Study: Just half of post­mar­ket­ing com­mit­ment tri­als are pub­lished

A new study pub­lished Mon­day in BMC Med­i­cine finds that on­ly about half of the clin­i­cal tri­als re­quest­ed by the FDA as part of post­mar­ket­ing com­mit­ments for new­ly ap­proved drugs and bi­o­log­ics are pub­lished in peer-re­viewed jour­nals.

The study al­so found that in­for­ma­tion for near­ly half of the post­mar­ket­ing com­mit­ment stud­ies sub­ject to re­port­ing re­quire­ments un­der sec­tion 506B of Fed­er­al Food, Drug, and Cos­met­ic Act (FD­CA) was not up to date.

Con­duct­ed by re­searchers at Yale Uni­ver­si­ty, Uni­ver­si­ty of Con­necti­cut and Uni­ver­si­ty of Cal­i­for­nia, San Fran­cis­co, the study re­viewed post­mar­ket­ing com­mit­ments for the 110 new drugs and bi­o­log­ics ap­proved from 2009-2012.

Un­like post­mar­ket­ing re­quire­ments, which drug­mak­ers must con­duct as a con­di­tion of ap­proval, post­mar­ket­ing com­mit­ments are agreed to by drug­mak­ers at the time of ap­proval and are not re­quired un­der statute or reg­u­la­tion.

More than half (55.5%) of the 110 ap­provals had one or more post­mar­ket­ing com­mit­ment(s), with 33 re­quir­ing a new clin­i­cal tri­al. Of those, 27 were sub­ject to Sec­tion 506B re­port­ing re­quire­ments.

For the stud­ies sub­ject to re­port­ing re­quire­ments, 12 (44.4%) were nei­ther closed nor had an up-to-date sta­tus in pub­licly avail­able data­bas­es on the FDA’s web­site.

The study did find, how­ev­er, that near­ly all the clin­i­cal tri­als re­quest­ed as part of post­mar­ket­ing com­mit­ments were reg­is­tered on Clin­i­cal­Tri­als.gov (90.3%), most of which were marked as com­plet­ed or ter­mi­nat­ed (82.1%). Of the com­plet­ed or ter­mi­nat­ed stud­ies all but one had re­port­ed re­sults.

How­ev­er, the au­thors found that most of the stud­ies (81.8%) that had re­port­ed re­sults on Clin­i­cal­Tri­als.gov re­port­ed their re­sults af­ter the sched­uled sub­mis­sion dead­line.

On­ly about half of the stud­ies that were el­i­gi­ble for pub­li­ca­tion (i.e. com­plet­ed or ter­mi­nat­ed in Clin­i­cal­Tri­als.gov or sub­mit­ted, ful­filled or re­leased ac­cord­ing to the FDA) were pub­lished in peer-re­viewed jour­nals.

“Among the 29 reg­is­tered or un­reg­is­tered stud­ies for which pub­li­ca­tion would be ex­pect­ed based on the most re­cent sta­tus pro­vid­ed by the FDA, phar­ma­ceu­ti­cal com­pa­nies, or on Clin­i­cal­Tri­als.gov, just un­der half were pub­lished in a peer-re­viewed jour­nal (14 of 29 (48.3%)),” the au­thors write.

And while post­mar­ket­ing com­mit­ments on­ly make up 19% of the postap­proval com­mit­ments and re­quire­ments im­posed by the FDA, the au­thors say the da­ta gen­er­at­ed by post­mar­ket­ing com­mit­ments “may be a po­ten­tial­ly im­por­tant source of in­for­ma­tion about drug and bi­o­log­ic safe­ty and ef­fec­tive­ness af­ter mar­ket ap­proval.”

Study


First pub­lished in Reg­u­la­to­ry Fo­cus™ by the Reg­u­la­to­ry Af­fairs Pro­fes­sion­als So­ci­ety, the largest glob­al or­ga­ni­za­tion of and for those in­volved with the reg­u­la­tion of health­care prod­ucts. Click here for more in­for­ma­tion.

So­cial im­age: Shut­ter­stock

It’s fi­nal­ly over: Bio­gen, Ei­sai scrap big Alzheimer’s PhI­I­Is af­ter a pre­dictable BACE cat­a­stro­phe rais­es safe­ty fears

Months after analysts and investors called on Biogen and Eisai to scrap their BACE drug for Alzheimer’s and move on in the wake of a string of late-stage failures and rising safety fears, the partners have called it quits. And they said they were dropping the drug — elenbecestat — after the independent monitoring board raised concerns about…safety.

We don’t know exactly what researchers found in this latest catastrophe, but the companies noted in their release that investigators had determined that the drug was flunking the risk/benefit analysis.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 59,700+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Lisa M. DeAngelis, MSKCC

MSK picks brain can­cer ex­pert Lisa DeAn­ge­lis as its next CMO — fol­low­ing José Basel­ga’s con­tro­ver­sial ex­it

It’s official. Memorial Sloan Kettering has picked a brain cancer expert as its new physician-in-chief and CMO, replacing José Baselga, who left under a cloud after being singled out by The New York Times and ProPublica for failing to properly air his lucrative industry ties.

His replacement, who now will be in charge of MSK’s cutting-edge research work as well as the cancer care delivered by hundreds of practitioners, is Lisa M. DeAngelis. DeAngelis had been chair of the neurology department and co-founder of MSK’s brain tumor center and was moved in to the acting CMO role in the wake of Baselga’s departure.

Penn team adapts CAR-T tech, reengi­neer­ing mouse cells to treat car­diac fi­bro­sis

After establishing itself as one of the pioneer research centers in the world for CAR-T cancer therapies, creating new attack vehicles to eradicate cancer cells, a team at Penn Medicine has begun the tricky transition of using the basic technology for heart repair work.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 59,700+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Tal Zaks. Moderna

The mR­NA uni­corn Mod­er­na has more ear­ly-stage hu­man da­ta it wants to show off — reach­ing new peaks in prov­ing the po­ten­tial

The whole messenger RNA field has attracted billions of dollars in public and private investor cash gambled on the prospect of getting in on the ground floor. And this morning Boston-based Moderna, one of the leaders in the field, wants to show off a few more of the cards it has to play to prove to you that they’re really in the game.

The whole hand, of course, has yet to be dealt. And there’s no telling who gets to walk with a share of the pot. But any cards on display at this point — especially after being accused of keeping its deck under lock and key — will attract plenty of attention from some very wary, and wired, observers.

“In terms of the complexity and unmet need,” says Tal Zaks, the chief medical officer, “this is peak for what we’ve accomplished.”

Moderna has two Phase I studies it wants to talk about now.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 59,700+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

It's not per­fect, but it's a good start: FDA pan­elists large­ly en­dorse Aim­mune's peanut al­ler­gy ther­a­py

Two days after a fairly benign review from FDA staff, an independent panel of experts largely endorsed the efficacy and safety of Aimmune’s peanut allergy therapy, laying the groundwork for approval with a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS).

Traditionally, peanut allergies are managed by avoidance, but the threat of accidental exposure cannot be nullified. Some allergists have devised a way to dose patients off-label with peanut protein derived from supermarket products to wean them off their allergies. But the idea behind Aimmune’s product was to standardize the peanut protein, and track the process of desensitization — so when accidental exposure in the real world invariably occurs, patients are less likely to experience a life-threatening allergic reaction.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 59,700+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Rit­ter bombs fi­nal PhI­II for sole lac­tose in­tol­er­ance drug — shares plum­met

More than two years ago Ritter Pharmaceuticals managed to find enough silver lining in its Phase IIb/III study — after missing the top-line mark — to propel its lactose intolerance toward a confirmatory trial. But as it turned out, the enthusiasm only set the biotech and its investors up to be sorely disappointed.

This time around there’s little left to salvage. Not only did RP-G28 fail to beat placebo in reducing lactose intolerance symptoms, patients in the treatment group actually averaged a smaller improvement. On a composite score measuring symptoms like abdominal pain, cramping, bloating and gas, patients given the drug had a mean reduction of 3.159 while the placebo cohort saw a 3.420 drop on average (one-sided p-value = 0.0106).

Ear­ly snap­shot of Ad­verum's eye gene ther­a­py sparks con­cern about vi­sion loss

An early-stage update on Adverum Biotechnologies’ intravitreal gene therapy has triggered investor concern, after patients with wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD) saw their vision deteriorate, despite signs that the treatment is improving retinal anatomy.

Adverum, on Wednesday, unveiled 24-week data from the OPTIC trial of its experimental therapy, ADVM-022, in six patients who have been administered with one dose of the therapy. On average, patients in the trial had severe disease with an average of 6.2 anti-VEGF injections in the eight months prior to screening and an average annualized injection frequency of 9.3 injections.

Alex Ar­faei trades his an­a­lyst's post for a new role as biotech VC; Sanofi vet heads to Vi­for

Too often, Alex Arfaei arrived too late. 

An analyst at BMO Capital Markets, he’d meet with biotech or pharmaceutical heads for their IPO or secondary funding and his brain, trained on a biology degree and six years at Merck and Endo, would spring with questions: Why this biomarker? Why this design? Why not this endpoint? Not that he could do anything about it. These execs were coming for clinical money; their decisions had been made and finalized long ago.

Arde­lyx bags its first FDA OK for IBS, set­ting up a show­down with Al­ler­gan, Iron­wood

In the first of what it hopes will be a couple of major regulatory milestones for its new drug, Ardelyx has bagged an FDA approval to market Ibsrela (tenapanor) for irritable bowel syndrome.

The drug’s first application will be for IBS with constipation (IBS-C), inhibiting sodium-hydrogen exchanger NHE3 in the GI tract in such a way as to increase bowel movements and decrease abdominal pain. This comes on the heels of two successful Phase III trials.