Evaluation of clinical trials done for orphan drugs versus nonorphan drugs in infectious diseasesan eleven year analysis [2010-2020].

Q2 Medicine Perspectives in Clinical Research Pub Date : 2023-04-01 Epub Date: 2022-07-23 DOI:10.4103/picr.picr_137_21
Palvi Kudyar, Mahanjit Konwar, Zoya Khatri, Nithya Jaideep Gogtay, Urmila Mukund Thatte
{"title":"Evaluation of clinical trials done for orphan drugs versus nonorphan drugs in infectious diseasesan eleven year analysis [2010-2020].","authors":"Palvi Kudyar,&nbsp;Mahanjit Konwar,&nbsp;Zoya Khatri,&nbsp;Nithya Jaideep Gogtay,&nbsp;Urmila Mukund Thatte","doi":"10.4103/picr.picr_137_21","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The 1983 US Orphan Drug Act provided impetus for the development of new therapies for rare diseases. Several studies focused on the number of orphan designations over time. However, very few focused on clinical trials that lead to their approval, particularly for infectious diseases.</p><p><strong>Materials and methods: </strong>All new drug approvals (orphan and non-orphan) by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from January 2010 to December 31, 2020, were identified and details of approvals were taken from the US-FDA labels and summary reports for each drug. The pivotal trials for each were characterized based on their design. We tested the association of the type of drug approval with respect to the characteristics of trial using Chi-square test and generated crude odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>From the total 1122 drugs approved, 84 were for infectious diseases, of which 18 were orphan drugs and 66 were nonorphan. A total of 35 pivotal trials supported 18 orphan drug approvals, while 115 pivotal trials supported 66 nonorphan drugs. The median number of participants enrolled/trial for orphan drugs was 89, while for nonorphan drugs, it was 452 (<i>P</i> < 0.0001). Blinding was done for 13/35 (37%) orphan drugs versus 69/115 (60%) nonorphan drugs (<i>P</i> = 0.029); randomization was done for 15/35 (42%) orphan drugs versus 100/115 (87%) nonorphan drugs (<i>P</i> < 0.0001) and 20/35 (57%) of the orphan drugs got approval in phase II versus 8/115 (6%) of nonorphan drugs (<i>P</i> < 0.00001).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A significant number of orphan drugs get approval based on early phase, nonrandomized, and unblinded with a smaller sample size as compared to nonorphan drugs.</p>","PeriodicalId":20015,"journal":{"name":"Perspectives in Clinical Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/f7/02/PCR-14-56.PMC10267988.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Perspectives in Clinical Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4103/picr.picr_137_21","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/7/23 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The 1983 US Orphan Drug Act provided impetus for the development of new therapies for rare diseases. Several studies focused on the number of orphan designations over time. However, very few focused on clinical trials that lead to their approval, particularly for infectious diseases.

Materials and methods: All new drug approvals (orphan and non-orphan) by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from January 2010 to December 31, 2020, were identified and details of approvals were taken from the US-FDA labels and summary reports for each drug. The pivotal trials for each were characterized based on their design. We tested the association of the type of drug approval with respect to the characteristics of trial using Chi-square test and generated crude odds ratios with 95% confidence intervals.

Results: From the total 1122 drugs approved, 84 were for infectious diseases, of which 18 were orphan drugs and 66 were nonorphan. A total of 35 pivotal trials supported 18 orphan drug approvals, while 115 pivotal trials supported 66 nonorphan drugs. The median number of participants enrolled/trial for orphan drugs was 89, while for nonorphan drugs, it was 452 (P < 0.0001). Blinding was done for 13/35 (37%) orphan drugs versus 69/115 (60%) nonorphan drugs (P = 0.029); randomization was done for 15/35 (42%) orphan drugs versus 100/115 (87%) nonorphan drugs (P < 0.0001) and 20/35 (57%) of the orphan drugs got approval in phase II versus 8/115 (6%) of nonorphan drugs (P < 0.00001).

Conclusion: A significant number of orphan drugs get approval based on early phase, nonrandomized, and unblinded with a smaller sample size as compared to nonorphan drugs.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
孤儿药与非孤儿药在传染病中的临床试验评估——一项为期11年的分析【2010-2020】。
背景:1983年美国《孤儿药法案》为罕见病新疗法的发展提供了动力。几项研究的重点是随着时间的推移被指定为孤儿的人数。然而,很少有人关注能够获得批准的临床试验,尤其是针对传染病的临床试验。材料和方法:确定了2010年1月至2020年12月31日美国食品药品监督管理局(FDA)批准的所有新药(孤儿药和非孤儿药),批准细节取自每种药物的US-FDA标签和总结报告。每项关键试验都根据其设计进行了表征。我们使用卡方检验测试了药物批准类型与试验特征的相关性,并产生了95%置信区间的粗略比值比。结果:在批准的1122种药物中,84种是用于传染病的,其中18种是孤儿药,66种是非处方药。共有35项关键试验支持了18种孤儿药的批准,而115项关键试验则支持了66种非孤儿药。孤儿药入选/试验的中位参与者人数为89人,而非孤儿药为452人(P<0.0001)。13/35(37%)孤儿药与69/115(60%)非孤儿药进行了盲试(P=0.029);对15/35(42%)孤儿药与100/115(87%)非处方药进行了随机分组(P<0.0001),20/35(57%)孤儿药在II期获得批准,而8/115(6%)非处方药物获得批准(P<0.00001)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Perspectives in Clinical Research
Perspectives in Clinical Research Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
41
审稿时长
36 weeks
期刊介绍: This peer review quarterly journal is positioned to build a learning clinical research community in India. This scientific journal will have a broad coverage of topics across clinical research disciplines including clinical research methodology, research ethics, clinical data management, training, data management, biostatistics, regulatory and will include original articles, reviews, news and views, perspectives, and other interesting sections. PICR will offer all clinical research stakeholders in India – academicians, ethics committees, regulators, and industry professionals -a forum for exchange of ideas, information and opinions.
期刊最新文献
Evaluation of student-led “Association for Support and Propagation of Innovation, Research, and Education” (A.S.P.I.R.E) in empowering undergraduate medical students in research: A 2-year longitudinal study Pleiotropic effect of teneligliptin versus glimepiride add-on therapy on hs-CRP and cardiorenal parameters in Indian type 2 diabetes patients: An open-labeled randomized controlled trial Efficacy and safety of quick penetrating solution heparin, quick penetrating solution diclofenac, and heparin gel in the prevention of infusion-associated superficial thrombophlebitis: A randomized controlled trial Bio-entrepreneurs’ bugbear: Regulatory rigmarole Experience of participating in community-based clinical trials from rural Maharashtra: Analysis of over 4000 participant feedback forms
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1