ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2010
Superior efficacy of new medicines?
Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- When comparing the safety of drugs, don't forget the exposure dimension.Clinical kidney journal · 2023Article
- Few new drugs deserve expedited regulatory treatment.Journal of managed care & specialty pharmacy · 2021Article
- EMA and FDA psychiatric drug trial guidelines: assessment of guideline development and trial design recommendations.Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences · 2021Article
- Pension and state funds dominating biomedical R&D investment: fiduciary duty and public health.Globalization and health · 2019Article
- Molecular Imaging in Drug Discovery and Development.Circulation. Cardiovascular imaging · 2018Review
- Assessment of the therapeutic value of new medicines marketed in Australia.Journal of pharmaceutical policy and practice · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo provide an overview of and discuss newly authorised medicines with an improved efficacy.
methodsThis analysis focussed on new medicines with an improved efficacy based on the results of randomised active control trials. Information on comparative efficacy was obtained from the European Medicines Agency European Public Assessment Reports.
resultsBetween 1999 and 2005 we identified 122 new medicines with a new active substance. Of these, 13 (10%) were shown to be superior to already available medicines in terms a statistically significant difference in primary clinical endpoints.
conclusionsA proven advantage in efficacy at an early stage of drug development is the exception rather than the rule. The absence of evidence demonstrating differences between medicines does not necessarily mean that there are no actual differences. Optimal pharmacotherapy would benefit from more comparative research in the development of new medicines. The results of comparative trials need to be critically evaluated for their specific value in clinical practice. To this end, prescription data may be helpful.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.