Characteristics of Clinical Studies Used for US Food and Drug Administration Supplemental Indication Approvals of Drugs and Biologics, 2017 to 2019

Abstract

Importance: After US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of a new drug, sponsors can submit additional clinical data to obtain supplemental approval for use for new indications. Objective: To characterize pivotal trials supporting recent supplemental new indication approvals of drugs and biologics by the FDA and to compare them with pivotal trials that supported these therapeutics' original indication approvals. Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a cross-sectional study characterizing pivotal trials supporting supplemental indication approvals by the FDA between 2017 and 2019 and pivotal trials that supported these therapeutics' original indication approvals. Data analysis was performed from August to October 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Number and design of pivotal trials supporting both supplemental and original indication approvals. Results: From 2017 to 2019, the FDA approved 146 supplemental indications for 107 therapeutics on the basis of 181 pivotal efficacy trials. The median (interquartile range) number of trials per supplemental indication was 1 (1-1). Most trials used either placebo (77 trials [42.5%; 95% CI, 35.6%-49.8%]) or active comparators (65 trials [35.9%; 95% CI, 29.3%-43.1%]), and most of these multigroup trials were randomized (141 trials [99.3%; 95% CI, 96.0%-100.0%]) and double-blinded (106 trials [74.5%; 95% CI, 66.6%-81.0%]); 80 trials (44.2%; 95 CI, 37.2%-51.5%) used clinical outcomes as the primary efficacy end point. There was no difference between oncology therapies and those approved for other therapeutic areas to have supplemental indication approvals be based on at least 2 pivotal trials (11.5% vs 20.6%; difference, 9.1%; 95% CI, 2.9%-21.0%; P =.10). Similarly, there was no difference in use of randomization (98.3% vs 100.0%; difference, 1.7%; 95% CI, 1.6%-5.0%; P =.43) among multigroup trials, although these trials were less likely to be double-blinded (50.8% vs 92.3%; difference, 41.5%; 95% CI, 27.4%-55.5%; P