distributions were designated Large, Non-specific, and Minimal responses, respectively. Participants who were treated with a drug were more likely to have a Large response (24.5% v 9.6%) and less likely to have a Minimal response (12.2.% v 21.5%).ConclusionsThe trimodal response distributions suggests that about 15% of participants have a substantial antidepressant effect beyond a placebo effect in clinical trials, highlighting the need for predictors of meaningful responses specific to drug treatment.

Project description:ImportanceThe growth of cancer drug spending in the US has outpaced spending in nearly all other sectors, and an increasing proportion of the drug development pipeline is devoted to oncology. In 2018, there was a record number of drugs entering the US market.ObjectiveTo estimate the number of patients with cancer who are eligible for the newly approved drug-indication pairs, and project potential spending and use of the approvals in the US.Design, setting, participantsThis is a retrospective review of 2018 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oncology drug approvals with estimation of the eligible population. The cost of new therapy was estimated, and savings from displaced therapies were subtracted. Two-way sensitivity analysis explored uncertainty in pricing and market diffusion. Data were collected between March 1, 2019, and September 30, 2019.ExposuresData related to the cancer drug approval (ie, indications, approval pathway, basis for approval), cancer incidence, and drug price were extracted from publicly available sources, including the FDA, National Cancer Institute, and American Cancer Society websites, as well as the RED BOOK database.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the projected net expenditure in the US associated with the new therapies. The secondary outcome described how variable market diffusion and pricing permit expected levels of spending.ResultsA total of 46 oncology approvals were included in the analysis, with 17 novel drugs and 29 new indications. The average price per patient per treatment course was $150 384. From a national perspective and with 100% market diffusion, the projected net expenditure for newly approved drugs was $39.5 billion per year. To maintain the recent trend of cancer drug spending, the 2018 cancer drug approvals need to be used in fewer than 20% of eligible patients.Conclusions and relevanceNew cancer drugs approved by the FDA in 2018 would drastically increase cancer drug spending in the US if used widely. Alternatively, only low-level use of the new drugs is consistent with market forecasting.

Project description:ImportanceThe US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants accelerated approval according to surrogate measures of numerous drug indications for serious or life-threatening illnesses such as infectious diseases and cancer. Investigators, including the FDA, have evaluated the program's regulatory and clinical consequences in oncology, but evaluation of nononcology drugs is lacking.ObjectiveTo evaluate the accelerated approval program for nononcology drug indications over a period of 26 years.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study used publicly available data on FDA nononcology drug indications granted accelerated approval from June 1992 through May 2018, with preapproval and confirmatory trials for approved drugs. Data were analyzed from February to April 2022.Main outcomes and measuresThe study estimated the median time from accelerated approval to occurrence of regulatory outcomes such as regular approval conversion, postapproval boxed warning label changes, confirmatory trial completion, and confirmatory trial results publication.ResultsThe FDA granted accelerated approval of 48 drugs for 57 nononcology indications, including 23 (40%) HIV treatments, supported by 93 preapproval trials. Forty-three indications (75%) were converted to regular approval at a median time of 53.1 (95% CI, 38.7 to 70.2) months from accelerated approval. There were postapproval label modifications on boxed warnings in 27 indications (47%) with a median time of 248.6 (95% CI, 51.8 to not estimable) months from accelerated approval. Of the 86 required confirmatory trials, 17 (20%) had not fulfilled the postapproval requirements. The median time to confirmatory trial completion was 39.4 (95% CI, 30.7 to 47.9) months. Nine trials (10%) failed to verify clinical efficacy, but only 1 of 8 indications assessed (2%) was withdrawn owing to the failed confirmatory trial, which was 136 months after approval. Results were published in 56 completed confirmatory trials (65%), with the median time being 52.5 (95% CI, 35.6 to 82.2) months from accelerated approval to publication.Conclusions and relevanceAlthough the program expedited the approval of nononcology drug indications by a median (IQR) of 53.1 (26.8-133.2) months, safety-related label modifications were often added in boxed warnings after approval, and clinical efficacy was sometimes not confirmed. The study findings and long follow-up period suggest that comprehensive evaluation of such drugs may take more than a decade.

Dataset Information

Combined Pediatric and Adult Trials Submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration 2012-2018.

Publications

Combined Pediatric and Adult Trials Submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration 2012-2018.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets