Analysis of Supportive Evidence for US Food and Drug Administration Approvals of Novel Drugs in 2020

Abstract

IMPORTANCEIn recent years, drug approvals have been based on fewer, smaller, and less rigorous pivotal trials. Less robust preapproval testing raises questions about the efficacy and clinical value of these drugs. OBJECTIVE To assess the regulatory context, pivotal design characteristics, and postmarket requirements (PMRs) and postmarket commitments (PMCs) of novel 2020 drug approvals to characterize the state of evidence at the time of approval. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS This cohort study identified novel drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Center for Drug Evaluation and Research in 2020. The Drugs@FDA database was used to extract key characteristics of each drug's pivotal trials. Drug approval packages provided regulatory information. The prevalence of key trial design features was compared between oncology and nononcology drugs. EXPOSURES Drug names, date of approval, indication on labeling, and clinical and regulatory details. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Number of pivotal trials, pivotal trial design (randomization, masking, groups), trial comparator, trial hypothesis, trial end points, results, number and type of expedited pathway designations, and number and type of PMRs and PMCs. RESULTSThe 49 novel therapeutics approved in 2020 were supported by 75 pivotal trials. More than half of drugs (28 [57.1%]) were supported by a single pivotal trial. Trial sizes ranged from 19 to 2230 participants. More than three-fourths of trials (57 [76.0%]) had a randomization component, and nearly two-thirds (46 [61.3%]) were double-masked. Most used a superiority approach. Roughly half (39 [52.0%]) compared the novel therapeutic with a placebo or vehicle control; 13 (17.3%), an active control; 2 (2.7%), both a placebo and active control; and 21 (28.0%), a historical, external, or other control. Nearly half of pivotal trials (34 [45.3%]) used a surrogate measure as a primary end point. Pivotal trials supporting oncology approvals were much more likely to have historical controls than nononcology approvals (13 of 18 [72.2%] vs 8 of 57 [14.0%]; P < .001) and to use at least 1 surrogate measure as a primary end point (17 [94.4%] vs 17 [29.8%]; P < .001). Forty drugs had at least 1 PMR or PMC, accounting for 178 PMRs and PMCs across the cohort. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEThese findings suggest that the increased flexibility in the characteristics of acceptable preapproval evidence can be partially explained by the increase in trials of drugs for rare and other serious conditions that require flexible testing strategies as well as the associated regulatory changes that have accumulated over time. The FDA and consumers may (continued) Key Points Question What were the key design characteristics of the pivotal trials supporting novel drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2020? Findings This cohort study of 49 drugs approved by the FDA in 2020 found that they were supported by 75 pivotal trials, of which nearly two-thirds were double-masked, more than threefourths had a randomiz...

Out-of-Pocket Costs of Treatment Among Employer-Insured Women With Invasive Breast Cancer

“…Among a prevalent sample of younger women with invasive breast cancer and employer-sponsored insurance who filled prescriptions for oral anticancer drugs in 2018, most used nonproprietary drugs and had limited OOP costs. Outpatient-related OOP costs were larger than drug costs, and OOP costs were higher among those using branded or more recently launched drugs . Women insured by HDHPs and CDHPs had higher OOP costs compared with those with more generous coverage.…”

“…Outpatient-related OOP costs were larger than drug costs, and OOP costs were higher among those using branded or more recently launched drugs. 5 Women insured by HDHPs and CDHPs had higher OOP costs compared with those with more generous coverage.…”

Assessment of Surrogate End Point Trends in Clinical Trials to Approve Oncology Drugs From 2001 to 2020 in Japan

“… 48 In such early approval efforts, a pivotal study with an SEP is considered inevitable as a clinical trial design. However, at the same time as the aforementioned early approval efforts, it is becoming clear that the FDA has limited data on the clinical benefits of novel cancer drugs at the time of approval 49 , 50 and that the number of randomized clinical trials at the time of approval is decreasing. 51 These 2 points have been identified as issues that need to be resolved.…”

Assessment of FDA-Approved Drugs Not Recommended for Use or Reimbursement in Other Countries, 2017-2020

“…With the proportion of new drugs granted approval by the FDA through expedited regulatory pathways increasing over time, more treatments have been brought to the US market based on fewer, shorter, or otherwise less robust clinical trials . Yet, drugs approved by the FDA through expedited pathways have been associated with higher rates of Medicare coverage compared with drugs approved through standard review .…”

“…[16][17][18][19][20] With the proportion of new drugs granted approval by the FDA through expedited regulatory pathways increasing over time, more treatments have been brought to the US market based on fewer, shorter, or otherwise less robust clinical trials. [21][22][23] Yet, drugs approved by the FDA through expedited pathways have been associated with higher rates of Medicare coverage compared with drugs approved through standard review. 16 Simultaneously, launch prices for newly marketed prescription drugs have increased by 20% each year over the past decade with the median price reaching $180 007 in 2021.…”