A JAMA Internal Medicine study found the terms "breakthrough" and "promising" raised people's expectations on the drug's performance as opposed to when the drugs were described as having met the breakthrough criteria.
A research letter published in the current issue of JAMA Internal Medicine has found that the terms “breakthrough” and “promising” raised people’s expectations on the drug’s performance as opposed to when the drugs were described as having met the breakthrough criteria.
The authors write that all announcements by the FDA on the approval of breakthrough-designated drugs use the word “breakthrough” and almost half use the term “promising.” These news releases by the FDA are readily accessible to patients and the absence of a specific descriptor for these terms could lead to an unwarranted increase in the patient’s confidence in the data.
For their clinical study, the authors recruited 597 online participants from the United States, with a mean age of 36 years (range 19 years to 83 years). Of these, 41% were women and 55% had a college and/or a graduate degree. Participants were randomized to 1 of 5 vignettes:
This was based on an FDA release for a metastatic lung cancer breakthrough drug that was conditionally approved based on a surrogate outcome of tumor shrinkage.
The study found that adding either “promising” or “breakthrough” significantly increased the number of participants rating the drug as “very” or “completely effective” to 23% and 25% respectively, compared with 11% in the controls. Inclusion of the terms also increased the number of those who believed the supporting evidence as being “strong” or “extremely strong,” from 43% of controls to 59% (promising) and 63% (breakthrough). Adding the explanations, though, reduced the percentage of respondents who wrongly believed that the drug had been proven to save lives, the authors write. When participants were asked which of 2 drugs would they take for a potentially deadly condition, the “breakthrough” or the one meeting the breakthrough criteria, an overwhelming 92% chose the “breakthrough” drug.
Early Involvement Critical in Treating Immunotherapy-Induced Overlap Syndrome
April 19th 2024A series of case studies reveals the importance of early diagnosis and involvement of special teams of clinicians when dealing with potential cases of overlap syndrome, which encompasses myocarditis, myasthenia gravis, and immune checkpoint inhibitor–related myositis.
Read More
Real-World Study Reveals Key Insights Into DLBCL Treatment Patterns, Outcomes
April 18th 2024A recent study offers valuable insights into the characteristics, treatment patterns, and outcomes of diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) in patients across different lines of therapy, providing a look into the landscape of DLBCL management.
Read More
Oncology Onward: A Conversation With Penn Medicine's Dr Justin Bekelman
December 19th 2023Justin Bekelman, MD, director of the Penn Center for Cancer Care Innovation, sat with our hosts Emeline Aviki, MD, MBA, and Stephen Schleicher, MD, MBA, for our final episode of 2023 to discuss the importance of collaboration between academic medicine and community oncology and testing innovative cancer care delivery in these settings.
Listen
Pegcetacoplan for PNH More Cost-Effective Than Anti-C5 Monoclonal Antibodies
April 18th 2024A cost-utility analysis conducted from the perspective of the Italian health system found that pegcetacoplan was more effective and less costly than 2 complement 5 (C5) inhibitors for the treatment of paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria (PNH).
Read More