2014
DOI: 10.1001/jama.2013.282034
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Clinical Trial Evidence Supporting FDA Approval of Novel Therapeutic Agents, 2005-2012

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

9
390
2
7

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 354 publications
(416 citation statements)
references
References 18 publications
9
390
2
7
Order By: Relevance
“…We did not specifically assess the characteristics of pivotal trials in this study, but for the 55 oncology novel therapeutic agents approved by the FDA between 2005 and 2012, only half of the pivotal trials were randomized, 27% were double-blind, and only 16% had a clinical outcome as a primary end point, reflecting a lower level of evidence of studies for FDA approval in oncology compared with nononcology areas. 37 This finding could be explained in part by the high frequency of orphan drugs in oncology and the lower level of evidence for such drugs compared with nonorphan oncology drugs. 38 This relatively low level of evidence of trials could also be explained by the high number of indications (either the first or subsequent ones) approved under the accelerated approval process; pivotal studies supporting accelerated approvals are often early-phase, nonrandomized trials using surrogate end points.…”
Section: U N Gmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We did not specifically assess the characteristics of pivotal trials in this study, but for the 55 oncology novel therapeutic agents approved by the FDA between 2005 and 2012, only half of the pivotal trials were randomized, 27% were double-blind, and only 16% had a clinical outcome as a primary end point, reflecting a lower level of evidence of studies for FDA approval in oncology compared with nononcology areas. 37 This finding could be explained in part by the high frequency of orphan drugs in oncology and the lower level of evidence for such drugs compared with nonorphan oncology drugs. 38 This relatively low level of evidence of trials could also be explained by the high number of indications (either the first or subsequent ones) approved under the accelerated approval process; pivotal studies supporting accelerated approvals are often early-phase, nonrandomized trials using surrogate end points.…”
Section: U N Gmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Pues bien, el 35% de re-análisis publicados de ensayos clínicos dieron lugar a diferencias en los resultados respecto de los originalmente publicados, que afectaban a los tipos y número de pacientes que deberían ser tratados 13 . Hay que destacar que, habitualmente, las agencias de regulación exigen -excepto para oncología-la realización de dos (o más) ensayos confirmatorios de eficacia (fase 3) para la autorización de nuevos medicamentos 14 ; estos 2 ensayos, en la mayoría de los casos son prácticamente idénticos (en criterios de selección, posología y variables de evaluación), lo que viene a ser una replicación simultánea.…”
Section: Qué Sabemos Hoy De La Reproducibilidad De Las Investigacioneunclassified
“…The three major points made and documented in these sources (22)(23)(24)(25) and elsewhere (1,(26)(27)(28) are listed below.…”
Section: Clinical Trialsmentioning
confidence: 99%