Clinical Trial Risk in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: The Effects of Drug Class and Inclusion Criteria
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study analyzed the risk of clinical trial failure in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) drug development between 1998 and 2015. We investigated elements that influenced clinical trial risk and factors that could improve outcomes during development. OBJECTIVES: This study aims to quantify clinical trial risk for drug development in COPD and factors that affect clinical trial risk. METHODS: Drugs that commenced their phase I testing in this indication from 1998 onwards were retrieved from http://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Compounds investigated had to have an endpoint relevant to the treatment of COPD and be sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry. These compounds were then analyzed based on their mechanism of action and trial inclusion criteria. RESULTS: A total of 766 trials met our screening criteria representing 116 drugs. Of these, 9 gained approval by the US FDA during our study period. The cumulative success rate for clinical development in COPD was 13.4%. Combination therapies of long-acting β-adrenoceptor agonists (LABA)/long-acting muscarinic antagonists (LAMA) and inhaled corticosteroids (ICS)/LABA had the highest success rates at 80 and 50%, respectively. The risk-adjusted cost for drug development in COPD was USD 532.4 million. CONCLUSIONS: A 13.4% success rate in COPD implies that less than 1 in 7 compounds enrolled into clinical testing would gain FDA approval. LABA/LAMA and ICS/LABA therapies had multiple fold increases in the success rate compared to other drug classes and sizably decreased the risk-adjusted cost of drug development. Moving forward, combination therapies may offer the lowest risk of clinical failure in COPD drug development.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".