Suppr超能文献

2005-2012 年支持 FDA 批准新型治疗药物的临床试验证据。

Clinical trial evidence supporting FDA approval of novel therapeutic agents, 2005-2012.

机构信息

Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut.

Section of General Internal Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine.

出版信息

JAMA. 2014;311(4):368-77. doi: 10.1001/jama.2013.282034.

Abstract

IMPORTANCE

Many patients and physicians assume that the safety and effectiveness of newly approved therapeutic agents is well understood; however, the strength of the clinical trial evidence supporting approval decisions by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not been evaluated.

OBJECTIVES

To characterize pivotal efficacy trials (clinical trials that serve as the basis of FDA approval) for newly approved novel therapeutic agents.

DESIGN AND SETTING

Cross-sectional analysis using publicly available FDA documents for all novel therapeutic agents approved between 2005 and 2012.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Pivotal efficacy trials were classified according to the following design features: randomization, blinding, comparator, and trial end point. Surrogate outcomes were defined as any end point using a biomarker expected to predict clinical benefit. The number of patients, trial duration, and trial completion rates were also determined.

RESULTS

Between 2005 and 2012, the FDA approved 188 novel therapeutic agents for 206 indications on the basis of 448 pivotal efficacy trials. The median number of pivotal trials per indication was 2 (interquartile range, 1-2.5), although 74 indications (36.8%) were approved on the basis of a single pivotal trial. Nearly all trials were randomized (89.3% [95% CI, 86.4%-92.2%]), double-blinded (79.5% [95% CI, 75.7%-83.2%]), and used either an active or placebo comparator (87.1% [95% CI, 83.9%-90.2%]). The median number of patients enrolled per indication among all pivotal trials was 760 (interquartile range, 270-1550). At least 1 pivotal trial with a duration of 6 months or greater supported the approval of 68 indications (33.8% [95% CI, 27.2%-40.4%]). Pivotal trials using surrogate end points as their primary outcome formed the exclusive basis of approval for 91 indications (45.3% [95% CI, 38.3%-52.2%]), clinical outcomes for 67 (33.3% [95% CI, 26.8%-39.9%]), and clinical scales for 36 (17.9% [95% CI, 12.6%-23.3%]). Trial features differed by therapeutic and indication characteristics, such as therapeutic area, expected length of treatment, orphan status, and accelerated approval.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The quality of clinical trial evidence used by the FDA as the basis for recent approvals of novel therapeutic agents varied widely across indications. This variation has important implications for patients and physicians as they make decisions about the use of newly approved therapeutic agents.

摘要

重要性

许多患者和医生认为新批准的治疗药物的安全性和有效性已得到充分了解;然而,尚未评估支持美国食品和药物管理局(FDA)批准决定的临床试验证据的强度。

目的

描述新批准的新型治疗药物的关键疗效试验(作为 FDA 批准基础的临床试验)。

设计和设置

使用公开的 FDA 文件对 2005 年至 2012 年间批准的所有新型治疗药物进行横断面分析。

主要结局和测量指标

根据以下设计特征对关键疗效试验进行分类:随机化、双盲、对照和试验终点。替代终点定义为使用预计可预测临床获益的生物标志物的任何终点。还确定了患者人数、试验持续时间和试验完成率。

结果

2005 年至 2012 年间,FDA 根据 448 项关键疗效试验批准了 188 种新型治疗药物用于 206 种适应症。每种适应症的关键试验中位数为 2 项(四分位距,1-2.5),尽管 74 种适应症(36.8%)仅基于一项关键试验获得批准。几乎所有试验均为随机(89.3%[95%CI,86.4%-92.2%])、双盲(79.5%[95%CI,75.7%-83.2%]),并使用活性或安慰剂对照(87.1%[95%CI,83.9%-90.2%])。所有关键试验中,每种适应症的纳入患者中位数为 760 人(四分位距,270-1550 人)。至少有 1 项持续时间为 6 个月或更长时间的关键试验支持 68 种适应症(33.8%[95%CI,27.2%-40.4%])的批准。使用替代终点作为主要终点的关键试验是 91 种适应症(45.3%[95%CI,38.3%-52.2%])、临床终点 67 种(33.3%[95%CI,26.8%-39.9%])和临床量表 36 种(17.9%[95%CI,12.6%-23.3%])的唯一批准依据。治疗和适应症特征(如治疗领域、预期治疗时间、孤儿药状态和加速批准)不同,试验特征也存在差异。

结论和相关性

FDA 作为新型治疗药物近期批准依据的临床试验证据质量在不同适应症之间差异很大。这对患者和医生在决定使用新批准的治疗药物时具有重要意义。

相似文献

3
4
Premarket Pivotal Trial End Points and Postmarketing Requirements for FDA Breakthrough Therapies.
JAMA Netw Open. 2024 Aug 1;7(8):e2430486. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.30486.
6
Clinical Evidence Supporting US Food and Drug Administration Approval of Otolaryngologic Prescription Drug Indications, 2005-2014.
Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017 Apr;156(4):683-692. doi: 10.1177/0194599816689666. Epub 2017 Jan 24.
7
Analysis of Supportive Evidence for US Food and Drug Administration Approvals of Novel Drugs in 2020.
JAMA Netw Open. 2022 May 2;5(5):e2212454. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.12454.
10
Clinical Trial Evidence Supporting US Food and Drug Administration Approval of Novel Cancer Therapies Between 2000 and 2016.
JAMA Netw Open. 2020 Nov 2;3(11):e2024406. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.24406.

引用本文的文献

2
A scoping review of artificial intelligence applications in clinical trial risk assessment.
NPJ Digit Med. 2025 Jul 30;8(1):486. doi: 10.1038/s41746-025-01886-7.
4
Clinical Burden of Recurrent Disease in High-Risk Endometrial Cancer.
Oncol Ther. 2025 Jul 12. doi: 10.1007/s40487-025-00352-4.
6
Aurora kinases signaling in cancer: from molecular perception to targeted therapies.
Mol Cancer. 2025 Jun 18;24(1):180. doi: 10.1186/s12943-025-02353-3.
7
Surrogate endpoints in diabetic kidney disease: current perspectives and future directions.
Front Endocrinol (Lausanne). 2025 May 21;16:1557813. doi: 10.3389/fendo.2025.1557813. eCollection 2025.
10
A call for transparency, improved reporting, and interpretation of trials using surrogate end points in cardiac electrophysiology.
Heart Rhythm. 2025 Aug;22(8):e492-e499. doi: 10.1016/j.hrthm.2025.02.038. Epub 2025 Feb 26.

本文引用的文献

1
FDA and pharma seek better ways to assess drug safety, efficacy in clinical trials.
JAMA. 2012 Jun 27;307(24):2576-7. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.6684.
2
Regulatory review of novel therapeutics--comparison of three regulatory agencies.
N Engl J Med. 2012 Jun 14;366(24):2284-93. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1200223. Epub 2012 May 16.
4
Communicating uncertainties about prescription drugs to the public: a national randomized trial.
Arch Intern Med. 2011 Sep 12;171(16):1463-8. doi: 10.1001/archinternmed.2011.396.
6
The attitudes of oncology physicians and nurses toward phase I, II, and III cancer clinical trials.
Contemp Clin Trials. 2011 Sep;32(5):649-53. doi: 10.1016/j.cct.2011.04.015. Epub 2011 May 5.
8
Equipoise and the dilemma of randomized clinical trials.
N Engl J Med. 2011 Feb 3;364(5):476-80. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsb1011301.
9
Shattuck lecture. Innovation, regulation, and the FDA.
N Engl J Med. 2010 Dec 2;363(23):2228-32. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1007467.
10

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验