SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.33 número3Evaluación del focus group con personas trans realizado en el proyecto “Igualdad y no discriminación en la atención farmacéutica a personas transexuales en España. Elaboración de un libro blanco” índice de autoresíndice de materiabúsqueda de artículos
Home Pagelista alfabética de revistas  

Servicios Personalizados

Revista

Articulo

Indicadores

Links relacionados

  • En proceso de indezaciónCitado por Google
  • No hay articulos similaresSimilares en SciELO
  • En proceso de indezaciónSimilares en Google

Compartir


Revista de la OFIL

versión On-line ISSN 1699-714Xversión impresa ISSN 1131-9429

Resumen

ALEGRE-DEL-REY, EJ; FENIX-CABALLERO, S; MORENO-RAMOS, C  y  BORRERO-RUBIO, JM. Assessment of comparators used in pivotal studies of new medicines and indications. Rev. OFIL·ILAPHAR [online]. 2023, vol.33, n.3, pp.221-235.  Epub 28-Feb-2024. ISSN 1699-714X.  https://dx.doi.org/10.4321/s1699-714x2023000300002.

Objective:

Pivotal studies to approve new medicines often do not use the most appropriate comparator. The objective is to quantify this problem by analysing the Therapeutic Positioning Reports (IPT for its acronym in Spanish) published by the Spanish Health Ministry.

Methods:

The comparator was classified into six categories, based on the appropriateness of the treatment, i.e. whether it matched the standard of treatment when authorised: A-"initially adequate" (at the start of the study), B-"no comparator for ethical reasons", C-"no comparator -excluding B-", D-"inadequate" and E-"partially suboptimal" (when it was standard for part of the included patients but not for all of them).

The primary endpoint was the proportion of new drugs/indications with sufficient (categories A, B and C) or poor comparator (the rest). Information on comparators and standard treatment was extracted from the IPT.

Results:

We randomly analysed 186 IPTs with new drugs or indications, published between 2013 and March 2022. Comparability was assessed as sufficient in 73.7% (95%CI 66.9-79.5) of cases. The remaining 26.3% (95%CI 20.5-33.1) had poor comparisons in the pivotal trial, either due to inadequate comparator (11.3%), partially suboptimal (5.4%) or absence of a comparative study excluding ethical justification (9.7%).

Conclusions:

Approximately one in four new medicines or indications lacks sufficient comparability at the time of entry into clinical practice. The proportion has not improved over the last 10 years. Regulatory agencies need to be more stringent in comparator selection for pivotal clinical trials, for ethical and health reasons.

Palabras clave : Control Groups; Drug Approval/legislation & jurisprudence European Union; Pharmaceutical Preparations; Randomized Controlled Trials.

        · resumen en Español     · texto en Español     · Español ( pdf )