Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016 Jun 30;6(6):e011666.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011666.

Regulatory approval of pharmaceuticals without a randomised controlled study: analysis of EMA and FDA approvals 1999-2014

Affiliations

Regulatory approval of pharmaceuticals without a randomised controlled study: analysis of EMA and FDA approvals 1999-2014

Anthony J Hatswell et al. BMJ Open. .

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: CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY; Regulatory.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Types of uncontrolled studies used to support regulatory applications compared to randomised controlled trials.
Figure 2
Figure 2
PRISMA diagrams—drug approvals based on uncontrolled clinical studies by the FDA and the EMA.

References

    1. Temple R, Ellenberg SS. Placebo-controlled trials and active-control trials in the evaluation of new treatments. Part 1: ethical and scientific issues. Ann Intern Med 2000;133:455–63. 10.7326/0003-4819-133-6-200009190-00014 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Black N. Experimental and observational methods of evaluation. BMJ 1994;309:540 10.1136/bmj.309.6953.540a - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Miller FG, Joffe S. Equipoise and the dilemma of randomized clinical trials. N Engl J Med 2011;364:476–80. 10.1056/NEJMsb1011301 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Glasziou P, Chalmers I, Rawlins M et al. . When are randomised trials unnecessary? Picking signal from noise. BMJ 2007;334:349–51. 10.1136/bmj.39070.527986.68 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Pocock SJ. The combination of randomized and historical controls in clinical trials. J Chronic Dis 1976;29:175–88. 10.1016/0021-9681(76)90044-8 - DOI - PubMed

Substances

LinkOut - more resources