Dataset Information

Has the COVID-19 Crisis Affected the Growth of United States Food and Drug Administration Drug Approvals? The Answer is Not Yet! A Time Series (Forecasting) Study.

ABSTRACT: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-19; HCoV-19; COVID-19) has affected all daily activities. Has it also affected the number of United States (FDA) drug approvals over time? The short answer from empirical time series forecasting is not yet. Care should be taken as the crisis continues through maintaining the scientific, economic, political, and social supportive structures to sustain momentum. This conclusion is based on analyzing the results of (non-overlapping) forecasting routines (viz., complex exponential smoothing, auto-regressive fractionally integrated moving average, extreme learning machine, and multi-layer perceptron) performed on longitudinal (1939-present) FDA (CDER) drug approvals taking into regard pre- and extant-COVID-19 eras. This is an initial study and there are caveats with the approach, and as such, all data and programs are provided to support replication of the results and furthering of the investigation.

SUBMITTER: Daizadeh I

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7765694 | biostudies-literature | 2021 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Has the COVID-19 Crisis Affected the Growth of United States Food and Drug Administration Drug Approvals? The Answer is Not Yet! A Time Series (Forecasting) Study.

Daizadeh Iraj I

Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science 20201226 3

Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-19; HCoV-19; COVID-19) has affected all daily activities. Has it also affected the number of United States (FDA) drug approvals over time? The short answer from empirical time series forecasting is not yet. Care should be taken as the crisis continues through maintaining the scientific, economic, political, and social supportive structures to sustain momentum. This conclusion is based on analyzing the results of (non-overlapping) forecast ...[more]

PMID: 33367967

Similar Datasets

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:ImportanceWhile there have been multiple assessments of clinical trials leading to anticancer drug approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the cumulative percentage of approvals based on trials with a limitation remains uncertain.ObjectiveTo assess the percentage of clinical trials with limitations in 4 domains-lack of randomization, lack of significant overall survival advantage, inappropriate use of crossover, and use of suboptimal control arms-that led to FDA approvals from June 30, 2014, to July 31, 2019.Design, setting, and participantsThis observational analysis included all anticancer drug indications approved by the FDA from June 30, 2014, through July 31, 2019. All indications were investigated, and each clinical trial was evaluated for design, enrollment period, primary end points, and presence of a limitation in the domains of interest. The standard-of-care therapy was determined by evaluating the literature and published guidelines 1 year prior to the start of clinical trial enrollment. Crossover was examined and evaluated for optimal use. The percentage of approvals based on clinical trials with any or all limitations of interest was then calculated.Main outcomes and measuresEstimated percentage of clinical trials with limitations of interest that led to an anticancer drug marketing authorization by the FDA.ResultsA total of 187 trials leading to 176 approvals for 75 distinct novel anticancer drugs by the FDA were evaluated. Sixty-four (34%) were single-arm clinical trials, and 123 (63%) were randomized clinical trials. A total of 125 (67%) had at least 1 limitation in the domains of interest; 60 of the 125 trials (48%) were randomized clinical trials. Of all 123 randomized clinical trials, 37 (30%) lacked overall survival benefit, 31 (25%) had a suboptimal control, and 17 (14%) used crossover inappropriately.Conclusions and relevanceTwo-thirds of cancer drugs are approved based on clinical trials with limitations in at least 1 of 4 essential domains. Efforts to minimize these limitations at the time of clinical trial design are essential to ensure that new anticancer drugs truly improve patient outcomes over current standards.

Project description:ImportanceDiverse, representative enrollment in pivotal clinical trials is vital to sufficiently power subgroup analyses and ensure equity and validity of trial results.ObjectiveTo evaluate the racial/ethnic representation, trends, and disparities in clinical trials leading to US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ophthalmology drug approvals from 2000 to 2020.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study used data from participants in clinical trials of drugs for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD), open-angle glaucoma (OAG), and expanded indications for diabetic retinopathy (DR) from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2020. Trial data were sourced from FDA reviews, ClinicalTrials.gov, and relevant linked studies. National expected racial/ethnic proportions were sourced from public National Eye Institute prevalence data as well as published rates scaled using US Census Bureau data.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome measures were the distribution of and change over time in the racial/ethnic proportion of participants in clinical trials leading to FDA approval of drugs for AMD, OAG, and DR.ResultsDuring the 20-year period, 31 clinical trials were identified for 13 medications with 18 410 participants. The distribution of trial participants was different from the expected trial distribution for most approvals with regard to race/ethnicity (12 drugs) and sex (10 drugs). Compared with the first decade (2000-2010), trials conducted in the second decade (2011-2020) showed increases in enrollment of Asian (odds ratio [OR], 2.30; 95% CI, 1.97-2.68; P < .001) and Hispanic or Latinx participants (OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.49-2.03; P < .001) for AMD, Asian participants (OR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.46-3.42; P < .001) for DR, and Black (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.43-1.78; P < .001) and Hispanic or Latinx participants (OR, 10.31; 95% CI, 8.05-13.35; P < .001) for OAG. There was a decrease in Black participants in DR trials (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.42-0.79; P < .001). Based on these trends, the enrollment incidence ratio is expected to worsen by 2050, with overrepresentation of white participants vs underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic or Latinx participants in trials of drugs for AMD (1.08 vs 0.04 vs 0.77), DR (1.83 vs 0.87 vs 0.59), and OAG (1.62 vs 0.90 vs 0.37).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, Black, Hispanic or Latinx, and other non-White participants were underrepresented in clinical trials leading to FDA ophthalmology drug approvals compared with the expected disease burden and racial/ethnic distribution in the US. Although there was meaningful improvement from 2000 to 2020, further efforts to increase minority enrollment in clinical trials seem to be warranted.

Project description:ImportanceThe size of estimated treatment effects on the basis of which the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved drugs and devices with data from nonrandomized clinical trials (non-RCTs) remains unknown.ObjectivesTo determine how often the FDA has authorized novel interventions based on non-RCTs and to assess whether there is an association of the magnitude of treatment effects with FDA requirements for additional testing in randomized clinical trials (RCTs).Data sourcesOverall, 606 drug applications for the Breakthrough Therapy designation from its inception in January 2012 were downloaded from the FDA website in January 2017 and August 2018, and 71 medical device applications for the Humanitarian Device Exemption from its inception in June 1996 were downloaded in August 2017.Study selectionApproved applications based on non-RCTs were included; RCTs, studies with insufficient information, duplicates, and safety data were excluded.Data extraction and synthesisData were extracted by 2 independent investigators. A statistical association of the magnitude of estimated effect (expressed as an odds ratio) with FDA requests for RCTs was assessed. The data were also meta-analyzed to evaluate the differences in odds ratios between applications that required further testing and those that did not. The results are reported according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.Main outcomes and measuresDisease, laboratory, and patient-related outcomes, including disease response or patient survival, were considered.ResultsAmong 677 drug and medical device applications, 68 (10.0%) were approved by the FDA based on non-RCTs. Estimates of effects were larger when no further RCTs were required (mean natural logarithm of the odds ratios, 2.18 vs 1.12; odds ratios, 8.85 vs 3.06; P = .03). The meta-analysis results confirmed these findings: estimated effects were approximately 2.5-fold higher for treatments or devices that were approved based on non-RCTs than for treatments or devices for which further testing in RCTs was required (6.30 [95% CI, 4.38-9.06] vs 2.46 [95% CI, 1.70-3.56]; P < .001). Overall, 9 of 677 total applications (1.3%) that were approved on the basis of non-RCTs had relative risks of 10 or greater and 12 (1.7%) had relative risks of 5 or greater. No clear threshold above which the FDA approved interventions based on the magnitude of estimated effect alone was detected.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, estimated magnitudes of effect were larger among studies for which the FDA did not require RCTs compared with studies for which it did. There was no clear threshold of treatment effect above which no RCTs were requested.

Dataset Information

Has the COVID-19 Crisis Affected the Growth of United States Food and Drug Administration Drug Approvals? The Answer is Not Yet! A Time Series (Forecasting) Study.

Publications

Has the COVID-19 Crisis Affected the Growth of United States Food and Drug Administration Drug Approvals? The Answer is Not Yet! A Time Series (Forecasting) Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets