Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39598336›Full record

ReviewPharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland)2024

Advice to the FDA to Improve Its Proposed Guidelines to Rationalize Clinical Trials by Restricting Placebo Control, Preventing Low-Powered Studies, and Disallowing Studies Where Bioavailability Is Not Proven.

Sarfaraz K Niazi

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Sarfaraz K NiaziCollege of Pharmacy, University of Illinois, Chicago, IL 60612, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-0513-0336

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for testing the safety and efficacy of new drugs and biologicals. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has proactively improved the trial designs to make them scientifically rational while avoiding unnecessary human exposure. Several new guidelines by the FDA have come in 2024 that address consolidating the RCTs with the Real-World Evidence (RWE) trials, decentralizing the testing platforms, and allowing the point-of-use clinicians to participate. However, the issue of placebo control remains, which is part of RCTs, and it should be reduced or removed given the organic impact of placebo that compounds the efficacy evaluation (explanatory trials), as opposed to effectiveness trials (pragmatic trials), which measure the degree of beneficial effects in "real-world" clinical settings. Additionally, clinical trials with low study power should be allowed, and when the proof of bioavailability at the site of action is not present, it should be removed. It is advised that the FDA issue a comprehensive guideline to consolidate its several guidelines and consider the role of placebo in making drug development a more affordable exercise while meeting the requirement to minimize the abuse of humans in such trials.

Indexed as

adaptive trialsbioavailabilitybiosimilarsclinical trialsdecentralized trialsFDAintegrated RCT in clinical practicemulti-regional trialsplaceboreal-world trialsremote trialsstudy power

Identifiers

PMID39598336
PMCPMC11597071

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.