Importance and Challenges of Studying Marketed Drugs: What Is a Phase IV Study? Common Clinical Research Designs, Registries, and Self‐Reporting Systems

The new drug application database submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration for drug approval (phases I‐III or phases 1–3) is limited both in scope and size. Although randomized controlled trials, the hallmark of phase III trials, are the gold standard for the drug‐approval process, they invariably have a number of limitations, including relatively small sample sizes, selective populations, short follow‐up, the use of intermediate (surrogate) endpoints (almost always), and limited generalizability. The challenges of monitoring drugs once approved are also numerous. After approval by the Food and Drug Administration, marketed drugs undergo continued scrutiny, and this scrutiny is increasing because of problems that have surfaced with some drugs after their approval. Postmarketing research includes a variety of study designs and the use of registries and self‐reporting of drug side effects. Along with this has come great confusion about what postmarketing research is and what a phase IV study is. Among the important strengths of phase IV research are the exposure of a broader range of patients to the drug under study, resulting in more “real‐world” information about the drug's safety and efficacy, and consideration of a broader range of clinical endpoints. As a result, phase IV, or postmarketing research, has become an integral part of the drug evaluation process for a wide range of agents. The authors discuss the different types of study designs that are common under the phase IV terminology and provide some examples. They also discuss the use of registries and self‐reporting of adverse events using the MedWatch System.

[1]  D. Kent,et al.  Reporting clinical trial results to inform providers, payers, and consumers. , 2005, Health affairs.

[2]  S. Gough,et al.  Post-marketing surveillance: a UK/European perspective , 2005, Current medical research and opinion.

[3]  Robert Riddell,et al.  Cardiovascular events associated with rofecoxib in a colorectal adenoma chemoprevention trial. , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

[4]  T. Zwillich.  How Vioxx is changing US drug regulation , 2005, The Lancet.

[5]  S. Yusuf,et al.  Challenges in the conduct of large simple trials of important generic questions in resource-poor settings: The CREATE and ECLA trial program evaluating GIK (glucose, insulin and potassium) and low-molecular-weight heparin in acute myocardial infarction☆ , 2004, American Heart Journal.

[6]  Risk of cardiovascular events and rofecoxib: Cumulative meta-analysis , 2005 .

[7]  H. Jones,et al.  Transferring methadone-stabilized pregnant patients to buprenorphine using an immediate release morphine transition: an open-label exploratory study. , 2006, The American journal on addictions.

[8]  S. Olsson,et al.  Stroke prevention with the oral direct thrombin inhibitor ximelagatran compared with warfarin in patients with non-valvular atrial fibrillation (SPORTIF III): randomised controlled trial , 2003, The Lancet.

[9]  J. Wilson,et al.  An update on the therapeutic orphan. , 1999, Pediatrics.

[10]  A Briggs,et al.  The Distribution of Health Care Costs and Their Statistical Analysis for Economic Evaluation , 1998, Journal of health services research & policy.

[11]  D. Figgitt,et al.  Repaglinide : a pharmacoeconomic review of its use in type 2 diabetes mellitus. , 2004, PharmacoEconomics.

[12]  P. Tappenden,et al.  Methodological issues in the economic analysis of cancer treatments. , 2006, European journal of cancer.

[13]  P. Galea,et al.  A randomised controlled trial of morphine versus phenobarbitone for neonatal abstinence syndrome , 2004, Archives of Disease in Childhood - Fetal and Neonatal Edition.

[14]  Y. Hung,et al.  Nifedipine OROS in Chinese patients with hypertension – results of a post‐marketing surveillance study in Taiwan , 2005, Blood pressure. Supplement.

[15]  Antihypertensive safety and efficacy and physician and patient satisfaction: results from a phase 4 practice-based clinical experience trial with diltiazem LA , 2006, Advances in therapy.

[16]  Emma Heeley,et al.  Prescription-event monitoring and reporting of adverse drug reactions , 2001, The Lancet.

[17]  R. Kauffman,et al.  Guidelines for the ethical conduct of studies to evaluate drugs in pediatric populations. Committee on Drugs, American Academy of Pediatrics. , 2018, Pediatrics.

[18]  H. Kraul,et al.  Clinical experience with spirapril in human hypertension. , 1999, Journal of cardiovascular pharmacology.

[19]  L. Abenhaim.  Lessons from the withdrawal of rofecoxib: France has policy for overall assessment of public health impact of new drugs , 2004, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[20]  G. Albers.  Stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: pooled analysis of SPORTIF III and V trials. , 2004, The American journal of managed care.

[21]  G. Bettelli,et al.  Randomised clinical trials in general practice: lessons from a failure. , 1991, BMJ.

[22]  Lise,et al.  Comparison of upper gastrointestinal toxicity of rofecoxib and naproxen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. VIGOR Study Group. , 2000, The New England journal of medicine.

[23]  Carl Peck,et al.  Postmarketing drug dosage changes of 499 FDA‐approved new molecular entities, 1980–1999 , 2002, Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety.

[24]  J Chilcott,et al.  The role of modelling in prioritising and planning clinical trials. , 2003, Health technology assessment.

[25]  M. Egger,et al.  Risk of cardiovascular events and rofecoxib: cumulative meta-analysis , 2004, The Lancet.

[26]  E. Ben-Menachem.  Data from regulatory studies: what do they tell? What don't they tell? , 2005, Acta neurologica Scandinavica. Supplementum.

[27]  E. Topol,et al.  Risk of cardiovascular events associated with selective COX-2 inhibitors. , 2001, JAMA.

[28]  D. Kent,et al.  Are randomized controlled trials sufficient evidence to guide clinical practice in Type II (non-insulin-dependent) diabetes mellitus? , 2000, Diabetologia.

[29]  A. Mitchell,et al.  Recent patterns of medication use in the ambulatory adult population of the United States: the Slone survey. , 2002, JAMA.

[30]  L. J. D. Berg,et al.  Consumer Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting , 2003 .

[31]  S D Simon,et al.  Is the randomized clinical trial the gold standard of research? , 2001, Journal of andrology.

[32]  M. Levine,et al.  Clinical data gap between phase III clinical trials (pre-marketing) and phase IV (post-marketing) studies: evaluation of etanercept in rheumatoid arthritis. , 2005, The Canadian journal of clinical pharmacology = Journal canadien de pharmacologie clinique.

[33]  J Chilcott,et al.  The clinical and cost-effectiveness of pulsatile machine perfusion versus cold storage of kidneys for transplantation retrieved from heart-beating and non-heart-beating donors. , 2003, Health technology assessment.

[34]  Philippe Ravaud,et al.  Quality of reporting of noninferiority and equivalence randomized trials. , 2006, JAMA.

[35]  C. DeVane,et al.  Evaluation of population pharmacokinetics in therapeutic trials. IV. Application to postmarketing surveillance , 1993, Clinical pharmacology and therapy.

[36]  A. Mitchell,et al.  The Safety of Acetaminophen and Ibuprofen Among Children Younger Than Two Years Old , 1999, Pediatrics.

[37]  Staffan Lindblad,et al.  The One‐Person Randomized Controlled Trial , 2005, Quality management in health care.

[38]  G. Bugeja,et al.  Exclusion of elderly people from clinical research: a descriptive study of published reports , 1997, BMJ.

[39]  C. Rothschild,et al.  Recommendations for postmarketing surveillance studies in haemophilia and other bleeding disorders , 2005, Haemophilia : the official journal of the World Federation of Hemophilia.

[40]  Lawrence A Leiter,et al.  Postprandial glucose regulation: new data and new implications. , 2005, Clinical therapeutics.

[41]  B. Strom,et al.  How the US drug safety system should be changed. , 2006, JAMA.

[42]  J. Blenkinsopp,et al.  POST‐MARKETING SURVEILLANCE OF LISINOPRIL IN GENERAL PRACTICE IN THE UK , 1993, The British journal of clinical practice.

[43]  L. Wilton,et al.  A post-marketing observational study to assess the safety of mibefradil in the community in England. , 2002, International journal of clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[44]  H. Aschauer,et al.  Methadone versus buprenorphine in pregnant addicts: a double-blind, double-dummy comparison study. , 2006, Addiction.

[45]  J. R. Scotti,et al.  Available From , 1973 .

[46]  Sanjay Kaul,et al.  Trials and tribulations of non-inferiority: the ximelagatran experience. , 2005, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[47]  J. Avorn,et al.  The exclusion of the elderly and women from clinical trials in acute myocardial infarction. , 1992, JAMA.

[48]  P. Grambsch,et al.  Results of the Controlled ONset Verapamil INvestigation of Cardiovascular Endpoints (CONVINCE) trial by geographical region , 2005, Journal of hypertension.

[49]  M. Palmer.  Clinical Trials: A Practical Approach , 1985 .

[50]  R Day,et al.  Comparison of upper gastrointestinal toxicity of rofecoxib and naproxen in patients with rheumatoid arthritis. VIGOR Study Group. , 2000, The New England journal of medicine.

[51]  W. Ling,et al.  Medications development: successes and challenges. , 2005, Pharmacology & therapeutics.

[52]  O. Corrigan,et al.  A risky business: the detection of adverse drug reactions in clinical trials and post-marketing exercises. , 2002, Social science & medicine.

[53]  L. Balant,et al.  Therapeutic Drug Monitoring Databases for Postmarketing Surveillance of Drug-Drug Interactions , 2001, Drug safety.

[54]  Y. Lacourciére,et al.  Prospective, randomized, open-label, blinded-endpoint (PROBE) designed trials yield the same results as double-blind, placebo-controlled trials with respect to ABPM measurements , 2003, Journal of hypertension.