Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36165094›Full record

ArticleClinical and translational science2022

Clinical pharmacology information in regulatory submissions and labeling: A comparative analysis of orphan and non-orphan drugs approved by the FDA.

Julie Hsieh, Martina Sahre, Xinning Yang, Rajanikanth Madabushi, Anuradha Ramamoorthy

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and translational science, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. An Analysis of Dosing-Related Postmarketing Requirements for Novel Oncology Drugs Approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, 2012-2022.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2024
    Article
  3. 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

5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Julie HsiehOffice of Clinical Pharmacology, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.
Martina SahreOffice of Clinical Pharmacology, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.
Xinning YangOffice of Clinical Pharmacology, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.
Rajanikanth MadabushiOffice of Clinical Pharmacology, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.
Anuradha RamamoorthyOffice of Clinical Pharmacology, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.
United States Food and Drug Administration · USCenter for Drug Evaluation and Research · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Clinical pharmacology is an integral discipline supporting the development, regulatory evaluation, and clinical use of drugs for the treatment of both common and rare diseases. Here, we evaluated the recommendations and information available from select clinical pharmacology studies in the therapeutic product labeling of new molecular entities (NMEs) approved from 2017 to 2019 for both common and rare diseases. A total of 151 NMEs, including 72 orphan and 79 non-orphan drugs, were analyzed for recommendations and information available related to food-drug interaction, drug-drug interaction, renal impairment, hepatic impairment, QT assessment, and human radiolabeled mass balance studies using data collected from the original labeling and other regulatory documents. The analysis showed no statistically significant difference in the recommendations between orphan and non-orphan drugs except for renal impairment related recommendations in section 8 of the labeling. Although not significant, fewer hepatic impairment labeling recommendations were available for orphan drugs when compared with non-orphan drugs. At the time of initial approval, 79 postmarketing requirements (PMRs) and postmarketing commitments (PMCs) for 33 orphan drugs and 39 PMRs and PMCs for 19 non-orphan drugs were established; with most difference observed for drug-drug interaction, hepatic impairment, and QT assessment. Overall, although there was a trend for more labeling recommendations and fewer postmarketing studies and clinical trials for non-orphan drugs, there appeared to be no substantial differences in how these select clinical pharmacology studies are leveraged during the development and approval of orphan and non-orphan drugs.

Indexed as

Drug ApprovalPharmacology, ClinicalHumansProduct LabelingRare DiseasesUnited StatesUnited States Food and Drug Administration

Identifiers

PMID36165094
PMCPMC9652444
OpenAlexW4297249754

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.