Newly approved does not always mean new and improved

Safety and Evidence of Off-Label Use of Approved Drugs at the National Cancer Center Hospital in Japan

PURPOSE

In Japan, for pharmaceutical products to be covered by public medical insurance, their efficacy and safety must first be confirmed in clinical trials. To our knowledge, this study is the first investigation into the off-label use of pharmaceutical products at a high-volume cancer treatment center in Japan. The objective of this study is to explore the framework necessary for future pharmaceutical development and regulatory approval in the field of oncology by surveying the frequency of and indications for off-label use of pharmaceutical products at the National Cancer Center Hospital in Tokyo, Japan.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The pharmaceutical products used off-label in daily practice from 2003 to 2015 at the National Cancer Center Hospital were retrospectively examined based on applications that had been submitted to an internal review committee requesting off-label use.

RESULTS

A total of 1,390 applications were submitted during the study period. The most frequently used supporting documents were the results of phase II trials, followed by case series and phase III trials. The cancer most frequently treated with off-label drugs was sarcoma (15.1%), followed by urologic cancer (9.2%) and GI cancer (7.6%).

CONCLUSION

As reported in previous studies, pharmaceutical products were generally used off-label for the treatment of rare cancers, for which large-scale clinical trials are difficult to conduct. Continued discussion of the types of frameworks that are needed to guide pharmaceutical development is necessary.

Registration, results reporting, and publication bias of clinical trials supporting FDA approval of neuropsychiatric drugs before and after FDAAA: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Mandatory trial registration, and later results reporting, were proposed to mitigate selective clinical trial publication and outcome reporting. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Amendments Act (FDAAA) was enacted by Congress on September 27, 2007, requiring the registration of all non-phase I clinical trials involving FDA-regulated medical interventions and results reporting for approved drugs. The association between FDAAA enactment and the registration, results reporting, and publication bias of neuropsychiatric trials has not been studied.

Methods

We conducted a retrospective cohort study of all efficacy trials supporting FDA new drug approvals between 2005 to 2014 for neuropsychiatric indications. Trials were categorized as pre- or post-FDAAA based on initiation and/or completion dates. The main outcomes were the proportions of trials registered and reporting results in ClinicalTrials.gov, and the degree of publication bias, estimated using the relative risks pre- and post-FDAAA of both the publication of positive vs non-positive trials, as well as of publication of positive vs non-positive trials without misleading interpretations. Registration and results reporting proportions were compared pre- and post-FDAAA using the two-tailed Fisher exact test, and the degrees of publication bias were compared by calculating the ratio of relative risks (RRR) for each period.

Results

The FDA approved 37 new drugs for neuropsychiatric indications between 2005 and 2014 on the basis of 142 efficacy trials, of which 101 were pre-FDAAA and 41 post-FDAAA. Post-FDAAA trials were significantly more likely to be registered (100% vs 64%; p < 0.001) and report results (100% vs 10%; p < 0.001) than pre-FDAAA trials. Pre-FDAAA, positive trials were more likely to be published (relative risk [RR] = 1.52; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.17–1.99; p = 0.002) and published without misleading interpretations (RR = 2.47; CI = 1.57–3.73; p < 0.001) than those with non-positive results. In contrast, post-FDAAA positive trials were equally likely to have been published (RR = 1; CI = 1–1, p = NA) and published without misleading interpretations (RR = 1.20; CI = 0.84–1.72; p = 0.30). The likelihood of publication bias pre-FDAAA vs post-FDAAA was greater for positive vs non-positive trials (RRR = 1.52; CI = 1.16–1.99; p = 0.002) and for publication without misleading interpretations (RRR = 2.06, CI = 1.17–3.61, p = 0.01).

Conclusions

The enactment of FDAAA was followed by significantly higher proportions of trials that were registered and reporting results on ClinicalTrials.gov and significantly lower degrees of publication bias among trials supporting recent FDA approval of drugs for neuropsychiatric indications.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2957-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Postapproval studies of drugs initially approved by the FDA on the basis of limited evidence: systematic review

Objective To characterize the prospective controlled clinical studies for all novel drugs that were initially approved by the Food and Drug Administration on the basis of limited evidence.Design Systematic review.Data sources Drugs@FDA database and PubMed.Study inclusion All prospective controlled clinical studies published after approval for all novel drugs initially approved by the FDA between 2005 and 2012 on the basis of a single pivotal trial, pivotal trials that used surrogate markers of disease as primary endpoints, or both. Results Between 2005 and 2012 the FDA approved 117 novel drugs for 123 indications on the basis of a single pivotal trial, pivotal trials that used surrogate markers of disease, or both (single surrogate trials). We identified 758 published controlled studies over a median of 5.5 years (interquartile range 3.4-8.2) after approval, most of which (554 of 758; 73.1%) were studies for indications approved on the basis of surrogate markers of disease. Most postapproval studies used active comparators-67 of 77 (87.0%) indications approved on the basis of single pivotal trials, 365 of 554 (65.9%) approvals based on surrogate marker trials, and 100 of 127 (78.7%) approvals based on single surrogate trials-and examined surrogate markers of efficacy as primary endpoints-51 of 77 (66.2%), 512 of 554 (92.4%), and 110 of 127 (86.6%), respectively. Overall, no postapproval studies were identified for 43 of the 123 (35.0%) approved indications. The median total number of postapproval studies identified was 1 (interquartile range 0-2) for indications approved on the basis of a single pivotal trial, 3 (1-8) for indications approved on the basis of pivotal trials that used surrogate markers of disease as primary endpoints, and 1 (0-2) for single surrogate trial approvals, and the median aggregate number of patients enrolled in postapproval studies was 90 (0-509), 533 (122-3633), and 38 (0-666), respectively. The proportion of approved indications with one or more randomized, controlled, double blind study using a clinical outcome for the primary endpoint that was published after approval and showed superior efficacy was 18.2% (6 of 33), 2.0% (1 of 49), and 4.9% (2 of 41), respectively.Conclusions The quantity and quality of postapproval clinical evidence varied substantially for novel drugs first approved by the FDA on the basis of limited evidence, with few controlled studies published after approval that confirmed efficacy using clinical outcomes for the original FDA approved indication.

Faster drug approval: challenges for safety

INTRODUCTION

More rapid drug premarketing procedures pose a challenge for regulatory agencies in terms of innovation and improving real-world safety and effectiveness Areas covered: This review considers the blockbuster drugs used over the previous fifteen years with adverse reactions after marketing, the elements and time span of risk identification and the measures implemented or considered, based on the existing literature and reports from the agencies Expert opinion: Risk prediction is founded on several factors: randomization, sample size, a well-established endpoint for safety, use of a comparator rather than placebo and a longer Phase-III period, in which a serious illness may be identified by early signs of alteration in the primary parenchyma with the latest biochemical, instrumental and imaging techniques. In comparative non-inferiority evaluations, increased safety should be preferred, with the exception of drugs that may be useful in serious or life-threatening diseases for which there are few or no effective existing therapies. A period of restricted use may be required to test and dispense new drugs, as well as to implement specific methods for the early detection of adverse events. It is important not to regard a new medicine axiomatically as the best treatment before it comes into wide use.

Valuing technology: A qualitative interview study with physicians about insulin pump therapy for children with type 1 diabetes

Insulin pumps for children with type 1 diabetes have been broadly adopted despite equivocal evidence about comparative effectiveness. To understand why and inform policy related to public funding for new technologies, we explored how physicians interpret the value of pumps. We conducted open-ended, semi-structured interviews with 16 physicians from a pediatric diabetes network in Ontario, Canada, and analyzed the data using interpretive description. Respondents recognized that pumps fell short of expectations because they required hard work, as well as family and school support. Yet, pumps were valued for their status as new technologies and as a promising step in developing future technology. In addition, they were valued for their role within a therapeutic relationship, given the context of chronic childhood disease. These findings identify the types of beliefs that influence the adoption and diffusion of technologies. Some beliefs bear on hopes for new technology that may inappropriately hasten adoption, creating excess cost with little benefit. On the other hand, some beliefs identify potential benefits that are not captured in effectiveness studies, but may warrant consideration in resource allocation decisions. Still others suggest the need for remediation, such as those bearing on disparity in pump use by socioeconomic status. Understanding how technologies are valued can help stakeholders decide how to address such beliefs and expectations in funding decisions and implementation protocols.

Clinical trial evidence supporting FDA approval of novel therapeutic agents, 2005-2012

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.

Adoption of new drugs by physicians: a survival analysis

Background

New drugs often substitute others cheaper and with a risk-benefit balance better established. Our aim was to analyse the diffusion of new drugs during the first months of use, examining the differences between family physicians and specialists.

Methods

Prescription data were obtained of cefditoren, duloxetine, etoricoxib, ezetimibe, levocetirizine, olmesartan, pregabalin and tiotropium 36 months after their launching. We obtained the monthly number of prescriptions per doctor and the number prescribers of each drug by specialty.

After discarding those with less than 10 prescriptions during this period, physicians were defined as adopters if the number of prescriptions was over the 25th percentile for each drug and level (primary or secondary care). The diffusion of each drug was studied by determining the number of adopter family physicians throughout the study period. Among the group of adopters, we compared the month of the first prescription by family physicians to that of other specialists using the Kaplan-Meier method.

Results

The adoption of the drugs in primary care follows an exponential diffusion curve that reaches a plateau at month 6 to 23. Tiotropium was the most rapidly and widely adopted drug. Cefditoren spread at a slower rate and was the least adopted. The diffusion of etoricoxib was initially slowed down due to administrative requirements for its prescription. The median time of adoption in the case of family physicians was 4-6 months. For each of the drugs, physicians of a specialty other than family physicians adopted it first.

Conclusions

The number of adopters of a new drug increases quickly in the first months and reaches a plateau. The number of adopter family physicians varies considerably for different drugs. The adoption of new drugs is faster in specialists. The time of adoption should be considered to promote rational prescribing by providing timely information about new drugs and independent medical education.

"On the other hand ...": the evidence does not support the use of hand-carried ultrasound by hospitalists

In the right hands, ultrasound is a safe and helpful diagnostic imaging tool. However, evidence supporting the use of hand-carried ultrasound (HCU) by hospitalist physicians has not kept pace with expanding application of these devices. In spite of its strategic point-of-care benefit, use of this technology by hospitalists may not ultimately translate into improved efficiency and better clinical outcomes. Optimal levels of training in image acquisition and interpretation remain to be established. Novelty, availability, and the results of a few small studies lacking patient-centered outcomes remain insufficient grounds to justify the expanded clinical utilization of these medical imaging devices by nonspecialists.

Off-label prescribing: a call for heightened professional and government oversight

Under current U.S. law, physicians may prescribe drugs and devices in situations not covered on the label approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Those supporting this system say that requiring FDA approval for off-label uses would unnecessarily impede the delivery of benefits to patients. Patients do benefit from off-label prescribing that is supported by sound scientific and medical evidence. In the absence of such evidence, however, off-label prescribing can expose patients to risky and ineffective treatments. The medical community and federal authorities should more actively promote patients' interests in receiving beneficial off-label treatments. To exercise responsible self-regulation, members of the medical community must determine whether available evidence justifies specific off-label uses and must promote information-gathering when the evidence is inadequate. Physicians should also discuss with patients the uncertainties accompanying off-label uses. Federal authorities should more closely monitor the effects of off-label prescribing and adopt other measures to reduce harm and enhance benefits produced by off-label prescribing.