IMPORTANCE Many investigational drugs fail in late-stage clinical development. A better understanding of why investigational drugs fail can inform clinical practice, regulatory decisions, and future research. OBJECTIVE To assess factors associated with regulatory approval or reasons for failure of investigational therapeutics in phase 3 or pivotal trials and rates of publication of trial results. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Using public sources and commercial databases, we identified investigational therapeutics that entered pivotal trials between 1998 and 2008, with follow-up through 2015. Agents were classified by therapeutic area, orphan designation status, fast track designation, novelty of biological pathway, company size, and as a pharmacologic or biologic product. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES For each product, we identified reasons for failure (efficacy, safety, commercial) and assessed the rates of publication of trial results. We used multivariable logistic regression models to evaluate factors associated with regulatory approval. RESULTS Among 640 novel therapeutics, 344 (54%) failed in clinical development, 230 (36%) were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and 66 (10%) were approved in other countries but not by the FDA. Most products failed due to inadequate efficacy (n = 195; 57%), while 59 (17%) failed because of safety concerns and 74 (22%) failed due to commercial reasons. The pivotal trial results were published in peer-reviewed journals for 138 of the 344 (40%) failed agents. Of 74 trials for agents that failed for commercial reasons, only 6 (8.1%) were published. In analyses adjusted for therapeutic area, agent type, firm size, orphan designation, fast-track status, trial year, and novelty of biological pathway, orphan-designated drugs were significantly more likely than nonorphan drugs to be approved (46% vs 34%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.3; 95% CI, 1.4-3.7). Cancer drugs (27% vs 39%; aOR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3-0.9) and agents sponsored by small and medium-size companies (28% vs 42%; aOR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.3-0.7) were significantly less likely to be approved. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Roughly half of investigational drugs entering late-stage clinical development fail during or after pivotal clinical trials, primarily because of concerns about safety, efficacy, or both. Results for the majority of studies of investigational drugs that fail are not published in peer-reviewed journals.

No abstract

No abstract

ObjectiveTo characterize the therapeutic value of new drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the association between these ratings and regulatory approval through expedited programs.DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingNew drugs approved by the FDA and EMA between 2007 and 2017, with follow-up through 1 April 2020.Data sourcesTherapeutic value was measured using ratings of new drugs by five independent organizations (Prescrire and health authorities of Canada, France, Germany, and Italy).Main outcome measuresProportion of new drugs rated as having high therapeutic value; association between high therapeutic value rating and expedited status.ResultsFrom 2007 through 2017, the FDA and EMA approved 320 and 268 new drugs, respectively, of which 181 (57%) and 39 (15%) qualified for least one expedited program. Among 267 new drugs with a therapeutic value rating, 84 (31%) were rated as having high therapeutic value by at least one organization. Compared with non-expedited drugs, a greater proportion of expedited drugs were rated as having high therapeutic value among both FDA approvals (45% (69/153) v 13% (15/114); P<0.001) and EMA approvals (67% (18/27) v 27% (65/240); P<0.001). The sensitivity and specificity of expedited program for a drug being independently rated as having high therapeutic value were 82% (95% confidence interval 72% to 90%) and 54% (47% to 62%), respectively, for the FDA, compared with 25.3% (16.4% to 36.0%) and 90.2% (85.0% to 94.1%) for the EMA.ConclusionsLess than a third of new drugs approved by the FDA and EMA over the past decade were rated as having high therapeutic value by at least one of five independent organizations. Although expedited drugs were more likely than non-expedited drugs to be highly rated, most expedited drugs approved by the FDA but not the EMA were rated as having low therapeutic value.

Quality of life outcomes provide essential information for patients and physicians in oncology care. However, the validity of progression‐free survival (PFS) as a surrogate for quality of life, and the inclusion and reporting of quality of life endpoints in clinical trials, is unclear. We performed a retrospective study of phase III clinical trials of drugs for advanced or metastatic solid tumors published between 2010 and 2015. Correlation coefficient (r) and area under the ROC curve (AUC) for association between PFS and positive quality of life were evaluated. Of the 352 Phase 3 trials included, 190 (54%) included a quality of life endpoint, of which 23% did not report pre‐specified quality of life outcomes; a total of 125,962 patients were enrolled in studies lacking, or not reporting, quality of life outcomes. Among the 147 trials that reported quality of life outcomes, 99 (67%) reported no effect, 38 (26%) reported a positive effect and 10 (7%) reported a negative effect of treatment on patients’ global quality of life. The association between PFS and improvement in global quality of life was weak (r = 0.34; AUC = 0.72), as was the association between PFS and improvement in any domain of quality of life. In conclusion, PFS benefit was not strongly correlated with improvements in patients’ quality of life, and, despite the palliative intent of treatments in the advanced/metastatic setting, the availability of quality of life data from clinical trials of cancer drugs was poor.

Although cycloserine (CS) is recommended by the World Health Organization as a second-line agent for the treatment of multidrug-resistant tuberculosis (MDR-TB), safety concerns have impeded its uptake by several national TB programmes. Terizidone (TRD), a structural analogue of cycloserine, may be better tolerated. To assess the safety of CS and TRD for TB treatment, a systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. From articles published up to December 2011, 27 studies with 2164 patients were included in our review of CS use. The pooled estimate for the frequencies of any adverse drug reaction (ADR) from CS was 9.1% (95%CI 6.4-11.7); it was 5.7% (95%CI 3.7-7.6) for psychiatric ADRs, and 1.1% (95%CI 0.2-2.1) for central nervous system (CNS) related ADRs. TRD showed no better to moderately better safety than CS in a systematic review of the available literature. The published evidence suggests that CS is associated with a higher frequency of psychiatric and CNS-related ADRs than other second-line drugs. While data were limited, treatment discontinuation rates appeared to be manageable. There were no significant differences in tolerability by region, study period or combination. As countries review and revise their treatment programmes, CS, and potentially TRD, should be included in MDR-TB treatment regimens. Adequate information on possible ADRs should be provided to patients, their families and attending health care workers. Greater attention to MDR-TB patients' mental health and a significant increase in resources devoted to pharmacovigilance and treatment of MDR-TB are essential.

Purpose The breakthrough therapy program was established in 2012 to expedite the development and review of new medicines. We evaluated the times to approval, efficacy, and safety of breakthrough-designated versus non-breakthrough-designated cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Methods We studied all new cancer drugs approved by the FDA between January 2012 and December 2017. Regulatory and therapeutic characteristics (time to FDA approval, pivotal trial efficacy end point, novelty of mechanism of action) were compared between breakthrough-designated and non-breakthrough-designated cancer drugs. Random-effects meta-regression was used to assess the association between breakthrough therapy designation and hazard ratios for progression-free survival (PFS), response rates (RRs) for solid tumors, serious adverse events, and deaths not attributed to disease progression. Results Between 2012 and 2017, the FDA approved 58 new cancer drugs, 25 (43%) of which received breakthrough therapy designation. The median time to first FDA approval was 5.2 years for breakthrough-designated drugs versus 7.1 years for non-breakthrough-designated drugs (difference, 1.9 years; P = .01). There were no statistically significant differences between breakthrough-designated and non-breakthrough-designated drugs in median PFS gains (8.6 v 4.0 months; P = .11), hazard ratios for PFS (0.43 v 0.51; P = .28), or RRs for solid tumors (37% v 39%; P = .74). Breakthrough therapy-designated drugs were not more likely to act via a novel mechanism of action (36% v 39%; P = 1.00). Rates of deaths (6% v 4%; P = .99) and serious adverse events (38% v 36%; P = 0.93) were also similar in breakthrough-designated and non-breakthrough-designated drugs. Conclusion Breakthrough-designated cancer drugs were associated with faster times to approval, but there was no evidence that these drugs provide improvements in safety or novelty; nor was there a statistically significant efficacy advantage when compared with non-breakthrough-designated drugs.

IMPORTANCE Many medicines prescribed to children have not been studied or formally approved for pediatric use. The Pediatric Research Equity Act of 2003 authorized the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to require pediatric clinical studies.OBJECTIVE To evaluate the characteristics, completion rate, and transparency of study design and results for mandatory pediatric postmarketing studies required under the Pediatric Research Equity Act. DESIGN AND SETTING A retrospective cohort study was conducted of pediatric postmarketing studies required for new drugs and new indications approved by the FDA between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2014, with follow-up through December 1, 2017. Information on the status, design, and results of pediatric studies was obtained from publicly available FDA databases and ClinicalTrials.gov, direct communication with the FDA, and searches of MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science for peer-reviewed publications.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Characteristics and transparency of pediatric studies, results reporting (in ClinicalTrials.gov, peer-reviewed literature, or FDA documents), and availability of pediatric information in drug labels. Rates and times to study completion were evaluated using Cox proportional hazards regression models.RESULTS Between 2007 and 2014, the FDA approved 114 new drugs and new indications for already approved drugs that were subject to Pediatric Research Equity Act requirements. These drugs were associated with 222 required pediatric postmarketing clinical studies. Overall, 75 pediatric studies (33.8%) were completed as of December 1, 2017. The rates of completion were significantly lower for efficacy studies (38 of 132 [28.8%]) compared with pharmacokinetic studies (19 of 34 [55.9%]; adjusted hazard ratio, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.12-0.82). Information on randomization, blinding, comparator, end point, and study size could not be identified for 74 studies (33.3%), and no reason for discontinuation was provided for 29 of the 42 discontinued studies (69.0%). Among the completed studies, the results were reported for 57 (76.0%). At the time of approval, 18 of 114 drug approvals (15.8%) had any pediatric efficacy, safety, or dosing information in their labels. After a median duration of follow-up of 6.8 years (interquartile range, 4.7-9.1 years), 47 of 114 of drug labels (41.2%) had any pediatric information.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Only 33.8% of mandatory pediatric postmarketing studies have been completed after a median follow-up of 6.8 years, and most drug labels do not include information important for pediatric use. To improve evidence-based prescribing of medicines to children, more timely completion of pediatric drug studies is needed.