0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Research Letter |

US Food and Drug Administration and Design of Drug Approval Studies FREE

Steven Woloshin, MD, MS1; Lisa M. Schwartz, MD, MS1; Brittney Frankel, BA2; Adrienne Faerber, PhD1
[+] Author Affiliations
1Center for Medicine and the Media, The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Lebanon, New Hampshire
2Cornell-Weill Medical School, New York, New York
JAMA. 2014;312(20):2163-2165. doi:10.1001/jama.2014.13329.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

To enhance protocol quality, federal regulations encourage but do not require meetings between pharmaceutical companies and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) during the design phase of pivotal studies assessing drug efficacy and safety for the proposed indication.1 These meetings often generate FDA recommendations for improving research, although companies are not bound to follow them.

Companies can also request special protocol assessments (SPAs) in which the FDA formally reviews the protocol.2 When the FDA endorses an SPA, it agrees not to object to study design, outcomes, or analytic issues when it ultimately reviews the drug for approval, provided the company conducted the trial as planned. We describe interactions between the FDA and pharmaceutical companies to learn how the FDA influences pivotal study design of new drugs.

We reviewed FDA memos; meeting minutes; filing checklists; and medical, statistical, and summary reviews for all 35 new drugs approved between February 1, 2011, and February 29, 2012. We obtained 172 documents from the FDA website and 28 from Freedom of Information Act requests (16 filing checklists and 12 meeting minutes; available on request). We used a structured form to analyze interactions and abstract comments about studies designated “pivotal” in the medical review during their design phase and quantified company SPA requests and FDA endorsements.

We identified all FDA comments and analyzed recommendations about pivotal study design or primary outcomes. We characterized the effect of recommendations on study quality. Increased meant higher on the evidence pyramid (randomized trial > single group study, patient > surrogate outcome) or stronger methods (eg, validated > unvalidated measures). Two authors (S.W., L.M.S.) characterized the effect of recommendations on study quality (agreement 96%). In addition, we determined compliance in the completed studies.

Stata version 11 (StataCorp) was used for the statistical analyses.

Of 35 new drug approvals (Table 1), companies met with the FDA to discuss pivotal studies for 28. Of the 130 comments made by the FDA, we excluded 77 because they were not recommendations or included redacted or insufficient detail to determine compliance (n = 34), referred to secondary outcomes (n = 4), or were about analytic issues (n = 39).

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1.  Details of New Drugs Approved Between February 1, 2011, and February 29, 2012, and Contact Between the FDA and Pharmaceutical Companies During the Pivotal Study Design Phasea

The FDA made 53 recommendations about design (eg, controls, doses, study length) or primary outcome for 21 approvals (median, 1 [range, 0-7] recommendations per approval). Fifty-one recommendations were judged as increasing study quality (eg, adding controls, blinding, or specific measures and frequency for toxicity assessments, lengthening studies to assess outcome durability) and 2 as having an uncertain effect.

Companies complied with 40 of the 53 recommendations. Table 2 details the 13 cases of noncompliance (involving 10 of the 21 drugs with recommendations). For example, the FDA requested randomized trials of brentuximab and crizotinib, but the companies conducted uncontrolled studies.3 Other cases included primary outcome choice (eg, progression-free instead of overall survival) and drug (active comparator) doses tested.

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2.  Drug Approvals in Which the Pharmaceutical Company Did Not Comply With FDA Recommendations About Pivotal Study Design or Primary Outcome

For 21 of the 35 new drug approvals, companies requested an SPA for a pivotal study protocol and the FDA endorsed 12.

Interaction between the FDA and companies during the design phase of pivotal studies led to recommendations for 21 of 35 new drug approvals. Nearly all would have led to stronger study designs and better outcome measures.

Yet companies are not required to meet with the FDA or follow their recommendations. One-quarter of approvals occurred without any meeting, and when such meetings occurred, companies did not comply with one-quarter of recommendations. The FDA endorsed SPAs for only 12 of the 35 approvals, suggesting missed opportunities for optimizing study quality.

One limitation of our study is that we analyzed only approved drugs. Rejected drugs may have lower compliance with recommendations and fewer SPA endorsements.

One approach for enhancing quality of drug approval studies would be to institute mandatory FDA review of pivotal trial protocols with the power to issue binding recommendations, which may be even more important with increasingly flexible approval pathways.4 An independent FDA-commissioned report5 suggested that stronger early FDA involvement could avoid deficiencies that delay approval of effective drugs6 and more clearly identify ineffective or harmful ones.

Section Editor: Jody W. Zylke, MD, Deputy Editor.

Corresponding Author: Lisa M. Schwartz, MD, MS, Center for Medicine and the Media, The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, 35 Centerra Pkwy, Lebanon, NH 03756 (lisa.schwartz@dartmouth.edu).

Author Contributions: Drs Woloshin and Schwartz had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Study concept and design: All authors.

Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.

Drafting of the manuscript: Woloshin, Schwartz, Faerber.

Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

Statistical analysis: Woloshin, Schwartz, Faerber.

Administrative, technical, or material support: Frankel, Faerber.

Study supervision: Woloshin, Schwartz.

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: The authors have completed and submitted the ICMJE Form for Disclosure of Potential Conflicts of Interest. Drs Woloshin and Schwartz reported being co-founders and shareholders of Informulary Inc, a company that provides data about the benefits, harms, and uncertainties of prescription drugs. No other disclosures were reported.

Additional Contributions: We thank Nancy Morden, MD, MPH (The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice), for helpful comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript. Dr Morden received no compensation for her work.

 Regulations Requiring Manufacturers to Assess the Safety and Effectiveness of New Drugs and Biological Products in Pediatric Patients. Fed Regist. 1998;63(231):66631-66672.
PubMed
US Department of Health and Human Services; US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: special protocol assessment.http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Guidances/ucm080571.pdf. Accessed May 8,2014).
US Food and Drug Administration. Drugs@FDA: FDA approved drug products.http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/drugsatfda/ Accessed June 23, 2014.
Darrow  JJ, Avorn  J, Kesselheim  AS.  New FDA breakthrough-drug category—implications for patients. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(13):1252-1258.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
US Food and Drug Administration. Independent evaluation of FDA's first cycle review performance—retrospective analysis: final report text. Accessed May 9, 2014. http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/UserFees/PrescriptionDrugUserFee/ucm119469.htm).
Sacks  L, Shamsuddin  H, Yasinskaya  Y, Bouri  K, Lanthier  M, Sherman  R. Scientific and regulatory reasons for delay and denial of FDA approval of initial applications for new drugs, 2000-2012. JAMA. 2014;311(4):378-984.
PubMed   |  Link to Article

Figures

Tables

Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 1.  Details of New Drugs Approved Between February 1, 2011, and February 29, 2012, and Contact Between the FDA and Pharmaceutical Companies During the Pivotal Study Design Phasea
Table Graphic Jump LocationTable 2.  Drug Approvals in Which the Pharmaceutical Company Did Not Comply With FDA Recommendations About Pivotal Study Design or Primary Outcome

References

 Regulations Requiring Manufacturers to Assess the Safety and Effectiveness of New Drugs and Biological Products in Pediatric Patients. Fed Regist. 1998;63(231):66631-66672.
PubMed
US Department of Health and Human Services; US Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: special protocol assessment.http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Guidances/ucm080571.pdf. Accessed May 8,2014).
US Food and Drug Administration. Drugs@FDA: FDA approved drug products.http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/drugsatfda/ Accessed June 23, 2014.
Darrow  JJ, Avorn  J, Kesselheim  AS.  New FDA breakthrough-drug category—implications for patients. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(13):1252-1258.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
US Food and Drug Administration. Independent evaluation of FDA's first cycle review performance—retrospective analysis: final report text. Accessed May 9, 2014. http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/UserFees/PrescriptionDrugUserFee/ucm119469.htm).
Sacks  L, Shamsuddin  H, Yasinskaya  Y, Bouri  K, Lanthier  M, Sherman  R. Scientific and regulatory reasons for delay and denial of FDA approval of initial applications for new drugs, 2000-2012. JAMA. 2014;311(4):378-984.
PubMed   |  Link to Article
CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

3,193 Views
2 Citations
×

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
Jobs