Regulatory approval of pharmaceuticals without a randomised controlled study: analysis of EMA and FDA approvals 1999–2014
Open Access
- 30 June 2016
- Vol. 6 (6), e011666
- https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011666
Abstract
Introduction The efficacy of pharmaceuticals is most often demonstrated by randomised controlled trials (RCTs); however, in some cases, regulatory applications lack RCT evidence. Objective To investigate the number and type of these approvals over the past 15 years by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Methods Drug approval data were downloaded from the EMA website and the ‘Drugs@FDA’ database for all decisions on pharmaceuticals published from 1 January 1999 to 8 May 2014. The details of eligible applications were extracted, including the therapeutic area, type of approval and review period. Results Over the period of the study, 76 unique indications were granted without RCT results (44 by the EMA and 60 by the FDA), demonstrating that a substantial number of treatments reach the market without undergoing an RCT. The majority was for haematological malignancies (34), with the next most common areas being oncology (15) and metabolic conditions (15). Of the applications made to both agencies with a comparable data package, the FDA granted more approvals (43/44 vs 35/44) and took less time to review products (8.7 vs 15.5 months). Products reached the market first in the USA in 30 of 34 cases (mean 13.1 months) due to companies making FDA submission before EMA submissions and faster FDA review time. Discussion Despite the frequency with which approvals are granted without RCT results, there is no systematic monitoring of such treatments to confirm their effectiveness or consistency regarding when this form of evidence is appropriate. We recommend a more open debate on the role of marketing authorisations granted without RCT results, and the development of guidelines on what constitutes an acceptable data package for regulators.Keywords
This publication has 24 references indexed in Scilit:
- Comparison of anticipated and actual control group outcomes in randomised trials in paediatric oncology provides evidence that historically controlled studies are biased in favour of the novel treatmentTrials, 2014
- How Drugs are Developed and Approved by the FDA: Current Process and Future DirectionsAmerican Journal of Gastroenterology, 2014
- Regulatory Review of Novel Therapeutics — Comparison of Three Regulatory AgenciesNew England Journal of Medicine, 2012
- Equipoise and the Dilemma of Randomized Clinical TrialsNew England Journal of Medicine, 2011
- Ultimate Fate of Oncology Drugs Approved by the US Food and Drug Administration Without a Randomized TrialJournal of Clinical Oncology, 2009
- When are randomised trials unnecessary? Picking signal from noiseBMJ, 2007
- European Union centralised procedure for marketing authorisation of oncology drugs: An in-depth review of its efficiencyEuropean Journal Of Cancer, 2006
- ‘Fourth hurdle reviews’, NICE, and database applicationsPharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety, 2001
- Experimental and observational methods of evaluationBMJ, 1994
- Randomized versus historical controls for clinical trialsAmerican Journal Of Medicine, 1982