Cited by 356Pharmaceutical Economics and PolicyPharmaceutical industry and healthcareHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life

Estimated costs of pivotal trials for novel therapeutic agents approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, 2015–2016

Open access
Moore, Thomas J., Zhang, Hanzhe, Anderson, Gerard, Alexander, G. Caleb·2018·JAMA Internal Medicine

Abstract

Importance: A critical question in health care is the extent of scientific evidence that should be required to establish that a new therapeutic agent has benefits that outweigh its risks. Estimating the costs of this evidence of efficacy provides an important perspective. Objective: To estimate costs and assess scientific characteristics of pivotal efficacy trials that supported the approval of new therapeutic agents by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from 2015 to 2016. Design and Setting: This study identified 59 novel therapeutic drugs using the annual summary reports from the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. ClinicalTrials.gov, FDA reviews, and peer-reviewed publications that were publicly available in 2017 were used to identify 52 characteristics of each efficacy trial. Costs were calculated with a global clinical trial cost assessment tool available to contract research organizations and pharmaceutical sponsors. Main Outcomes and Measures: Estimated mean cost and 95% CIs based on industry benchmark data from 60 countries. Measures of trials' scientific characteristics included trial design (no control group, placebo, and active drug), end point (surrogate outcome, clinical scale, and clinical outcome), patient enrollment, and treatment duration. Results: A total of 138 pivotal clinical trials provided the basis for approval of 59 new therapeutic agents by the FDA from 2015 to 2016, with a median estimated cost of $19.0 million (interquartile range, $12.2 million-$33.1 million). Estimated costs ranged from less than $5 million for trials without a control group for 3 orphan drugs with fewer than 15 patients each to $346.8 million (95% CI, $252.0 million-$441.5 million) for a noninferiority trial with end points assessing clinical benefit. Twenty-six of 138 trials (18.8%) were uncontrolled, with a mean estimated cost of $13.5 million (95% CI, $10.1 million-$16.9 million). Trials designed with placebo or active drug comparators had an estimated mean cost of $35.1 million (95% CI, $25.4 million-$44.8 million). Costs also varied by trial end point, treatment duration, patient enrollment, and therapeutic area. Conclusions and Relevance: The highest-cost trials were those in which the new agent had to be proved to be noninferior with clinical benefit end points compared with an agent already available or those that required larger patient populations to achieve statistical power to document smaller treatment effects or accrue infrequently occurring end points.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.3931

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Planning and executing a high-quality clinical trial is time consuming and financially very costly.

    “Unfortunately, planning and executing a high-quality clinical trial is not only time consuming (usually taking many years to recruit enough participants and follow them in time) but also financially very costly 30,31 .”

    From Multimodal biomedical AI (2022) · cites this paper as [30]

  • The persistent challenges of inter- and intra-observer variability and the different expertise among endoscopists and pathologists contribute to the suboptimal assessment of disease in clinical trials.

    “Nevertheless, the persistent challenges of inter- and intra-observer variability and the different expertise among endoscopists and pathologists contribute to the suboptimal assessment of disease in clinical trials.72,73”
  • AI integration with electronic health records systems and specialised registries can facilitate the efficient and prompt identification of large cohorts of potentially eligible patients, thereby assisting in their enrolment in clinical trials.

    “The integration of AI with electronic health records systems and specialised registries can facilitate the efficient and prompt identification of large cohorts of potentially eligible patients, thereby assisting in their enrolment in clinical trials.73”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 7 · Cited by 356

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Joseph S. Ross, MD, MHS 1. Sertkaya A, Wong H-H, Jessup A, Beleche T. Key cost drivers of pharmaceutical clinical trials in the United States. Clin Trials. 2016;13(2):117-126. doi:10.1177/1740774515625964 · DOI · Paper page

Authors
Moore, T. J., Zhang, H., Anderson, G., & Alexander, G. C.
Affiliations
  • George Washington University (US)
  • Johns Hopkins University (US)
Corresponding author
Moore, Thomas J.
Venue
JAMA Internal Medicine
Published
2018-11-01
Volume
178
Issue
11
Pages
1451
ISSN
2168-6106 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2890763753
Cited by
356
References
7
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 41 · 2024: 43 · 2023: 52 · 2022: 46 · 2021: 58 · 2020: 61 · 2019: 23 · 2018: 2
FWCI
54.56
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JAMA Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Laura and John Arnold Foundation
  • U.S. Food and Drug Administration (U01 FD004977)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Pharmaceutical Economics and Policy
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Keywords
clinical trial costs, drug approval, FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, new chemical entities, surrogate endpoints, orphan drugs, trial design, cost estimation, pharmaceutical industry, efficacy evidence, regulatory science, treatment duration, patient enrollment, therapeutic areas
MeSH terms
Clinical Trials as Topic, Drug Industry, Humans, Research Design, United States, United States Food and Drug Administration, Drug Approval

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review