No abstract

IMPORTANCE Postmarket safety events of novel pharmaceuticals and biologics occur when new safety risks are identified after initial regulatory approval of these therapeutics. These safety events can change how novel therapeutics are used in clinical practice and inform patient and clinician decision making.OBJECTIVES To characterize the frequency of postmarket safety events among novel therapeutics approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and to examine whether any novel therapeutic characteristics known at the time of FDA approval were associated with increased risk. EXPOSURES Novel therapeutic characteristics known at the time of FDA approval, including drug class, therapeutic area, priority review, accelerated approval, orphan status, near-regulatory deadline approval, and regulatory review time. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESA composite of (1) withdrawals due to safety concerns, (2) FDA issuance of incremental boxed warnings added in the postmarket period, and (3) FDA issuance of safety communications.RESULTS From 2001 through 2010, the FDA approved 222 novel therapeutics (183 pharmaceuticals and 39 biologics). There were 123 new postmarket safety events (3 withdrawals, 61 boxed warnings, and 59 safety communications) during a median follow-up period of 11.7 years (interquartile range [IQR], 8.7-13.8 years), affecting 71 (32.0%) of the novel therapeutics. The median time from approval to first postmarket safety event was 4.2 years (IQR, 2.5-6.0 years), and the proportion of novel therapeutics affected by a postmarket safety event at 10 years was 30.8% (95% CI, 25.1%-37.5%). In multivariable analysis, postmarket safety events were statistically significantly more frequent among biologics (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.93; 95% CI, 1.06-3.52; P = .03), therapeutics indicated for the treatment of psychiatric disease (IRR = 3.78; 95% CI, 1.77-8.06; P < .001), those receiving accelerated approval (IRR = 2.20; 95% CI, 1.15-4.21; P = .02), and those with near-regulatory deadline approval (IRR = 1.90; 95% CI, 1.19-3.05; P = .008); events were statistically significantly less frequent among those with regulatory review times less than 200 days (IRR = 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24-0.87; P = .02).CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among 222 novel therapeutics approved by the FDA from 2001 through 2010, 32% were affected by a postmarket safety event. Biologics, psychiatric therapeutics, and accelerated and near-regulatory deadline approval were statistically significantly associated with higher rates of events, highlighting the need for continuous monitoring of the safety of novel therapeutics throughout their life cycle.

BACKGROUND The upcoming reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act focuses on improving the review process for new drug applications at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). METHODS Using publicly available information from the FDA, the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and Health Canada, we compared the time for completion of the first review and the total review time for all applications involving novel therapeutic agents approved by the three regulatory agencies from 2001 through 2010 and determined the geographic area in which each novel therapeutic agent was first approved for use. RESULTS There were 510 applications for novel therapeutic agents approved from 2001 through 2010 — 225 by the FDA, 186 by the EMA, and 99 by Health Canada; among the applications, there were 289 unique agents. The median length of time for completion of the first review was 303 days (interquartile range, 185 to 372) for applications approved by the FDA, 366 days (interquartile range, 310 to 445) for those approved by the EMA, and 352 days (interquartile range, 255 to 420) for those approved by Health Canada (P<0.001 for the comparison across the three agencies). The median total review time was also shorter at the FDA than at the EMA or Health Canada (P = 0.002). Among the 289 unique novel therapeutic agents, 190 were approved in both the United States and Europe (either by the EMA or through the mutual recognition process), of which 121 (63.7%) were first approved in the United States; similarly, 154 were approved in both the United States and Canada, of which 132 (85.7%) were first approved in the United States. CONCLUSIONS For novel therapeutic agents approved between 2001 and 2010, the FDA reviewed applications involving novel therapeutics more quickly, on average, than did the EMA or Health Canada, and the vast majority of these new therapeutic agents were first approved for use in the United States. (Funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts.)

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.

Low-income and minority communities are disproportionately affected by incarceration, which exacerbates health disparities. Through enhanced primary care, the Transitions Clinic Network (TCN) seeks to improve the health of people with chronic conditions who return to their communities from prison. Using TCN data, we assessed the impact of early engagement in primary care and referral from correctional systems to TCN on the use of acute care (emergency department visits and hospitalizations) and recidivism. Of 751 patients, 29.8 percent were referred by correctional partners, and 52.7 percent were engaged in TCN care within one month after release. In the twelve months after release, patients referred by correctional partners had fewer acute care visits, compared to those referred by community-based partners, while early engagement was associated with more acute care visits. Neither referral by correctional partners nor early engagement was significantly associated with recidivism. Our findings suggest that health equity for this vulnerable population could be achieved through improved coordination between correctional and community health care systems.

BackgroundPivotal trials, the clinical studies that inform U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval decisions, provide the foundational evidence supporting the safety and efficacy of novel therapeutics. We determined the representation of the elderly, women, and patients from racial and ethnic minorities in pivotal trials and whether the FDA is making subgroup efficacy analyses among these subpopulations available to the public.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional study of novel therapeutics approved by the FDA between 2011 and 2013. Using publicly available FDA documents, we collected information on the demographic characteristics of pivotal trial participants (age ≥65 years, sex [male, female], race [white, black, Asian, other], and ethnicity [Hispanic, non-Hispanic]) and determined the availability of subgroup analyses by age, sex, race, and ethnicity.ResultsWe identified 86 novel therapeutic that were approved by the FDA between 2011 and 2013 for 92 indications on the basis of 206 pivotal trials. The median age of pivotal trial patients was 53.1 years (interquartile range 40.6–60.6), and the mean proportion of patients ≥65 years of age was 28.9 % (95 % CI 23.5–34.4 %). Similar proportions of pivotal trial participants were male (mean 50.3 %, 95 % CI 45.3–55.2 %) and female (mean 49.7 %, 95 % CI 44.7–54.7 %). Most participants were white (mean 79.2 %, 95 % CI 75.9–82.6 %), while the mean proportion of black patients was 7.4 % (95 % CI 5.5–9.3 %), that of Asian patients was 7.4 % (95 % CI 5.2–9.7 %), and that of patients of other races was 5.9 % (95 % CI 4.4–7.5 %). Information about ethnicity was available for only 59.8 % of indications, and where such data were available, the mean proportion of Hispanic participants was 13.3 % (95 % CI 10.3–16.3 %). FDA reviewers performed and made available subgroup efficacy analyses by age, sex, and race for at least one of the pivotal trials used as the basis of approval for over 80 % of indications.ConclusionsAlthough women are equally represented in pivotal trials supporting recent novel therapeutic approvals by the FDA, elderly patients and those from racial and ethnic minorities are underrepresented. FDA reviewers generally perform subgroup efficacy analyses by age, sex, and race and make these subgroup analyses available to the public.

This study assessed the relationship between solitary confinement and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms in a cohort of recently released former prisoners. The cross-sectional design utilized baseline data from the Transitions Clinic Network, a multi-site prospective longitudinal cohort study of post-incarceration medical care. Our main independent variable was self-reported solitary confinement during the participants' most recent incarceration; the dependent variable was the presence of PTSD symptoms determined by primary care (PC)-PTSD screening when participants initiated primary care in the community. We used multivariable logistic regression to adjust for potential confounders, such as prior mental health conditions, age, and gender. Among 119 participants, 43% had a history of solitary confinement and 28% screened positive for PTSD symptoms. Those who reported a history of solitary confinement were more likely to report PTSD symptoms than those without solitary confinement (43 vs. 16%, p < 0.01). In multivariable logistic regression, a history of solitary confinement (OR = 3.93, 95% CI 1.57-9.83) and chronic mental health conditions (OR = 4.04, 95% CI 1.52-10.68) were significantly associated with a positive PTSD screen after adjustment for the potential confounders. Experiencing solitary confinement was significantly associated with PTSD symptoms among individuals accessing primary care following release from prison. Larger studies should confirm these findings.

BackgroundRegistration of clinical trials is critical for promoting transparency and integrity in medical research; however, trials must be registered in a prospective fashion to deter unaccounted protocol modifications or selection of alternate outcomes that may enhance favorability of reported findings. We assessed adherence to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ (ICMJE) prospective registration policy and identified the frequency of registrations occurring after potential observation of primary outcome data among trials published in the highest-impact journals associated with US professional medical societies. Additionally, we examined whether trials that are unregistered or registered after potential observation of primary outcome data were more likely to report favorable findings.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective, cross-sectional analysis of the 50 most recently published clinical trials that reported primary results in each of the ten highest-impact US medical specialty society journals between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2015. We used descriptive statistics to characterize the proportions of trials that were: registered; registered retrospectively; registered retrospectively potentially after initial ascertainment of primary outcomes; and reporting favorable findings, overall and stratified by journal and trial characteristics. Chi-squared analyses were performed to assess differences in registration by journal and trial characteristics.ResultsWe reviewed 6869 original research reports published between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2015 to identify a total of 486 trials across 472 publications. Of these 486 trials, 47 (10%) were unregistered. Among 439 registered trials, 340 (77%) were registered prospectively and 99 (23%) retrospectively. Sixty-seven (68%) of these 99 retrospectively registered trials, or 15% of all 439 registered trials, were registered after potential observation of primary outcome data ascertained among participants enrolled at inception. Industry-funded trials, those with enrollment sites in the US, as well as those assessing FDA-regulated interventions each had lower rates of retrospective registration. Unregistered trials were more likely to report favorable findings than were registered trials (89% vs. 64%; relative risk (RR) = 1.38, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 1.20–1.58; p = 0.004), irrespective of registration timing.ConclusionsAdherence to the ICMJE’s prospective registration policy remains sub-standard, even in the highest-impact journals associated with US professional medical societies. These journals frequently published unregistered trials and trials registered after potential observation of primary outcome data.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13063-018-2825-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.