A Tool for Predicting Regulatory Approval After Phase II Testing of New Oncology Compounds.

We developed an algorithm (ANDI) for predicting regulatory marketing approval for new cancer drugs after phase II testing has been conducted, with the objective of providing a tool to improve drug portfolio decision-making. We examined 98 oncology drugs from the top 50 pharmaceutical companies (2006 sales) that first entered clinical development from 1999 to 2007, had been taken to at least phase II development, and had a known final outcome (research abandonment or regulatory marketing approval). Data on safety, efficacy, operational, market, and company characteristics were obtained from public sources. Logistic regression and machine-learning methods were used to provide an unbiased approach to assess overall predictability and to identify the most important individual predictors. We found that a simple four-factor model (activity, number of patients in the pivotal phase II trial, phase II duration, and a prevalence-related measure) had high sensitivity and specificity for predicting regulatory marketing approval.

Subjects' views of obligations to ensure post-trial access to drugs, care and information: qualitative results from the Experiences of Participants in Clinical Trials (EPIC) study.

OBJECTIVES: To report the attitudes and opinions of subjects in US clinical trials about whether or not, and why, they should receive post-trial access (PTA) to the trial drug, care and information. DESIGN: Focus groups, short self-administered questionnaires. SETTING: Boston, Dallas, Detroit, Oklahoma City. PARTICIPANTS: Current and recent subjects in clinical trials, primarily for chronic diseases. RESULTS: 93 individuals participated in 10 focus groups. Many thought researchers, sponsors, health insurers and others share obligations to facilitate PTA to the trial drug, if it benefited the subject, or to a therapeutic equivalent. Some thought PTA obligations include providing transition care (referrals to non-trial physicians or other trials, limited follow-up, short-term drug supply) or care for long-term adverse events. Others held, in contrast, that there are no PTA obligations regarding drugs or care. However, there was agreement that former subjects should receive information (drug name, dosage received, market approval date, long-term adverse effects, trial results). Participants frequently appealed to health need, cost, relationships, reciprocity, free choice and sponsor self-interest to support their views. Many of their reasons overlapped with those commonly discussed by bioethicists. CONCLUSION: Many participants in US trials for chronic conditions thought there are obligations to facilitate PTA to the trial drug at a "fair" price; these views were less demanding than those of non-US subjects in other studies. However, our participants' views about informational obligations were broader than those of other subjects and many bioethicists. Our results suggest that the PTA debate should expand beyond the trial drug and aggregate results.