临床试验和FDA批准数据集的差异:对无创结直肠癌筛查试验的临床和政策决策的影响

IF 2.2 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Chyke A Doubeni, Chris Estes, A Mark Fendrick, John B Kisiel, Paul J Limburg
{"title":"临床试验和FDA批准数据集的差异:对无创结直肠癌筛查试验的临床和政策决策的影响","authors":"Chyke A Doubeni, Chris Estes, A Mark Fendrick, John B Kisiel, Paul J Limburg","doi":"10.1080/03007995.2025.2576161","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The comparative effectiveness of clinical services may be inferred from concurrent studies in the same population, but such data are scarce. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) creates a Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Data (SSED) to standardize population and performance characteristics for approved drugs and medical devices with the same or similar indicated use. Based on FDA approval requirements, SSED may differ from published clinical trial results. Previous studies reported the clinical implications of regulatory-associated data standardization for FDA-approved drugs, but to our knowledge, this has not been examined in medical devices.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We evaluated the performance metrics of clinical trial data and FDA-approved datasets for noninvasive colorectal cancer screening tests including blood- and stool-based tests. Using a previously validated CRC screening microsimulation model in the US, we compared the lifetime impact of performance differences between the FDA and clinical trial data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found notable source-specific differences in reported performances for blood- and stool-based tests that significantly impacted modeled outcomes for CRC screening benefits, burden, and efficiency.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These novel findings highlight the importance and impact of using standardized FDA data as the reference standard for comparative effectiveness studies, guideline recommendations, and other practice-informing activities.</p>","PeriodicalId":10814,"journal":{"name":"Current Medical Research and Opinion","volume":" ","pages":"1-10"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Differences in clinical trial and FDA approval datasets: implications for clinical and policy decision-making for noninvasive colorectal cancer screening tests.\",\"authors\":\"Chyke A Doubeni, Chris Estes, A Mark Fendrick, John B Kisiel, Paul J Limburg\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/03007995.2025.2576161\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The comparative effectiveness of clinical services may be inferred from concurrent studies in the same population, but such data are scarce. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) creates a Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Data (SSED) to standardize population and performance characteristics for approved drugs and medical devices with the same or similar indicated use. Based on FDA approval requirements, SSED may differ from published clinical trial results. Previous studies reported the clinical implications of regulatory-associated data standardization for FDA-approved drugs, but to our knowledge, this has not been examined in medical devices.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We evaluated the performance metrics of clinical trial data and FDA-approved datasets for noninvasive colorectal cancer screening tests including blood- and stool-based tests. Using a previously validated CRC screening microsimulation model in the US, we compared the lifetime impact of performance differences between the FDA and clinical trial data.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found notable source-specific differences in reported performances for blood- and stool-based tests that significantly impacted modeled outcomes for CRC screening benefits, burden, and efficiency.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These novel findings highlight the importance and impact of using standardized FDA data as the reference standard for comparative effectiveness studies, guideline recommendations, and other practice-informing activities.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10814,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Current Medical Research and Opinion\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-10\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Current Medical Research and Opinion\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2025.2576161\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Medical Research and Opinion","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/03007995.2025.2576161","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:临床服务的比较有效性可以从同一人群的并行研究中推断出来,但这样的数据很少。美国食品和药物管理局(FDA)创建了安全性和有效性数据摘要(sed),以标准化具有相同或类似指示用途的批准药物和医疗器械的人口和性能特征。基于FDA的批准要求,sed可能与已公布的临床试验结果不同。先前的研究报告了fda批准的药物的监管相关数据标准化的临床意义,但据我们所知,这还没有在医疗器械中进行过检查。方法:我们评估了临床试验数据和fda批准的非侵入性结直肠癌筛查测试(包括血液和粪便测试)的性能指标。使用先前在美国验证的结直肠癌筛查微观模拟模型,我们比较了FDA和临床试验数据之间性能差异的终生影响。结果:我们发现报告的基于血液和粪便的测试的表现存在显著的来源特异性差异,这显著影响了CRC筛查益处、负担和效率的模型结果。结论:这些新发现强调了使用标准化FDA数据作为比较有效性研究、指南建议和其他实践信息活动的参考标准的重要性和影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Differences in clinical trial and FDA approval datasets: implications for clinical and policy decision-making for noninvasive colorectal cancer screening tests.

Objective: The comparative effectiveness of clinical services may be inferred from concurrent studies in the same population, but such data are scarce. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) creates a Summary of Safety and Effectiveness Data (SSED) to standardize population and performance characteristics for approved drugs and medical devices with the same or similar indicated use. Based on FDA approval requirements, SSED may differ from published clinical trial results. Previous studies reported the clinical implications of regulatory-associated data standardization for FDA-approved drugs, but to our knowledge, this has not been examined in medical devices.

Methods: We evaluated the performance metrics of clinical trial data and FDA-approved datasets for noninvasive colorectal cancer screening tests including blood- and stool-based tests. Using a previously validated CRC screening microsimulation model in the US, we compared the lifetime impact of performance differences between the FDA and clinical trial data.

Results: We found notable source-specific differences in reported performances for blood- and stool-based tests that significantly impacted modeled outcomes for CRC screening benefits, burden, and efficiency.

Conclusion: These novel findings highlight the importance and impact of using standardized FDA data as the reference standard for comparative effectiveness studies, guideline recommendations, and other practice-informing activities.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Current Medical Research and Opinion
Current Medical Research and Opinion 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
4.30%
发文量
247
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Current Medical Research and Opinion is a MEDLINE-indexed, peer-reviewed, international journal for the rapid publication of original research on new and existing drugs and therapies, Phase II-IV studies, and post-marketing investigations. Equivalence, safety and efficacy/effectiveness studies are especially encouraged. Preclinical, Phase I, pharmacoeconomic, outcomes and quality of life studies may also be considered if there is clear clinical relevance
×
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