Literature DB >> 18957629

Choice of comparator in active control trials of new drugs.

Johan C F van Luijn1, Arie C van Loenen, Frank W J Gribnau, Hubert G M Leufkens.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: When choosing the active control group in a randomized trial, it is important to maintain standard treatment for the therapeutic indication for which a medicine is studied. This choice is relevant not only for demonstrating the efficacy and safety of a new drug, but also for assessing its place in therapy in comparison with existing medicines. Comparative information is important for decisions on prescribing and reimbursement. However, choosing the most suitable comparator is difficult when recommendations on drugs of first choice vary depending on clinical settings and times.
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the choice of comparator in premarketing randomized active control trials (RaCTs) in comparison with recommendations for standard treatment.
METHODS: We evaluated drugs that were authorized for use in the European Union market between 1999 and 2005. Information on active comparators in RaCTs was extracted from the European Public Assessment Reports and information on recommendations regarding standard treatment was retrieved from the annual editions of the Dutch reference book on pharmacotherapy. Data on prescribing and indications at the time of authorization and 3 years before authorization were included. The comparator was considered to be in line with standard treatment if there was a similarity in both active substance or therapeutic class and the dosage.
RESULTS: For 58 new medications identified, treatment in the active control group was in line with the recommended standard treatment in 108 of 153 (71%) RaCTs at the time of the drug's authorization; 47 (81%) of the new drugs had been compared with the recommended standard treatment in at least one trial. When dissimilarities occurred, none of the comparators had been recommended as standard treatment 3 years earlier (the supposed time of defining the trials' protocol).
CONCLUSIONS: Most comparators in the premarketing RaCTs of new medicines were in line with the recommended standard treatment at the moment of marketing authorization. In view of this similarity, most of these trials are also fit for postmarketing decision-making on prescribing and on inclusion in clinical guidelines and reimbursement systems.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18957629     DOI: 10.1345/aph.1L115

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Pharmacother        ISSN: 1060-0280            Impact factor:   3.154


  6 in total

1.  Defining innovations of therapeutic interventions: a position paper by the Italian Society of Hospital Pharmacists.

Authors:  Silvia Adami; Susanna Ciampalini; Marisa Dell'Aera; Roberta Di Turi; Annalisa Ferrarese; Andrea Messori; Angelo Palozzo; Piera Polidori; Marilena Romero; Francesca Venturini
Journal:  Int J Clin Pharm       Date:  2012-04

2.  SPIRIT 2013 explanation and elaboration: guidance for protocols of clinical trials.

Authors:  An-Wen Chan; Jennifer M Tetzlaff; Peter C Gøtzsche; Douglas G Altman; Howard Mann; Jesse A Berlin; Kay Dickersin; Asbjørn Hróbjartsson; Kenneth F Schulz; Wendy R Parulekar; Karmela Krleza-Jeric; Andreas Laupacis; David Moher
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2013-01-08

3.  Comparator bias: why comparisons must address genuine uncertainties.

Authors:  Howard Mann; Benjamin Djulbegovic
Journal:  J R Soc Med       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 5.344

4.  A systematic review of pharmacoeconomic evaluations of erlotinib in the first-line treatment of advanced non-small cell lung cancer.

Authors:  Cuc Thi Thu Nguyen; Fabio Petrelli; Stefania Scuri; Binh Thanh Nguyen; Iolanda Grappasonni
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2019-03-06

5.  Superior efficacy of new medicines?

Authors:  Johan C F van Luijn; Frank W J Gribnau; Hubert G M Leufkens
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2010-03-12       Impact factor: 2.953

6.  Regulatory scientific advice on non-inferiority drug trials.

Authors:  Grace Wangge; Michelle Putzeist; Mirjam J Knol; Olaf H Klungel; Christine C Gispen-De Wied; Antonius de Boer; Arno W Hoes; Hubert G Leufkens; Aukje K Mantel-Teeuwisse
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-09-05       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.