AIMS: Clinical trials constitute the gold standard to assess the efficacy and safety of new medicines. However, because they are conducted in standardized conditions far from the real world of prescription and use, discrepancies in patient selection or treatment conditions may alter both the effectiveness and risks. On the basis of three examples, our objectives were to study the differences between the characteristics of treated populations and treatment patterns in clinical trials and in postmarketing settings and to discuss the potential consequences on actual efficacy and safety. METHODS: Treated populations were compared with patients included in premarketing clinical trials. Comparisons were made on the basis of demographic characteristics and treatment patterns. RESULTS: Whatever the indicator and the drug studied, differences were observed: from 0.04% to 63% for tacrine, from 0% to 37% for celecoxib and from 6% to 52% for simvastatin, with possible consequences on the effectiveness and safety of the drug concerned. Our results confirm the under-representation of women and elderly patients in premarketing clinical trials, e.g. an M : F ratio of 4.6 in clinical trails of simvastatin vs 1.0 in the joint population. Moreover, the concomitant use of medicines was made extremely restrictive by the protocols of these trials while this was not the case in the postmarketing phase. This has possible consequences on the effectiveness and safety of the drug concerned. CONCLUSIONS: These results plead for systematic ad hoc observational postmarketing studies for any novel and/or expensive medicine to assess the relevance of premarketing data.
AIMS: Clinical trials constitute the gold standard to assess the efficacy and safety of new medicines. However, because they are conducted in standardized conditions far from the real world of prescription and use, discrepancies in patient selection or treatment conditions may alter both the effectiveness and risks. On the basis of three examples, our objectives were to study the differences between the characteristics of treated populations and treatment patterns in clinical trials and in postmarketing settings and to discuss the potential consequences on actual efficacy and safety. METHODS: Treated populations were compared with patients included in premarketing clinical trials. Comparisons were made on the basis of demographic characteristics and treatment patterns. RESULTS: Whatever the indicator and the drug studied, differences were observed: from 0.04% to 63% for tacrine, from 0% to 37% for celecoxib and from 6% to 52% for simvastatin, with possible consequences on the effectiveness and safety of the drug concerned. Our results confirm the under-representation of women and elderly patients in premarketing clinical trials, e.g. an M : F ratio of 4.6 in clinical trails of simvastatin vs 1.0 in the joint population. Moreover, the concomitant use of medicines was made extremely restrictive by the protocols of these trials while this was not the case in the postmarketing phase. This has possible consequences on the effectiveness and safety of the drug concerned. CONCLUSIONS: These results plead for systematic ad hoc observational postmarketing studies for any novel and/or expensive medicine to assess the relevance of premarketing data.
Authors: L S Simon; A L Weaver; D Y Graham; A J Kivitz; P E Lipsky; R C Hubbard; P C Isakson; K M Verburg; S S Yu; W W Zhao; G S Geis Journal: JAMA Date: 1999-11-24 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: J L Goldstein; P Correa; W W Zhao; A M Burr; R C Hubbard; K M Verburg; G S Geis Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2001-04 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: W G Bensen; S Z Zhao; T A Burke; R A Zabinski; R W Makuch; C J Maurath; N M Agrawal; G S Geis Journal: J Rheumatol Date: 2000-08 Impact factor: 4.666
Authors: W G Bensen; J J Fiechtner; J I McMillen; W W Zhao; S S Yu; E M Woods; R C Hubbard; P C Isakson; K M Verburg; G S Geis Journal: Mayo Clin Proc Date: 1999-11 Impact factor: 7.616
Authors: J L Montastruc; V Rousseau; L Chebane; D Abadie; E Bondon-Guitton; G Durrieu; F Montastruc; H Bagheri Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2015-07-22 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Vincent Lo Re; Kevin Haynes; David Goldberg; Kimberly A Forde; Dena M Carbonari; Kimberly B F Leidl; Sean Hennessy; K Rajender Reddy; Pamala A Pawloski; Gregory W Daniel; T Craig Cheetham; Aarthi Iyer; Kara O Coughlin; Sengwee Toh; Denise M Boudreau; Nandini Selvam; William O Cooper; Mano S Selvan; Jeffrey J VanWormer; Mark I Avigan; Monika Houstoun; Gwen L Zornberg; Judith A Racoosin; Azadeh Shoaibi Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2013-06-25 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: A Deruchie Tan; K Willemsma; A MacNeill; K DeVries; A Srikanthan; C McGahan; T Hamilton; H Li; C D Blanke; C E Simmons Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2020-06-01 Impact factor: 3.677