1
|
Mooghali M, Mitchell AP, Skydel JJ, Ross JS, Wallach JD, Ramachandran R. Characterization of accelerated approval status, trial endpoints and results, and recommendations in guidelines for oncology drug treatments from the National Comprehensive Cancer Network: cross sectional study. BMJ Med 2024; 3:e000802. [PMID: 38596814 PMCID: PMC11002412 DOI: 10.1136/bmjmed-2023-000802] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/30/2023] [Accepted: 02/24/2024] [Indexed: 04/11/2024]
Abstract
Objectives To evaluate National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guideline recommendations for oncology drug treatments that have been granted accelerated approval, and to determine whether recommendations are updated based on the results of confirmatory trials after approval and based on status updates from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Design Cross sectional study. Setting US FDA and NCCN guidelines. Population Oncology therapeutic indications (ie, specific oncological conditions for which the drug is recommended) that have been granted accelerated approval in 2009-18. Main outcome measures NCCN guideline reporting of accelerated approval status and postapproval confirmatory trials, and guideline recommendation alignment with postapproval confirmatory trial results and FDA status updates. Results 39 oncology drug treatments were granted accelerated approval for 62 oncological indications. Although all indications were recommended in NCCN guidelines, accelerated approval status was reported for 10 (16%) indications. At least one postapproval confirmatory trial was identified for all 62 indications, 33 (53%) of which confirmed benefit; among these indications, NCCN guidelines maintained the previous recommendation or strengthened the category of evidence for 27 (82%). Postapproval confirmatory trials failed to confirm benefit for 12 (19%) indications; among these indications, NCCN guidelines removed the previous recommendation or weakened the category of evidence for five (42%). NCCN guidelines reflected the FDA's decision to convert 30 (83%) of 36 indications from accelerated to traditional approval, of which 20 (67%) had guideline updates before the FDA's conversion decision. NCCN guidelines reflected the FDA's decision to withdraw seven (58%) of 12 indications from the market, of which four (57%) had guidelines updates before the FDA's withdrawal decision. Conclusions NCCN guidelines always recommend drug treatments that have been granted accelerated approval for oncological indications, but do not provide information about their accelerated approval status, including surrogate endpoint use and status of postapproval confirmatory trials. NCCN guidelines consistently provide information on postapproval trial results confirming clinical benefit, but not on postapproval trials failing to confirm clinical benefit. NCCN guidelines more frequently update recommendation for indications converted to traditional approval than for those approvals that were withdrawn.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maryam Mooghali
- Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
- Yale Collaboration for Regulatory Rigor, Integrity, and Transparency, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
| | - Aaron P Mitchell
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA
| | | | - Joseph S Ross
- Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
- Yale Collaboration for Regulatory Rigor, Integrity, and Transparency, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
- Department of Health Policy and Management, Yale School of Public Health; and Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale New Haven Health System, New Haven, CT, USA
| | - Joshua D Wallach
- Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Atlanta, GA, USA
| | - Reshma Ramachandran
- Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
- Yale Collaboration for Regulatory Rigor, Integrity, and Transparency, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Skydel JJ, Ramachandran R, Suttiratana S, Ross JS, Burns CM, Wallach JD. Geographic and Demographic Representation in Industry-Sponsored, US-Based Clinical Trials of Systemic Lupus Erythematosus Therapies. J Rheumatol 2024; 51:320-322. [PMID: 38101910 PMCID: PMC10922605 DOI: 10.3899/jrheum.2023-0920] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/17/2023]
Affiliation(s)
| | - Reshma Ramachandran
- Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, and Yale Collaboration for Regulatory Rigor, Integrity and Transparency, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
| | - Sakinah Suttiratana
- Department of Chronic Disease Epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut
| | - Joseph S Ross
- Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Department of Health Policy and Management, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, and Yale Collaboration for Regulatory Rigor, Integrity and Transparency, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
| | - Christopher M Burns
- Section of Rheumatology, Dartmouth Hitchcock Medical Center, Lebanon, New Hampshire
| | - Joshua D Wallach
- Department of Epidemiology, Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Skydel JJ, Egilman AC, Wallach JD, Ramachandran R, Gupta R, Ross JS. Spending by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Before and After Confirmation of Benefit for Drugs Granted US Food and Drug Administration Accelerated Approval, 2012 to 2017. JAMA Health Forum 2022; 3:e221158. [PMID: 35977252 PMCID: PMC9142876 DOI: 10.1001/jamahealthforum.2022.1158] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/30/2021] [Accepted: 03/31/2022] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Question Findings Meaning Importance Objective Design and Setting Main Outcomes and Measures Results Conclusions and Relevance
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Alexander C. Egilman
- Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Joshua D. Wallach
- Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut
| | - Reshma Ramachandran
- National Clinician Scholars Program, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
- Veterans Affairs Connecticut Healthcare System and Yale University, West Haven
| | - Ravi Gupta
- National Clinician Scholars Program, Corporal Michael J. Crescenz Veterans Affairs Medical Center, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
- Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
| | - Joseph S. Ross
- National Clinician Scholars Program, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
- Section of General Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
- Department of Health Policy and Management, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut
- Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale−New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Moneer O, Daly G, Skydel JJ, Nyhan K, Lurie P, Ross JS, Wallach JD. Agreement of treatment effects from observational studies and randomized controlled trials evaluating hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir-ritonavir, or dexamethasone for covid-19: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ 2022; 377:e069400. [PMID: 35537738 PMCID: PMC9086409 DOI: 10.1136/bmj-2021-069400] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/29/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To systematically identify, match, and compare treatment effects and study demographics from individual or meta-analysed observational studies and randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the same covid-19 treatments, comparators, and outcomes. DESIGN Meta-epidemiological study. DATA SOURCES National Institutes of Health Covid-19 Treatment Guidelines, a living review and network meta-analysis published in The BMJ, a living systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis in PLOS Medicine (The LIVING Project), and the Epistemonikos "Living OVerview of Evidence" (L·OVE) evidence database. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA FOR SELECTION OF STUDIES RCTs in The BMJ's living review that directly compared any of the three most frequently studied therapeutic interventions for covid-19 across all data sources (that is, hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir-ritonavir, or dexamethasone) for any safety and efficacy outcomes. Observational studies that evaluated the same interventions, comparisons, and outcomes that were reported in The BMJ's living review. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS Safety and efficacy outcomes from observational studies were identified and treatment effects for dichotomous (odds ratios) or continuous (mean differences or ratios of means) outcomes were calculated and, when possible, meta-analyzed to match the treatment effects from individual RCTs or meta-analyses of RCTs reported in The BMJ's living review with the same interventions, comparisons, and outcomes (that is, matched pairs). The analysis compared the distribution of study demographics and the agreement between treatment effects from matched pairs. Matched pairs were in agreement if both observational and RCT treatment effects were significantly increasing or decreasing (P<0.05) or if both treatment effects were not significant (P≥0.05). RESULTS 17 new, independent meta-analyses of observational studies were conducted that compared hydroxychloroquine, lopinavir-ritonavir, or dexamethasone with an active or placebo comparator for any safety or efficacy outcomes in covid-19 treatment. These studies were matched and compared with 17 meta-analyses of RCTs reported in The BMJ's living review. 10 additional matched pairs with only one observational study and/or one RCT were identified. Across all 27 matched pairs, 22 had adequate reporting of demographical and clinical data for all individual studies. All 22 matched pairs had studies with overlapping distributions of sex, age, and disease severity. Overall, 21 (78%) of the 27 matched pairs had treatment effects that were in agreement. Among the 17 matched pairs consisting of meta-analyses of observational studies and meta-analyses of RCTs, 14 (82%) were in agreement; seven (70%) of the 10 matched pairs consisting of at least one observational study or one RCT were in agreement. The 18 matched pairs with treatment effects for dichotomous outcomes had a higher proportion of agreement (n=16, 89%) than did the nine matched pairs with treatment effects for continuous outcomes (n=5, 56%). CONCLUSIONS Meta-analyses of observational studies and RCTs evaluating treatments for covid-19 have summary treatment effects that are generally in agreement. Although our evaluation is limited to three covid-19 treatments, these findings suggest that meta-analyzed evidence from observational studies might complement, but should not replace, evidence collected from RCTs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Osman Moneer
- Yale School of Medicine, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA
| | - Garrison Daly
- Center for Science in the Public Interest, Washington, DC, USA
| | | | - Kate Nyhan
- Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library, Yale University, New Haven, CT, USA
- Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA
| | - Peter Lurie
- Center for Science in the Public Interest, Washington, DC, USA
| | - Joseph S Ross
- Section of General Medicine and the National Clinician Scholars Program, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
- Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale-New Haven Health System, New Haven, CT, USA
- Department of Health Policy and Management, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA
| | - Joshua D Wallach
- Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Wallach JD, Zhang AD, Skydel JJ, Bartlett VL, Dhruva SS, Shah ND, Ross JS. Feasibility of Using Real-world Data to Emulate Postapproval Confirmatory Clinical Trials of Therapeutic Agents Granted US Food and Drug Administration Accelerated Approval. JAMA Netw Open 2021; 4:e2133667. [PMID: 34751763 PMCID: PMC8579227 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.33667] [Citation(s) in RCA: 9] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open
Abstract
This cross-sectional study examines the feasibility of using real-world data, such as billing, claims, and electronic health records, to emulate US Food and Drug Administration–required confirmatory clinical trials for the 50 new therapeutic agents that received accelerated approval between 2009 and 2018.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Joshua D. Wallach
- Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut
| | | | | | | | - Sanket S. Dhruva
- Section of Cardiology, San Francisco Veterans Affairs Health Care System, San Francisco, California
- Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco
| | - Nilay D. Shah
- Division of Health Care Policy and Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
| | - Joseph S. Ross
- Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
- National Clinician Scholars Program, Yale School of Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
- Department of Health Policy and Management, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Skydel JJ, Zhang AD, Dhruva SS, Ross JS, Wallach JD. US Food and Drug Administration utilization of postmarketing requirements and postmarketing commitments, 2009-2018. Clin Trials 2021; 18:488-499. [PMID: 33863236 DOI: 10.1177/17407745211005044] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIMS The US Food and Drug Administration outlines clinical studies as postmarketing requirements and commitments to be fulfilled following approval of new drugs and biologics ("therapeutics"). Regulators have increasingly emphasized lifecycle evaluation of approved therapeutics, and postmarketing studies are intended to advance our understanding of therapeutic safety and efficacy. However, little is known about the indications that clinical studies outlined in postmarketing requirements and commitments investigate, including whether they are intended to generate evidence for approved or other clinical indications. Therefore, we characterized US Food and Drug Administration postmarketing requirements and commitments for new therapeutics approved from 2009 to 2018. METHODS We conducted a cross-sectional study of all novel therapeutics, including small-molecule drugs and biologics, receiving original US Food and Drug Administration approval from 2009 to 2018, using approval letters accessed through the Drug@FDA database. Outcomes included the number and characteristics of US Food and Drug Administration postmarketing requirements and commitments for new therapeutics at original approval, including the types of studies outlined, the indications to be investigated, and the clinical evidence to be generated. RESULTS From 2009 to 2018, the US Food and Drug Administration approved 343 new therapeutics with 1978 postmarketing requirements and commitments. Overall, 750 (37.9%) postmarketing requirements and commitments outlined clinical studies. For 71 of 343 (20.7%) therapeutics, no postmarketing requirements or commitments for clinical studies were outlined, while at least 1 was outlined for 272 (79.3%; median 2 (interquartile range: 1-4)). Among these 272 therapeutics, the number of postmarketing requirements and commitments for clinical studies per therapeutic did not change from 2009 (median: 2 (interquartile range: 1-4)) to 2018 (median: 2 (interquartile range: 1-3)). Among the 750 postmarketing requirements and commitments for clinical studies, 448 (59.7%) outlined new prospective cohort studies, registries, or clinical trials, while the remainder outlined retrospective studies, secondary analyses, or completion of ongoing studies. Although 455 (60.7%) clinical studies investigated only original approved therapeutic indications, 123 (16.4%) enrolled from an expansion of the approved disease population and 61 (8.1%) investigated diseases unrelated to approved indications. CONCLUSIONS The US Food and Drug Administration approves most new therapeutics with at least 1 postmarketing requirement or commitment for a clinical study, and outlines investigations of safety or efficacy for both approved and unapproved indications. The median number of 2 clinical studies outlined has remained relatively constant over the last decade. Given increasing emphasis by the US Food and Drug Administration on faster approval and lifecycle evaluation of therapeutics, these findings suggest that more postmarketing requirements and commitments may be necessary to address gaps in the clinical evidence available for therapeutics at approval.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Sanket S Dhruva
- Section of Cardiology, San Francisco Veterans Affairs Health Care System, San Francisco, CA, USA
- Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco School of Medicine, San Francisco, CA, USA
| | - Joseph S Ross
- Section of General Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
- National Clinician Scholars Program, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA
- Department of Health Policy and Management, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA
- Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale-New Haven Hospital, New Haven, CT, USA
| | - Joshua D Wallach
- Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT, USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Varma T, Wallach JD, Miller JE, Schnabel D, Skydel JJ, Zhang AD, Dinan MA, Ross JS, Gross CP. Reporting of Study Participant Demographic Characteristics and Demographic Representation in Premarketing and Postmarketing Studies of Novel Cancer Therapeutics. JAMA Netw Open 2021; 4:e217063. [PMID: 33877309 PMCID: PMC8058642 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.7063] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/16/2022] Open
Abstract
IMPORTANCE Adequate representation of demographic subgroups in premarketing and postmarketing clinical studies is necessary for understanding the safety and efficacy associated with novel cancer therapeutics. OBJECTIVE To characterize and compare the reporting of demographic data and the representation of individuals by sex, age, and race in premarketing and postmarketing studies used by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to evaluate novel cancer therapeutics. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In this cross-sectional study, premarketing and postmarketing studies for novel cancer therapeutics approved by the FDA from 2012 through 2016 were identified. Study demographic information was abstracted from publicly available sources, and US cancer population demographic data was abstracted from US Cancer Statistics. Analyses were conducted from February 25 through September 21, 2020. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The percentages of trials reporting sex, age, and race/ethnicity were calculated, and participation to prevalence ratios (PPRs) were calculated by dividing the percentage of study participants in each demographic group by the percentage of the US cancer population in each group. PPRs were constructed for premarketing and postmarketing studies and by cancer type. Underrepresentation was defined as PPR less than 0.8. RESULTS From 2012 through 2016, the FDA approved 45 cancer therapeutics. The study sample included 77 premarketing studies and 56 postmarketing studies. Postmarketing studies, compared with premarketing studies, were less likely to report patient sex (42 studies reporting [75.0%] vs 77 studies reporting [100%]; P < .001) and race (27 studies reporting [48.2%] vs 62 studies reporting [80.5%]; P < .001). Women were adequately represented in premarketing studies (mean [SD] PPR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.90-0.91) and postmarketing studies (mean PPR, 1.00; 95% CI, 1.00-1.01). Although older adults and Black patients were underrepresented in premarketing studies (older adults: mean PPR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.72-0.74; Black patients: mean PPR, 0.32; 95% CI, 0.31-0.32), these groups continued to be underrepresented in postmarketing studies (older adults: mean PPR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.75-0.76; Black patients: mean PPR, 0.21; 95% CI, 0.21-0.21). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE This study found that older adults and Black patients were underrepresented in postmarketing studies of novel cancer therapeutics to a similar degree that they were underrepresented in premarketing studies. These findings suggest that postmarketing studies are not associated with improvements to gaps in demographic representation present at the time of FDA approval.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Joshua D. Wallach
- Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut
| | - Jennifer E. Miller
- Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
- Bioethics International, New York, New York
| | | | | | - Audrey D. Zhang
- Department of Medicine, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Michaela A. Dinan
- Department of Population Health Sciences, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina
- Duke Cancer Institute, Durham, North Carolina
| | - Joseph S. Ross
- Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
- Department of Health Policy and Management, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut
- Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut
| | - Cary P. Gross
- Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
- Cancer Outcomes, Public Policy, and Effectiveness Research (COPPER) Center, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut
- Department of Chronic Disease Epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Elliott MH, Skydel JJ, Dhruva SS, Ross JS, Wallach JD. Characteristics and Reporting of Number Needed to Treat, Number Needed to Harm, and Absolute Risk Reduction in Controlled Clinical Trials, 2001-2019. JAMA Intern Med 2021; 181:282-284. [PMID: 33226398 PMCID: PMC7684521 DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.4799] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/14/2022]
Abstract
This cross-sectional study assesses the trends and characteristics of absolute measure reporting in highly cited medical journals from 2001 to 2019.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marissa H Elliott
- Department of Chronic Disease Epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut
| | | | - Sanket S Dhruva
- Department of Medicine, University of California School of Medicine, San Francisco
| | - Joseph S Ross
- Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
| | - Joshua D Wallach
- Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Ellingson MK, Shi X, Skydel JJ, Nyhan K, Lehman R, Ross JS, Wallach JD. Publishing at any cost: a cross-sectional study of the amount that medical researchers spend on open access publishing each year. BMJ Open 2021; 11:e047107. [PMID: 33526505 PMCID: PMC7852964 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-047107] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/19/2020] [Revised: 12/14/2020] [Accepted: 12/16/2020] [Indexed: 11/04/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To estimate the financial costs paid by individual medical researchers from meeting the article processing charges (APCs) levied by open access journals in 2019. DESIGN Cross-sectional analysis. DATA SOURCES Scopus was used to generate two random samples of researchers, the first with a senior author article indexed in the 'Medicine' subject area (general researchers) and the second with an article published in the ten highest-impact factor general clinical medicine journals (high-impact researchers) in 2019. For each researcher, Scopus was used to identify all first and senior author original research or review articles published in 2019. Data were obtained from Scopus, institutional profiles, Journal Citation Reports, publisher databases, the Directory of Open Access Journals, and individual journal websites. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Median APCs paid by general and high-impact researchers for all first and senior author research and review articles published in 2019. RESULTS There were 241 general and 246 high-impact researchers identified as eligible for our study. In 2019, the general and high-impact researchers published a total of 914 (median 2, IQR 1-5) and 1471 (4, 2-8) first or senior author research or review articles, respectively. 42% (384/914) of the articles from the general researchers and 29% (428/1471) of the articles from the high-impact medical researchers were published in fully open access journals. The median total APCs paid by general researchers in 2019 was US$191 (US$0-US$2500) and the median total paid by high-impact researchers was US$2900 (US$0-US$5465); the maximum paid by a single researcher in total APCs was US$30115 and US$34676, respectively. CONCLUSIONS Medical researchers in 2019 were found to have paid between US$0 and US$34676 in total APCs. As journals with APCs become more common, it is important to continue to evaluate the potential cost to researchers, especially on individuals who may not have the funding or institutional resources to cover these costs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mallory K Ellingson
- Department of Epidemiology of Microbial Diseases, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
| | - Xiaoting Shi
- Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
| | - Joshua J Skydel
- Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Kate Nyhan
- Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Yale School of Public Health; and Harvey Cushing/John Hay Whitney Medical Library, Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
| | - Richard Lehman
- Institute of Applied Health Research, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK
| | - Joseph S Ross
- Section of General Medicine and the National Clinician Scholars Program, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
- Department of Health Policy and Management, Yale School of Public Health; and Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale-New Haven Health System, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
| | - Joshua D Wallach
- Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut, USA
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Skydel JJ, Luxkaranayagam AT, Dhruva SS, Ross JS, Wallach JD. Analysis of Postapproval Clinical Trials of Therapeutics Approved by the US Food and Drug Administration Without Clinical Postmarketing Requirements or Commitments. JAMA Netw Open 2019; 2:e193410. [PMID: 31074812 PMCID: PMC6512282 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.3410] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.6] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
IMPORTANCE The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) can use postmarketing requirements to mandate pharmaceutical companies to conduct clinical trials after the approval of novel therapeutics. Pharmaceutical companies can also agree to conduct nonmandated clinical trials as postmarketing commitments. However, when therapeutics are approved by the FDA without postmarketing requirements or postmarketing commitments, it is not well known how often pharmaceutical companies voluntarily conduct trials and report results monitoring safety or efficacy after approval. OBJECTIVE To characterize postapproval clinical trials sponsored by pharmaceutical companies of therapeutics initially approved by the FDA without clinical postmarketing requirements or commitments. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This cross-sectional analysis included postapproval clinical trials conducted with at least 1 site in the United States sponsored by pharmaceutical companies of therapeutics first approved by the FDA from 2009 through 2012. Analyses were conducted June 11, 2018, to November 30, 2018. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Postapproval clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov generating safety or efficacy data, characteristics including whether trials focused on approved or unapproved indications, study design elements, and rates of study completion and results reporting. RESULTS From 2009 through 2012, the FDA approved 110 novel therapeutics for 120 indications, of which 37 novel therapeutics for 39 indications did not have postmarketing requirements or commitments for new clinical studies at the time of first approval. For 31 therapeutics (83.8%), there were 600 postapproval clinical trials sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. Most trials investigated therapeutics for new indications (363 [60.5%]) or expanded populations of the originally indicated disease (122 [20.3%]). Trials were often small (median [interquartile range] enrollment, 44 [21-131] participants), nonrandomized (359 [59.8%]), unblinded (455 [75.8%]), and lacked comparators (381 [63.5%]). Approximately half of the trials (311 [51.8%]) assessed at least 1 clinical outcome. Of 300 terminated or completed trials, 204 trials (68.0%) had reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov a median (interquartile range) 16 (13-25) months after their primary completion date. For the 96 trials (32.0%) without reported results, a median (interquartile range) 35 (13-62) months had passed since their primary completion date. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Pharmaceutical companies frequently conducted clinical trials after approval, even when there were no clinical postmarketing requirements or commitments at approval. However, most of these trials evaluated new indications or expanded patient populations rather than monitored approved uses, and nearly half of the trials remained incomplete more than 5 years after original therapeutic approval.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Sanket S. Dhruva
- Department of Medicine, UCSF School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco
- Section of Cardiology, San Francisco Veterans Affairs Health Care System, San Francisco, California
| | - Joseph S. Ross
- Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut
- Department of Health Policy and Management, Yale University School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut
- Center for Outcomes Research and Evaluation, Yale-New Haven Hospital, New Haven, Connecticut
| | - Joshua D. Wallach
- Department of Environmental Health Sciences, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, Connecticut
- Collaboration for Research Integrity and Transparency, Yale Law School, New Haven, Connecticut
| |
Collapse
|