Avoiding bias and incorrect confidence interval coverage in prescription drug labeling

Abstract

Background:

The primary purpose of prescription drug labeling is to give healthcare professionals the information needed to prescribe drugs appropriately. Therefore, labeling typically reports the effects that the treatment might be expected to have on several efficacy measures, including not only the primary endpoint used to establish effectiveness but also a number of key secondary endpoints that are important to practitioners and patients.

Methods:

One possible regulatory approach to drug labeling is to include results on important secondary efficacy endpoints in labeling only if there is statistical evidence of a treatment effect and a clinically meaningful estimated effect. We evaluate the statistical consequences of this approach by deriving and discussing the potential bias in point estimates and deviation from nominal coverage in confidence intervals that are reported in labeling.

Results:

Such an approach can lead to substantial conditional bias in point estimates (toward spuriously greater effects than the truth) and undercoverage in confidence intervals.

Conclusion:

These statistical properties may have important and undesirable regulatory and public health implications. We discuss an alternative approach to include results in labeling for a selected set of reliably ascertained, clinically important endpoints whether or not there is evidence of a treatment effect.

Keywords

Clinical trials prescription drug labeling regulation estimation bias confidence interval

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Guidance for industry: clinical studies section of labeling for human prescription drug and biological products—content and format. Silver Spring, MD: FDA, 2006.

21 C.F.R. § 201.56; 2014.

21 C.F.R. § 201.57; 2014.

DeMuro

Clark

Mordin

. Reasons for rejection of patient-reported outcome label claims: a compilation based on a review of patient-reported outcome use among new molecular entities and biologic license applications, 2006–2010. Value Health 2012; 15: 443–448.

Schunemann

Guyatt

. Commentary—goodbye M(C)ID! Hello MID, where do you come from?Health Serv Res 2005; 40(2): 593–597.

Barr

Sherrill

. Mean and variance of truncated normal distributions. Am Stat 1999; 53(4): 357–361.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Guidance for industry: patient-reported outcome measures—use in medical product development to support labeling claims. Silver Spring, MD: FDA, 2009.

Izem

Kammerman

Komo

. Statistical challenges in drug approval trials that use patient-reported outcomes. Stat Methods Med Res 2014; 23: 398–408.

Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Guidance for industry: good reprint practices for the distribution of medical journal articles and medical or scientific reference publications on unapproved new uses of approved drugs and approved or cleared medical devices. Silver Spring, MD: FDA, 2009.

10.

Gass

Wilson

. Marketing off-label uses to physicians: FDA’s draft (mis)guidance. Am J Bioethics 2008; 8(3): 1–3.