Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32125472›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of clinical pharmacology2020

Cancer drugs for solid tumors approved by the EMA since 2014: an overview of pivotal clinical trials.

Ruggero Lasala, Andrea Logreco, Alessia Romagnoli, Fiorenzo Santoleri, Felice Musicco, Alberto Costantini

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of clinical pharmacology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Review
  4. Review
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.

Ruggero LasalaHospital Pharmacy of Corato, Local Health Unit of Bari, Bari, Italy. lasalaruggero@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2411-8743
Andrea LogrecoMedicinal Products Authorization Department, Italian Medicine Agency, Rome, Italy.
Alessia RomagnoliPharmacy of Spirito Santo Hospital, Pescara, Italy.
Fiorenzo SantoleriPharmacy of Spirito Santo Hospital, Pescara, Italy.
Felice MusiccoHospital Pharmacy, IFO Regina Elena San Gallicano, Rome, Italy.
Alberto CostantiniPharmacy of Spirito Santo Hospital, Pescara, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionThe European Medicine Agency (EMA) authorizes the marketing of drugs, with the authorization being full, conditional or issued under exceptional circumstances. Usually the efficacy and safety of drugs must be demonstrated in at least 2 well-controlled trials, but this rule is not always observed. The objective of the trial is to provide an overview of the pivotal trials of cancer drugs authorized for marketing in Europe since 2014. MATERIALS AND

methodsFrom the technical data sheets of each drug authorized by the EMA between January 1, 2014 and May 31, 2019, we evaluated the relative pivotal trial(s) in terms of the following characteristics: number of patients, masking, trial phase, number of arms, primary endpoint(s), presence of subgroup analysis, quality of life as endpoint, and value of statistical p. The results provided us with the total number of trials, which we then divided into trials for orphan and non-orphan drugs.

resultsWe considered 38 medicines, 6 of which were classified as orphans, for a total of 96 pivotal trials. Four drugs had conditional authorization, 1 was authorized under exceptional circumstances. Seventeen drugs underwent only 1 pivotal trial to support marketing authorization. Most of the trials were phase 3 and open-label, with 2 arms. Most trials considered the progression-free survival (PFS) as the primary endpoint, less than 30% of trials consider OS as a primary endpoint, and less than 40% of trials reported quality of life. The p values, with very few exceptions, were below 0.05.

conclusionsThe rule of 2 well-controlled trials was complied with in just over 50% of the authorized drugs, and even when there was only 1 pivotal trial supporting the authorization, the trial itself may not have been necessarily well-controlled; the authorization was revoked for a drug because the trial did not confirm the benefits expected from confirmatory trials; while for 2 drugs, the evidence of efficacy yielded by the trials was not considered exhaustive. Considering that sometimes clinical authorization trials do not provide complete data on safety and efficacy, it would be perhaps appropriate to gather more pre-marketing evidence or leverage post-marketing data to complete the available information and have greater certainty.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsCross-Sectional StudiesDrug ApprovalEuropeHumansNeoplasmsOrphan Drug ProductionAntineoplastic AgentsEfficacyMarketing authorizationPivotal trialsSolid tumorsTargeted therapies

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.