Drug Registries and Approval of Drugs: Promises, Placebo, or a Real Success? (original) (raw)
Related papers
Registries supporting new drug applications
Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety, 2017
Knowledge of the benefits and risks of new drugs is incomplete at the time of marketing approval. Registries offer the possibility for additional, post-approval, data collection. For all new drugs, which were approved in the European Union between 2007 and 2010, we reviewed the frequency, the type, and the reason for requiring a registry. The European Public Assessment Reports, published on the website of the European Medicine Agency, were reviewed for drugs approved by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use. We searched for key characteristics of these drugs, including therapeutic area (ATC1 level), level of innovation (the score is an algorithm based on availability of treatment and therapeutic effect), and procedural characteristics. In addition, we identified if these registries were defined by disease (disease registry) or exposure to a single drug (drug registry). Out of 116 new drugs approved in the predefined period, for 43 (37%), 1 to 6 registry studies were ide...
BMJ open, 2015
To evaluate clinical trial registration, reporting and publication rates for new drugs by: (1) legal requirements and (2) the ethical standard that all human subjects research should be publicly accessible to contribute to generalisable knowledge. Cross-sectional analysis of all clinical trials submitted to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for drugs approved in 2012, sponsored by large biopharmaceutical companies. Information from Drugs@FDA, ClinicalTrials.gov, MEDLINE-indexed journals and drug company communications. Clinical trial registration and results reporting in ClinicalTrials.gov, publication in the medical literature, and compliance with the 2007 FDA Amendments Acts (FDAAA), analysed on the drug level. The FDA approved 15 drugs sponsored by 10 large companies in 2012. We identified 318 relevant trials involving 99 599 research participants. Per drug, a median of 57% (IQR 32-83%) of trials were registered, 20% (IQR 12-28%) reported results in ClinicalTrials.gov, 56% (...
BMJ (Clinical research ed.), 2018
To characterize postmarketing requirements for new drugs and biologics approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and to examine rates and timeliness of registration, results reporting, and publication of required prospective cohort studies, registries, and clinical trials. Cross sectional analysis. Postmarketing requirements for all new drugs and biologics approved by the FDA between 1 January 2009 and 31 December 2012, with follow-up up to 15 November 2017. Postmarketing requirements and their characteristics known at the time of FDA approval, including FDA authority, study design, and study characteristics. Rates and timeliness of registration and results reporting on ClinicalTrials.gov and publication in peer reviewed journals of required prospective cohort studies, registries, and clinical trials. Between 2009 and 12, the FDA approved 97 new drugs and biologics for 106 indications with at least one postmarketing requirement at the time of first approval, for a total...
International Journal of Health Policy and Management
Background: The European Medicines Agency (EMA) aims to resolve uncertainties associated with conditionally approved drugs by imposing post-approval studies. Results from these studies may be relevant for health technology assessment (HTA) organizations. This study investigated the role of regulator-imposed post-approval studies within HTA. Methods: For all conditionally approved drugs up to December 2018, regulator-imposed post-approval studies were identified from EMA’s public assessment reports. The availability for and inclusion of study results in relative effectiveness (re)assessments were analyzed for 4 European HTA organizations: NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, England/Wales), HAS (Haute Autorité de Santé, France), ZIN (Zorginstituut Nederland, the Netherlands) and the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA, Europe). When study results became available between an HTA organization’s initial assessment and reassessment, it was eval...
BMJ Open
ObjectivesUS FDA and EMA allow facilitated regulatory pathways to expedite access to new treatments. Limited supportive data may result in major postapproval variations. In Israel, partly relying on Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA), clinical data are reviewed independently by the Advisory Committee of Drug Registration (ACDR). In this study, the correlation between the number of discussions at the ACDR and major postapproval variations is examined.DesignThis is an observational retrospective comparative cohort study.SettingApplications with FDA and/or EMA approval at time of assessment in Israel were included. The timeframe was chosen to allow a minimum of 3 years of postmarketing approval experience for potential major label variations. Data regarding the number of discussions at ACDR were extracted from protocols. Data on postapproval major variations were extracted from the FDA and EMA websites.ResultsBetween 2014 and 2016, 226 (176 drugs) ap...
Upsala Journal of Medical Sciences
Aim: The aim of this study was to describe content and procedures in some selected Swedish health care quality registries (QRs) of relevance to regulatory decision-making. Methods: A workshop was organized with participation of seven Swedish QRs which subsequently answered a questionnaire regarding registry content on drug treatments and outcomes. Patient populations, coverage, data handling and quality control, as well as legal and ethical aspects are presented. Scientific publications from the QRs are used as a complementary measure of quality and scientific relevance. Results: The registries under study collect clinical data of high relevance to regulatory and health technology agencies. Five out of seven registries provide information on the drug of interest. When applying external quality criteria, we found a high degree of fulfillment, although information on medication was not sufficient to answer all questions of regulatory interest. A notable strength is the option for linkage to the Prescribed Drug Registry and to information on education and socioeconomic status. Data on drugs used during hospitalization were also collected to some extent. Outcome measures collected resemble those used in relevant clinical trials. All registries collected patient-reported outcome measures. The number of publications from the registries was substantial, with studies of appropriate design, including randomized registry trials. Conclusions: Quality registries may provide a valuable source of post-marketing data on drug effectiveness, safety, and cost-effectiveness. Closer collaboration between registries and regulators to improve quality and usefulness of registry data could benefit both regulatory utility and value for health care providers.
The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 2007
The new drug application database submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration for drug approval (phases I-III or phases 1-3) is limited both in scope and size. Although randomized controlled trials, the hallmark of phase III trials, are the gold standard for the drug-approval process, they invariably have a number of limitations, including relatively small sample sizes, selective populations, short follow-up, the use of intermediate (surrogate) endpoints (almost always), and limited generalizability. The challenges of monitoring drugs once approved are also numerous. After approval by the Food and Drug Administration, marketed drugs undergo continued scrutiny, and this scrutiny is increasing because of problems that have surfaced with some drugs after their approval. Postmarketing research includes a variety of study designs and the use of registries and self-reporting of drug side effects. Along with this has come great confusion about what postmarketing research is and what a phase IV study is. Among the important strengths of phase IV research are the exposure of a broader range of patients to the drug under study, resulting in more "real-world" information about the drug's safety and efficacy, and consideration of a broader range of clinical endpoints. As a result, phase IV, or postmarketing research, has become an integral part of the drug evaluation process for a wide range of agents. The authors discuss the different types of study designs that are common under the phase IV terminology and provide some examples. They also discuss the use of registries and self-reporting of adverse events using the MedWatch System.
The WHO, WHY, WHAT, WHEN, WHERE, and HOW of clinical trial registries
Fertility and Sterility, 2011
Clinical trials must be appropriately registered prior to patient enrollment to be considered for publication by most top journals, including Fertility and Sterility. Clinical trials involving FDA regulated drugs, whether investigational or already approved, must be registered by law, and summary results must be posted in the registry whether ultimately published or not. This review provides detailed information for authors regarding these requirements and a discussion as to their importance for acceptance of a manuscript and for reviewers to be assured of the integrity of the trial design, execution, and analysis. The accompanying review on study design and statistics is meant to illustrate the difficulties reviewers experience in evaluating a manuscript that does not follow these requirements. The editors of Fertility and Sterility reiterate that clinical trials that have not been registered will not be accepted for review. (Fertil Steril Ò 2011;96:2-5. Ó2011 by American Society for Reproductive Medicine.