Explore the vast range of titles available.

Off-label prescribing of psychiatric drugs is common, despite lacking strong scientific evidence of efficacy and potentially increasing risk for adverse events. The goal of this study was to characterize prevalence of off-label prescriptions of psychiatric drugs and examine patient and clinician predictors of off-label use. This manuscript presents a retrospective, cross-sectional study using data from the 2012 and 2013 National Ambulatory Medical Care Surveys (NAMCS). The study examined all adult outpatient visits to psychiatric practices for chronic care management with a single listed visit diagnosis in which at least one psychiatric drug was prescribed. The main outcome measure was off-label prescribing of at least one psychiatric drug, defined as prescription for a condition for which it has not been approved for use by the FDA. Among our sample representative of 1.85 billion outpatient visits, 18.5 million (1.3%) visits were to psychiatrists for chronic care management in which at least one psychiatric drug was prescribed. Overall, the rate of off-label use was 12.9% (95% CI: 12.2-15.7). The most common off-label uses were for manic-depressive psychosis treated with citalopram and primary insomnia treated with trazodone. Several patient and clinician characteristics were positively associated with off-label prescribing, including seeing a psychiatrist (OR: 1.06, 95% CI, 1.01-1.12; p = 0.03) instead of another type of clinician, the office visit taking place in the Western region of the country (OR: 1.09, 95% CI, 1.01-1.17; p = 0.02), and the patient having 3 or more chronic conditions (OR: 1.12, 95% CI, 1.02-1.14; p = 0.003). In contrast, having Medicare coverage (OR: 0.93, 95% CI, 0.84-0.97; p = 0.04) and receiving payment assistance from a medical charity (OR: 0.91, 95% CI, 0.88-0.96; p = 0.03) instead of private insurance were negatively associated with off-label prescribing. These results suggest that certain classes of psychiatric medications are being commonly prescribed to treat conditions for which they have not been determined by the FDA to be clinically efficacious and/or safe.

AbstractObjectiveTo characterize potential drug safety signals identified from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS), from 2008 to 2019, to determine how often these signals resulted in regulatory action by the FDA and whether these actions were corroborated by published research findings or public assessments by the Sentinel Initiative.DesignCross sectional study.SettingUSA.PopulationSafety signals identified from the FAERS and publicly reported by the FDA between 2008 and 2019; and review of the relevant literature published before and after safety signals were reported in 2014-15. Literature searches were performed in November 2019, Sentinel Initiative assessments were searched in December 2021, and data analysis was finalized in December 2021.Main outcome measuresSafety signals and resulting regulatory actions; number and characteristics of published studies, including corroboration of regulatory action as evidenced by significant associations (or no associations) between the drug related to the signal and the adverse event.ResultsFrom 2008 to 2019, 603 potential safety signals identified from the FAERS were reported by the FDA (median 48 annually, interquartile range 41-61), of which 413 (68.5%) were resolved as of December 2021 (372 of 399 (93.2%) signals ≥3 years old were resolved). Among the resolved safety signals, 91 (22.0%) led to no regulatory action and 322 (78.0%) resulted in regulatory action, including 319 (77.2%) changes to drug labeling and 59 (14.3%) drug safety communications or other public communications from the FDA. For a subset of 82 potential safety signals reported in 2014-15, a literature search identified 1712 relevant publications; 1201 (70.2%) were case reports or case series. Among these 82 safety signals, 76 (92.7%) were resolved, of which relevant published research was identified for 57 (75.0%) signals and relevant Sentinel Initiative assessments for four (5.3%) signals. Regulatory actions by the FDA were corroborated by at least one relevant published research study for 17 of the 57 (29.8%) resolved safety signals; none of the relevant Sentinel Initiative assessments corroborated FDA regulatory action.ConclusionsMost potential safety signals identified from the FAERS led to regulatory action by the FDA. Only a third of regulatory actions were corroborated by published research, however, and none by public assessments from the Sentinel Initiative. These findings suggest that either the FDA is taking regulatory actions based on evidence not made publicly available or more comprehensive safety evaluations might be needed when potential safety signals are identified.

Objective To determine rates of publication and reporting of results within two years for all completed clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov across leading academic medical centers in the United States.Design Cross sectional analysis.Setting Academic medical centers in the United States.Participants Academic medical centers with 40 or more completed interventional trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov.Methods Using the Aggregate Analysis of ClinicalTrials.gov database and manual review, we identified all interventional clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov with a primary completion date between October 2007 and September 2010 and with a lead investigator affiliated with an academic medical center.Main outcome measures The proportion of trials that disseminated results, defined as publication or reporting of results on ClinicalTrials.gov, overall and within 24 months of study completion.Results We identified 4347 interventional clinical trials across 51 academic medical centers. Among the trials, 1005 (23%) enrolled more than 100 patients, 1216 (28%) were double blind, and 2169 (50%) were phase II through IV. Overall, academic medical centers disseminated results for 2892 (66%) trials, with 1560 (35.9%) achieving this within 24 months of study completion. The proportion of clinical trials with results disseminated within 24 months of study completion ranged from 16.2% (6/37) to 55.3% (57/103) across academic medical centers. The proportion of clinical trials published within 24 months of study completion ranged from 10.8% (4/37) to 40.3% (31/77) across academic medical centers, whereas results reporting on ClinicalTrials.gov ranged from 1.6% (2/122) to 40.7% (72/177).Conclusions Despite the ethical mandate and expressed values and mission of academic institutions, there is poor performance and noticeable variation in the dissemination of clinical trial results across leading academic medical centers.

A critical component of drug safety monitoring is post-marketing pharmacovigilance, which through a combination of voluntary and active surveillance efforts, provides early identification of potential adverse drug events (AEs).12 Identifying drug safety issues after regulatory approval is common; the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) initiates a regulatory safety action for approximately one-third of newly approved drugs, on average of four years after approval.3

Although randomized clinical trials are considered to be the criterion standard for generating clinical evidence, the use of real-world evidence to evaluate the efficacy and safety of medical interventions is gaining interest. Whether observational data can be used to address the same clinical questions being answered by traditional clinical trials is still unclear. To identify the number of clinical trials published in high-impact journals in 2017 that could be feasibly replicated using observational data from insurance claims and/or electronic health records (EHRs). In this cross-sectional analysis, PubMed was searched to identify all US-based clinical trials, regardless of randomization, published between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2017, in the top 7 highest-impact general medical journals of 2017. Trials were excluded if they did not involve human participants, did not use end points that represented clinical outcomes among patients, were not characterized as clinical trials, and had no recruitment sites in the United States. The primary outcomes were the number and percentage of trials for which the intervention, indication, trial inclusion and exclusion criteria, and primary end points could be ascertained from insurance claims and/or EHR data. Of the 220 US-based trials analyzed, 33 (15.0%) could be replicated using observational data because their intervention, indication, inclusion and exclusion criteria, and primary end points could be routinely ascertained from insurance claims and/or EHR data. Of the 220 trials, 86 (39.1%) had an intervention that could be ascertained from insurance claims and/or EHR data. Among the 86 trials, 62 (72.1%) had an indication that could be ascertained. Forty-five (72.6%) of 62 trials had at least 80% of inclusion and exclusion criteria data that could be ascertained. Of these 45 studies, 33 (73.3%) had at least 1 primary end point that could be ascertained. This study found that only 15% of the US-based clinical trials published in high-impact journals in 2017 could be feasibly replicated through analysis of administrative claims or EHR data. This finding suggests the potential for real-world evidence to complement clinical trials, both by examining the concordance between randomized experiments and observational studies and by comparing the generalizability of the trial population with the real-world population of interest.

ClinicalTrials.gov is a publicly accessible, Internet-based registry of clinical trials managed by the US National Library of Medicine that has the potential to address selective trial publication. Our objectives were to examine completeness of registration within ClinicalTrials.gov and to determine the extent and correlates of selective publication. We examined reporting of registration information among a cross-section of trials that had been registered at ClinicalTrials.gov after December 31, 1999 and updated as having been completed by June 8, 2007, excluding phase I trials. We then determined publication status among a random 10% subsample by searching MEDLINE using a systematic protocol, after excluding trials completed after December 31, 2005 to allow at least 2 y for publication following completion. Among the full sample of completed trials (n = 7,515), nearly 100% reported all data elements mandated by ClinicalTrials.gov, such as intervention and sponsorship. Optional data element reporting varied, with 53% reporting trial end date, 66% reporting primary outcome, and 87% reporting trial start date. Among the 10% subsample, less than half (311 of 677, 46%) of trials were published, among which 96 (31%) provided a citation within ClinicalTrials.gov of a publication describing trial results. Trials primarily sponsored by industry (40%, 144 of 357) were less likely to be published when compared with nonindustry/nongovernment sponsored trials (56%, 110 of 198; p<0.001), but there was no significant difference when compared with government sponsored trials (47%, 57 of 122; p = 0.22). Among trials that reported an end date, 75 of 123 (61%) completed prior to 2004, 50 of 96 (52%) completed during 2004, and 62 of 149 (42%) completed during 2005 were published (p = 0.006). Reporting of optional data elements varied and publication rates among completed trials registered within ClinicalTrials.gov were low. Without greater attention to reporting of all data elements, the potential for ClinicalTrials.gov to address selective publication of clinical trials will be limited. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

Ensuring Public Trust in an Empowered FDAThe FDA’s recent approval of lecanemab for Alzheimer’s disease has been clouded by controversy over other accelerated approvals, illustrating challenges faced by the agency.

Objective To characterize the prospective controlled clinical studies for all novel drugs that were initially approved by the Food and Drug Administration on the basis of limited evidence.Design Systematic review.Data sources Drugs@FDA database and PubMed.Study inclusion All prospective controlled clinical studies published after approval for all novel drugs initially approved by the FDA between 2005 and 2012 on the basis of a single pivotal trial, pivotal trials that used surrogate markers of disease as primary endpoints, or both. Results Between 2005 and 2012 the FDA approved 117 novel drugs for 123 indications on the basis of a single pivotal trial, pivotal trials that used surrogate markers of disease, or both (single surrogate trials). We identified 758 published controlled studies over a median of 5.5 years (interquartile range 3.4-8.2) after approval, most of which (554 of 758; 73.1%) were studies for indications approved on the basis of surrogate markers of disease. Most postapproval studies used active comparators—67 of 77 (87.0%) indications approved on the basis of single pivotal trials, 365 of 554 (65.9%) approvals based on surrogate marker trials, and 100 of 127 (78.7%) approvals based on single surrogate trials—and examined surrogate markers of efficacy as primary endpoints—51 of 77 (66.2%), 512 of 554 (92.4%), and 110 of 127 (86.6%), respectively. Overall, no postapproval studies were identified for 43 of the 123 (35.0%) approved indications. The median total number of postapproval studies identified was 1 (interquartile range 0-2) for indications approved on the basis of a single pivotal trial, 3 (1-8) for indications approved on the basis of pivotal trials that used surrogate markers of disease as primary endpoints, and 1 (0-2) for single surrogate trial approvals, and the median aggregate number of patients enrolled in postapproval studies was 90 (0-509), 533 (122-3633), and 38 (0-666), respectively. The proportion of approved indications with one or more randomized, controlled, double blind study using a clinical outcome for the primary endpoint that was published after approval and showed superior efficacy was 18.2% (6 of 33), 2.0% (1 of 49), and 4.9% (2 of 41), respectively.Conclusions The quantity and quality of postapproval clinical evidence varied substantially for novel drugs first approved by the FDA on the basis of limited evidence, with few controlled studies published after approval that confirmed efficacy using clinical outcomes for the original FDA approved indication.

Between 2011 and 2015, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved 170 new therapeutic agents, and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) approved 144. The times for those regulatory reviews were, on average, 60 days shorter at the FDA than at the EMA. To the Editor: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) faces continual pressure to accelerate the regulatory review and approval of new medicines. Although the 21st Century Cures Act, which was signed into law in December 2016, includes several reforms that are intended to further streamline FDA evaluations, 1 the speed of the regulatory review process is directed by the Prescription Drug User Fee Act (PDUFA). 2 With Congress poised to consider the reauthorization of the PDUFA before it expires in October 2017, the speed of the FDA regulatory review process will come under renewed scrutiny. To inform these discussions, we compared review . . .

The use of medical imaging procedures has been increasing, and this study estimated the exposure of U.S. patients to low-dose ionizing radiation from these procedures. The exposure was substantial, largely because of radiation from computed tomography and nuclear imaging. The highest average effective dose was attributable to myocardial perfusion imaging, and most imaging occurred in outpatient settings. These data indicate that the use of imaging can result in high radiation doses. This study estimated the exposure of U.S. patients to low-dose ionizing radiation from medical imaging procedures. The exposure was substantial, largely because of radiation from computed tomography and nuclear imaging. Experimental and epidemiologic evidence has linked exposure to low-dose, ionizing radiation with the development of solid cancers and leukemia. 1 As a result, persons at risk for repeated radiation exposure, such as workers in health care and the nuclear industry, are typically monitored and restricted to effective doses of 100 mSv every 5 years (i.e., 20 mSv per year), with a maximum of 50 mSv allowed in any given year. 2 , 3 In contrast, radiation exposure in patients who undergo medical imaging procedures is not typically monitored, and patient data on longitudinal radiation exposure from these procedures are scant, even though in . . .