Suppr超能文献

首创药物的起源:创新与临床获益。

The Origin of First-in-Class Drugs: Innovation Versus Clinical Benefit.

机构信息

Department of Health Policy, LSE, London, UK.

Consilium Scientific, London, UK.

出版信息

Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2024 Feb;115(2):342-348. doi: 10.1002/cpt.3110. Epub 2023 Dec 7.

Abstract

First-in-class (FIC) designation became a hallmark of innovation, however, even at the marketing authorization stage, little is known about the clinical benefits these products deliver. We identified the provenance of the FIC drugs that entered the French market from 2008 to 2018 and matched these medicines to the clinical benefit grading by Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS) and Prescrire. Analyses were performed using descriptive statistics to present our findings by drug origin and therapeutic area and to establish the degree of concordance between HAS and Prescrire. Of the 135 FIC drugs identified, 71.1% (n = 96) originated from the industry, 16.3% (n = 22) from academia, and 12.6% (n = 17) from joint partnerships. Three therapeutic areas accounted for most FIC medications: antineoplastic (25.9%, N = 35), anti-infective (14.1%, N = 19), and metabolic (11.1%, N = 15) agents. HAS and Prescrire agreed on 60.74% of clinical benefit gradings. According to HAS, only 5% of all FIC drugs had substantial added benefit, and only 3%, according to Prescrire. HAS and Prescrire graded 45.9% and 68.2%, respectively, of FIC drugs as no clinical benefit and 48.9% and 28.9%, respectively, as some clinical benefit. FIC-designated drugs are primarily of industry (> 70%) rather than academic origin. We found that 55% of FIC medicines that entered the French market over the 10-year period deliver no additional clinical benefit. Whereas FIC medicines may represent important scientific advancements in drug development, in > 50% of cases, the new mode of action does not translate into additional clinical benefits for patients.

摘要

首先,(FIC)的指定成为创新的标志,然而,即使在营销授权阶段,人们对这些产品带来的临床益处也知之甚少。我们确定了从 2008 年到 2018 年进入法国市场的 FIC 药物的来源,并将这些药物与 Haute Autorité de Santé(HAS)和 Prescrire 的临床益处分级相匹配。使用描述性统计分析通过药物来源和治疗领域呈现我们的发现,并确定 HAS 和 Prescrire 之间的一致性程度。在确定的 135 种 FIC 药物中,71.1%(n=96)来自工业界,16.3%(n=22)来自学术界,12.6%(n=17)来自联合伙伴关系。三个治疗领域占 FIC 药物的大部分:抗肿瘤(25.9%,N=35),抗感染(14.1%,N=19)和代谢(11.1%,N=15)药物。HAS 和 Prescrire 在 60.74%的临床益处分级上达成一致。根据 HAS,所有 FIC 药物中只有 5%具有实质性附加益处,而根据 Prescrire,只有 3%具有附加益处。HAS 和 Prescrire 分别将 45.9%和 68.2%的 FIC 药物评为无临床益处,分别将 48.9%和 28.9%评为有一定临床益处。FIC 药物主要来自工业界(>70%),而不是学术界。我们发现,在过去 10 年中,进入法国市场的 55%的 FIC 药物没有带来额外的临床益处。虽然 FIC 药物可能代表药物开发中的重要科学进步,但在>50%的情况下,新的作用机制不会转化为患者的额外临床益处。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验