ArticleJAMA network open2020
Assessment of Clinical Trials Supporting US Food and Drug Administration Approval of Novel Therapeutic Agents, 1995-2017.
Article in JAMA network open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 59 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
59 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Regulatory and clinical outcomes of priority-reviewed innovative cancer drugs in China between 2015 and 2024: an observational study.BMC cancer · 2025Pooled it
- Predicting overall survival benefit in previously untreated, unresectable or metastatic melanoma from improvement in progression-free survival: a correlation meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Treatment Effects in Randomized and Nonrandomized Studies of Pharmacological Interventions: A Meta-Analysis.JAMA network open · 2024Pooled it
- Tumor Response End Points as Surrogates for Overall Survival in Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.JCO precision oncology · 2021Pooled it
- Surrogate markers used as efficacy endpoints in NIH-sponsored clinical trials.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2026Article
- Navigating the Prescription Drug Information System.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Review
- Assessment of United States Food and Drug Administration Approval of Cell and Gene Therapies.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Article
- Online interest in calcitonin gene-related peptide-therapies: An infodemiology study using Google trends.Headache · 2026Article
- Factors influencing FDA drug approval decisions beyond clinical trial evidence: a scoping review.Health affairs scholar · 2026Review
- Premarket and postmarket real-world evidence studies supporting U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulatory decision-making, 2016-2024.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2026Article
- Review
- Assessing safety trends of withdrawn medications: A data-driven pharmacovigilance approach using growth models.Exploratory research in clinical and social pharmacy · 2026Article
- A literature review and reflection on clinical trials: current challenges, future directions, and potential strategies to overcome practical barriers.AME clinical trials review · 2026Article
- Innovative Drugs Approved in China After Registration Classification Reform: Current Status, Disparities, and Challenges.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Article
- The Economics of Drug Development: A Comparison between Orphan and Non-orphan Drugs.Current drug discovery technologies · 2026Article
- Expedited pathway portfolios, trial complexity, and FDA approval timelines in oncology and neurology: A comparative analysis.PloS one · 2026Article
- Article
- Combined P-Value Functions for Compatible Effect Estimation and Hypothesis Testing in Drug Regulation.Statistics in medicine · 2025Article
- Perspectives on prevention of type 1 diabetes and heterogeneities.Diabetologia · 2025Review
- Use of surrogate endpoints in health technology assessment and reimbursement of treatments for the management of chronic kidney disease.EClinicalMedicine · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Importance: Since the introduction of the Fast Track designation in 1988, the number of special regulatory programs available for the approval of new drugs and biologics by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has increased, offering the agency flexibility with respect to evidentiary requirements. Objective: To characterize pivotal efficacy trials supporting the approval of new drugs and biologics during the past 3 decades. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study included 273 new drugs and biologics approved by the FDA for 339 indications from 1995 to 1997, from 2005 to 2007, and from 2015 to 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: Therapeutics were classified by product type and therapeutic area as well as orphan designation and use of special regulatory programs, such as Priority Review and Accelerated Approval. Pivotal trials were characterized by use of randomization, blinding, types of comparators, primary end points, number of treated patients, and trial duration, both individually and aggregated by each indication approval. Results: A total of 273 new drugs and biologics were approved by the FDA in these 3 periods (107 [39.2%] in 1995-1997; 57 [20.9%] in 2005-2007; and 109 [39.9%] in 2015-2017), representing 339 indications (157 [46.3%], 64 [18.9%], and 118 [34.8%], respectively). The proportion of therapeutic approvals using at least 1 special regulatory program increased (37 [34.6%] in 1995-1997; 33 [57.9%] in 2005-2007; and 70 [64.2%] in 2015-2017), as did indication approvals receiving an orphan designation (20 [12.7%] in 1995-1997; 17 [26.6%] in 2005-2007, and 45 [38.1%] in 2015-2017). The most common therapeutic areas differed over time (infectious disease, 53 [33.8%] in 1995-1997 vs cancer, 32 [27.1%] in 2015-2017). When considering the aggregate pivotal trials supporting each indication approval, the proportion of indications supported by at least 2 pivotal trials decreased (80.6% [95% CI, 72.6%-87.2%] in 1995-1997; 60.3% [95% CI, 47.2%-72.4%] in 2005-2007; and 52.8% [95% CI, 42.9%-62.6%] in 2015-2017; P < .001). The proportion of indications supported by only single-group pivotal trials increased (4.0% [95% CI, 1.3%-9.2%] in 1995-1997; 12.7% [95% CI, 5.6%-23.5%] in 2005-2007; and 17.0% [95% CI, 10.4%-25.5%] in 2015-2017; P = .001), whereas the proportion supported by at least 1 pivotal trial of 6 months' duration increased (25.8% [95% CI, 18.4%-34.4%] in 1995-1997; 34.9% [95% CI, 23.3%-48.0%] in 2005-2007; and 46.2% [95% CI, 36.5%-56.2%] in 2015-2017; P = .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, more recent FDA approvals of new drugs and biologics were based on fewer pivotal trials, which, when aggregated by indication, had less rigorous designs but longer trial durations, suggesting an ongoing need for continued evaluation of therapeutic safety and efficacy after approval.
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.