Pivotal Studies for Drugs About to Be Launched for Rare Diseases: Will They Better Support Health Technology Assessment and Market Access than in the Past?

Q2 Medicine
Journal of market access & health policy Pub Date : 2025-07-25 eCollection Date: 2025-09-01 DOI:10.3390/jmahp13030037
Claudio Jommi, Marzia Bonfanti, Melissa Guardigni, Andrea Aiello, Andrea Marcellusi, Pier Luigi Canonico, Fulvio Luccini, Chiara Lucchetti
{"title":"Pivotal Studies for Drugs About to Be Launched for Rare Diseases: Will They Better Support Health Technology Assessment and Market Access than in the Past?","authors":"Claudio Jommi, Marzia Bonfanti, Melissa Guardigni, Andrea Aiello, Andrea Marcellusi, Pier Luigi Canonico, Fulvio Luccini, Chiara Lucchetti","doi":"10.3390/jmahp13030037","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The designs of clinical trials of drugs for rare diseases are challenged by health technology assessment organisations and payers. Phase II pivotal studies, single-arm or open-label designs, the extensive use of non-final endpoints, and the limited use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are the main points of contention. The evidence on the actual design of these trials is limited, but corroborates the concerns of the above. Our aim is to scrutinise whether the design of pivotal studies of drugs for rare diseases to be launched into the Italian market by 2026 present similar issues. The drugs and the relevant pivotal studies were retrieved from Biomedtracker and US and European clinical trial databases. We identified 154 new drugs for rare diseases. Single-arm designs account for 36% of trials. Almost 50% of randomised control trials (RCTs) are designed using an active comparator and 61% are double-blinded. Primary endpoints are mostly (82%) surrogate. A total of 59% of studies include PROs. Our findings were partially expected (e.g., extensive use of surrogate endpoints) and partially not (e.g., RCTs and an active comparator), considering previous studies on the same topic. Having more head-to-head studies may reduce uncertainty concerning evidence at market launch, but different issues persist, including the still limited role of PROs.</p>","PeriodicalId":73811,"journal":{"name":"Journal of market access & health policy","volume":"13 3","pages":"37"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12372023/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of market access & health policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/jmahp13030037","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The designs of clinical trials of drugs for rare diseases are challenged by health technology assessment organisations and payers. Phase II pivotal studies, single-arm or open-label designs, the extensive use of non-final endpoints, and the limited use of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are the main points of contention. The evidence on the actual design of these trials is limited, but corroborates the concerns of the above. Our aim is to scrutinise whether the design of pivotal studies of drugs for rare diseases to be launched into the Italian market by 2026 present similar issues. The drugs and the relevant pivotal studies were retrieved from Biomedtracker and US and European clinical trial databases. We identified 154 new drugs for rare diseases. Single-arm designs account for 36% of trials. Almost 50% of randomised control trials (RCTs) are designed using an active comparator and 61% are double-blinded. Primary endpoints are mostly (82%) surrogate. A total of 59% of studies include PROs. Our findings were partially expected (e.g., extensive use of surrogate endpoints) and partially not (e.g., RCTs and an active comparator), considering previous studies on the same topic. Having more head-to-head studies may reduce uncertainty concerning evidence at market launch, but different issues persist, including the still limited role of PROs.

罕见病药物即将上市的关键研究:它们会比过去更好地支持卫生技术评估和市场准入吗?
罕见病药物临床试验的设计受到卫生技术评估组织和支付方的挑战。II期关键研究、单臂或开放标签设计、非最终终点的广泛使用以及患者报告结局(pro)的有限使用是争论的主要点。关于这些试验的实际设计的证据是有限的,但证实了上述担忧。我们的目标是仔细审查将于2026年进入意大利市场的罕见病药物关键研究的设计是否存在类似问题。这些药物和相关的关键研究是从生物追踪器和美国和欧洲的临床试验数据库中检索的。我们确定了154种罕见病新药。单臂设计占试验的36%。近50%的随机对照试验(rct)采用主动比较剂设计,61%采用双盲法。主要终点大多是替代终点(82%)。总共有59%的研究包括赞成意见。考虑到先前关于同一主题的研究,我们的研究结果部分是预期的(例如,广泛使用替代终点),部分不是(例如,随机对照试验和活性比较物)。进行更多的面对面研究可能会减少市场启动时证据的不确定性,但不同的问题仍然存在,包括PROs的作用仍然有限。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
14 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信