Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26614616›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2015

Use of surrogate outcomes in US FDA drug approvals, 2003-2012: a survey.

Tsung Yu, Yea-Jen Hsu, Kevin M Fain, Cynthia M Boyd, Janet T Holbrook, Milo A Puhan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Tsung YuDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, USA Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Prevention Institute, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Yea-Jen HsuHealth Policy and Management, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Kevin M FainDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, USA.
Cynthia M BoydSchool of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Janet T HolbrookDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, USA.
Milo A PuhanEpidemiology, Biostatistics, and Prevention Institute, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7284-1317

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate, across a spectrum of diseases, how often surrogate outcomes are used as a basis for drug approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and whether and how the rationale for using treatment effects on surrogates as predictors of treatment effects on patient-centred outcomes is discussed. STUDY DESIGN AND

settingWe used the Drugs@FDA website to identify drug approvals produced from 2003 to 2012 by the FDA. We focused on four diseases (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), type 1 or 2 diabetes, glaucoma and osteoporosis) for which surrogates are commonly used in trials. We reviewed the drug labels and medical reviews to provide empirical evidence on how surrogate outcomes are handled by the FDA.

resultsOf 1043 approvals screened, 58 (6%) were for the four diseases of interest. Most drugs for COPD (7/9, 78%), diabetes (26/26, 100%) and glaucoma (9/9, 100%) were approved based on surrogates while for osteoporosis, most drugs (10/14, 71%) were also approved for patient-centred outcomes (fractures). The rationale for using surrogates was discussed in 11 of the 43 (26%) drug approvals based on surrogates. In these drug approvals, we found drug approvals for diabetes are more likely than the other examined conditions to contain a discussion of trial evidence demonstrating that treatment effects on surrogate outcomes predict treatment effects on patient-centred outcomes.

conclusionsOur results suggest that the FDA did not use a consistent approach to address surrogates in assessing the benefits and harms of drugs for COPD, type 1 or 2 diabetes, glaucoma and osteoporosis. For evaluating new drugs, patient-centred outcomes should be chosen whenever possible. If the use of surrogate outcomes is necessary, then a consistent approach is important to review the evidence for surrogacy and consider surrogate's usage in the treatment and population under study.

Indexed as

Treatment OutcomeUnited States Food and Drug AdministrationBiomarkersDiabetes Mellitus, Type 1Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2Drug ApprovalGlaucomaHumansOsteoporosisPatient Outcome AssessmentPulmonary Disease, Chronic ObstructiveUnited StatesBiomarkersEPIDEMIOLOGYGENERAL MEDICINE (see Internal Medicine)STATISTICS & RESEARCH METHODS

Identifiers

PMID26614616
PMCPMC4663404

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.