Gap Between Drug Approval and Clinical Needs: Study

Share

A study by researchers from Harvard Medical School and other academic institutions in the U.S. and abroad says that there is a widening gap between regulatory approval and the clinical and public health priorities of health systems, payers, and patients after approval of drugs. Writing in an open-source theBMJ article, the authors say that contributing to the issue may be the varying quality of clinical trial evidence available at the time of approval and the resulting uncertainty around the extent of clinical benefits.

The researchers conducted a retrospective cohort study to characterize the therapeutic value of new drugs approved by FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the association between those ratings and regulatory approval through expedited programs.

They report that less than one-third of new drugs approved by FDA and EMA were rated by any independent organization as having high therapeutic value. While expedited drugs were more likely than non-expedited drugs to be rated as having high therapeutic value, the researchers say that in absolute terms, most drugs in FDA’s expedited programs were rated as having low therapeutic value, even for breakthrough designated therapies and those that qualified for priority review.

“These data emphasize the importance of robust postmarketing evaluation for expedited drugs,” the article says. “Such an evaluation would confirm early evidence of efficacy and help to elucidate findings from several previous studies suggesting that accelerated approval, priority review, and fast track drugs were associated with increased safety-related reports or labeling changes.”

The authors suggest that policymakers and regulators explore ways to better inform patients and doctors about the results of the rating process and limitations of new drug approvals.

Read more