Globalization of clinical trials: Variation in estimated regional costs of pivotal trials, 2015–2016

2019 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 329-333 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yao Qiao ◽  
G Caleb Alexander ◽  
Thomas J Moore

Background/Aims Despite the increasing globalization of clinical trials, little is known regarding how the trial site costs vary around the world. We quantified the geographical distribution and regional cost differences for the clinical trials that established the benefits for new therapeutic drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2015 and 2016. Methods We included all pivotal clinical trials for 59 new molecular entities approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2015 and 2016 that included at least one site in North America. We derived cost estimates from IQVIA’s CostPro, a global clinical trial cost-estimating tool used by pharmaceutical sponsors. We assessed the patient and site allocation of these trials across eight geographic regions. To quantify the region-specific cost differences, we conducted a within-trial comparison by expressing the estimated regional costs associated with the sites in each global region as a percent of the same costs in North America. We also estimated the percentage breakdown of regional cost components (pass-through, site management, regulatory, and study conduct costs) for each trial and for all endpoints reported the median and interquartile range. Results Overall, 127 pivotal clinical trials enrolled 91,415 patients from 13,264 sites. Most patients (60.3%) and sites (57.3%) were outside North America. A median of 66% of the total estimated trial costs (interquartile range: 60%–72%) were spent on regional tasks, with the largest share (53.3%) going directly to trial sites and the remainder going to other regional trial management tasks. Differences were greatest in four lower cost regions: Africa, with an estimated regional cost per site of 49% of North America (interquartile range: 44%–56%), Central Europe 50% (interquartile range: 41%–63%), Middle East 53% (interquartile range: 42%–64%) and Latin America 59% (interquartile range: 50%–70%). Overall, 90 (71%) of the 127 pivotal trials had a total of 3160 sites in these lower cost regions. In contrast, savings were more limited in Western Europe, Oceania, and Asia, where estimated regional costs were 78% of North America (interquartile range: 67%–89%). One-quarter of the trials with sites in Asia and Oceana did not achieve cost savings in those regions relative to North America. Conclusion Among this sample of pivotal trials for recently approved US Food and Drug Administration products, most patients and sites enrolled were outside of North America, with selection of regional sites having a significant impact on total trial costs.

2004 ◽  
Vol 22 (22) ◽  
pp. 4626-4631 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lilia Talarico ◽  
Gang Chen ◽  
Richard Pazdur

Purpose To analyze the age-related enrollment of cancer patients onto registration trials of new drugs or new indications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration from 1995 to 2002. Patients and Methods This study involved retrospective analyses of demographic data of cancer patients enrolled onto registration trials. The data on 28,766 cancer patients from 55 registration trials were analyzed according to age distributions of ≥ 65, ≥ 70, and ≥ 75 years. The rates of enrollment in each age group for each cancer were compared with the corresponding rates in the US cancer population. The age distributions of the US cancer population were derived from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program of the National Cancer Institute for the period 1995 to 1999 based on the 2000 US Census. Results The proportions of the overall patient populations aged ≥ 65, ≥ 70, and ≥ 75 years were 36%, 20%, and 9% compared with 60%, 46%, and 31%, respectively, in the US cancer population. Statistically significant under-representation of the elderly (P < .001) was noted in registration trials for all cancer treatment except for breast cancer hormonal therapies. Patients aged ≥ 70 years accounted for most of the under-representation. Conclusion Elderly were under-represented in the registration trials of new cancer therapies. Various strategies may be needed to evaluate cancer therapies for the elderly in prospective clinical trials and to improve cancer care in the elderly population.


2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 661-666 ◽  
Author(s):  
C. Daniel Mullins ◽  
Russ Montgomery ◽  
Amy P. Abernethy ◽  
Arif Hussain ◽  
Steven D. Pearson ◽  
...  

Purpose To provide recommendations to trialists and sponsors that guide the design and implementation of prospective postapproval clinical trials for oncology drugs used outside US Food and Drug Administration–labeled indications for treatment of late-stage cancers. Methods A meeting was hosted by the Center for Medical Technology Policy in Baltimore, MD, on November 12, 2009. Discussions during the meeting and key informant interviews were conducted before and after this stakeholder meeting. Peer review by multidisciplinary stakeholders was followed by a public comment period. Input was received from patient advocacy groups, medical oncologists, pharmaceutical companies, the US Food and Drug Administration, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the National Cancer Institute, foreign government agencies involved in health technology assessment, public and private payers, drug compendia, clinical research entities, statisticians, academics, and the American Society of Clinical Oncology. Results To address the needs of patients and their clinical providers, compendia, payers, and policy makers, recommendations are proposed to guide the design of future prospective trials for off-label use of oncology drugs across four areas: trial design and data analysis, patient and site recruitment, comparators, and outcomes. Conclusion The US Food and Drug Administration provides guidance to the pharmaceutical industry and others designing randomized clinical trials for regulatory approval. However, a gap exists for postregulatory decision makers, including patients, prescribers, and payers, because regulatory trials do not answer the questions most relevant to them. Therefore, guidance is needed for trials performed in the postapproval environment for these postapproval decision makers.


2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (5) ◽  
pp. e193410 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joshua J. Skydel ◽  
Anita T. Luxkaranayagam ◽  
Sanket S. Dhruva ◽  
Joseph S. Ross ◽  
Joshua D. Wallach

2021 ◽  
pp. 174077452110050
Author(s):  
Joshua J Skydel ◽  
Audrey D Zhang ◽  
Sanket S Dhruva ◽  
Joseph S Ross ◽  
Joshua D Wallach

Background/Aims The US Food and Drug Administration outlines clinical studies as postmarketing requirements and commitments to be fulfilled following approval of new drugs and biologics (“therapeutics”). Regulators have increasingly emphasized lifecycle evaluation of approved therapeutics, and postmarketing studies are intended to advance our understanding of therapeutic safety and efficacy. However, little is known about the indications that clinical studies outlined in postmarketing requirements and commitments investigate, including whether they are intended to generate evidence for approved or other clinical indications. Therefore, we characterized US Food and Drug Administration postmarketing requirements and commitments for new therapeutics approved from 2009 to 2018. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional study of all novel therapeutics, including small-molecule drugs and biologics, receiving original US Food and Drug Administration approval from 2009 to 2018, using approval letters accessed through the Drug@FDA database. Outcomes included the number and characteristics of US Food and Drug Administration postmarketing requirements and commitments for new therapeutics at original approval, including the types of studies outlined, the indications to be investigated, and the clinical evidence to be generated. Results From 2009 to 2018, the US Food and Drug Administration approved 343 new therapeutics with 1978 postmarketing requirements and commitments. Overall, 750 (37.9%) postmarketing requirements and commitments outlined clinical studies. For 71 of 343 (20.7%) therapeutics, no postmarketing requirements or commitments for clinical studies were outlined, while at least 1 was outlined for 272 (79.3%; median 2 (interquartile range: 1–4)). Among these 272 therapeutics, the number of postmarketing requirements and commitments for clinical studies per therapeutic did not change from 2009 (median: 2 (interquartile range: 1–4)) to 2018 (median: 2 (interquartile range: 1–3)). Among the 750 postmarketing requirements and commitments for clinical studies, 448 (59.7%) outlined new prospective cohort studies, registries, or clinical trials, while the remainder outlined retrospective studies, secondary analyses, or completion of ongoing studies. Although 455 (60.7%) clinical studies investigated only original approved therapeutic indications, 123 (16.4%) enrolled from an expansion of the approved disease population and 61 (8.1%) investigated diseases unrelated to approved indications. Conclusions The US Food and Drug Administration approves most new therapeutics with at least 1 postmarketing requirement or commitment for a clinical study, and outlines investigations of safety or efficacy for both approved and unapproved indications. The median number of 2 clinical studies outlined has remained relatively constant over the last decade. Given increasing emphasis by the US Food and Drug Administration on faster approval and lifecycle evaluation of therapeutics, these findings suggest that more postmarketing requirements and commitments may be necessary to address gaps in the clinical evidence available for therapeutics at approval.


2019 ◽  
Vol 173 (1) ◽  
pp. 60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kanecia O. Zimmerman ◽  
P. Brian Smith ◽  
Ann W. McMahon ◽  
Jean Temeck ◽  
Debbie Avant ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document