Project description:ImportanceDrugs treating serious or life-threatening conditions can receive US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) accelerated approval based on showing an effect in surrogate measures that are only reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. Confirmatory trials are then required to determine whether these effects translate to clinical improvements.ObjectiveTo characterize preapproval and confirmatory clinical trials of drugs granted accelerated approval.Design and settingPublicly available FDA documents were reviewed to identify the preapproval trials leading to accelerated approval between 2009 and 2013. Information on the status and findings of required confirmatory studies was extracted from the FDA's database of postmarketing requirements and commitments, ClinicalTrials.gov, and matched peer-reviewed publications. Follow-up ended on April 7, 2017.ExposuresGranting of accelerated approval.Main outcomes and measuresCharacteristics of preapproval and confirmatory studies were compared in terms of study design features (randomization, blinding, comparator, primary end point). Subsequent regulatory decisions and estimated time between accelerated approval and fulfillment of regulatory requirements were summarized.ResultsThe FDA granted accelerated approval to 22 drugs for 24 indications (19 for indications involving cancer treatment) between 2009 and 2013. A total of 30 preapproval studies supported the 24 indications. The median number of participants enrolled in the preapproval studies was 132 (interquartile range, 89-224). Eight studies (27%) included fewer than 100 participants and 20 (67%) included fewer than 200. At a minimum 3 years of follow-up, 19 of 38 (50%) required confirmatory studies were completed, including 18 published reports. Twenty-five of the 38 (66%) examined clinical efficacy, 7 (18%) evaluated longer follow-up, and 6 (16%) focused on safety The proportion of studies with randomized designs did not differ before and after accelerated approval (12/30 [40%] vs 10/18 [56%]; difference, 16%; 95% CI, -15% to 46%; P = .31). Postapproval requirements were completed and demonstrated efficacy in 10 of 24 indications (42%) on the basis of trials that evaluated surrogate measures. Among the 14 of 24 indications (58%) that had not yet completed all requirements, at least 1 of the confirmatory studies failed to demonstrate clinical benefit in 2 (8%), were terminated in 2 (8%), and were delayed by more than 1 year in 3 (13%). Studies were progressing according to target timelines for the remaining 7 indications (29%). Clinical benefit had not yet been confirmed for 8 indications that had been initially approved 5 or more years prior.Conclusions and relevanceAmong 22 drugs with 24 indications granted accelerated approval by the FDA in 2009-2013, efficacy was often confirmed in postapproval trials a minimum of 3 years after approval, although confirmatory trials and preapproval trials had similar design elements, including reliance on surrogate measures as outcomes.

Project description:BackgroundIn July 2018, the FDA first published a table listing all surrogate measures that it has used, and may accept for future use, in regulatory approval. However, the strength of surrogacy for those measures was not formally assessed. Using the case example of breast cancer, we aimed to evaluate the strength of correlation of surrogate measures listed in the FDA's Table with overall survival.MethodsThis cross-sectional study of the FDA's Table of Surrogate Endpoints was conducted in May 2019. All surrogate measures listed in the FDA table as appropriate for accelerated or regular approval for breast cancer were extracted. We identified studies evaluating the correlation of treatment benefit in the surrogate with treatment benefit in overall survival and extracted results from the correlation analysis.FindingsFive surrogate endpoints were listed for breast cancer in the FDA website: pathological complete response rates (pCR), event-free survival (EFS), disease-free survival (DFS), objective response rates (ORR), and progression-free survival (PFS), of which pCR was listed as appropriate only for accelerated approval, while the rest were considered appropriate for accelerated or regular approval. No correlation study evaluated the correlation of treatment effects on EFS with that on OS. The results from correlation studies evaluating pCR, DFS, ORR, and PFS suggest that the treatment effects on none of these surrogate measures were strongly correlated with treatment effects on OS (r<0.85 or R2 < 0.7, except for DFS in HER2 positive early breast cancer (R2 = 0.75).InterpretationUsing breast cancer as an example, we evaluated the underlying evidence for the surrogate endpoints for solid tumors listed in the FDA's Table of Surrogate Endpoints and found weak or missing correlations of treatment effects on these surrogates with treatment effects on OS . Surrogate measures should be predictive of clinical benefit to be useful in supporting regular FDA approval.FundingWork on this project was funded by the Arnold Ventures. Dr. Kesselheim is also supported by the Harvard-MIT Center for Regulatory Science. The funders had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

Project description:BackgroundAccelerated approval (AA) of novel anticancer drugs based on surrogacy has attracted considerable concern globally. China National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) also established a similar conditional approval (CA) program to accelerate the approval of novel drugs to address unmet medical needs. This cross-sectional study aimed to evaluate the pre-approval clinical trial evidence and potential challenge of cancer drugs receiving CA in China from policy implementation to 2022.MethodsThe cancer drugs (initial and supplemental indications) granted CA between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2022 using the public database of the NMPA were analyzed. The characteristics of the cancer drugs received CA were described. Primary efficacy endpoints and safety derived from the pre-approval clinical trial, including response rates (RR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), treatment-related serious adverse events (SAE) and Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) were quantitatively estimated by meta-analysis. Besides, the correlation between the surrogate endpoints and OS was estimated by the reported trial-level correlation analysis.FindingsThe NMPA approved 72 cancer indications (56 new molecular entities) with CA between 2015 and 2022. 34 indications (47%) were also approved by the FDA or EMA. 74% (53/72) of cancer indications were based on a single-arm trial design while 26% (19/72) for randomized controlled trials. The pooled RR was 0.50 (95% CI: 0.45-0.55, I2 = 96%) with significant differences across cancer types and targets while the pooled hazard risk was 0.39 (95% CI: 0.28-0.53, I2 = 89%) for PFS and 0.67 (95% CI: 0.61-0.73, I2 = 0%) for OS. The pooled treatment-related SAE and Grade ≥3 AEs from single-arm designs resulted in 15% and 25%, respectively. In randomized controlled trials, the pooled treatment-related SAE and Grade ≥3 AEs observed in CA drugs and the control groups were comparable. Surrogate endpoints were widely used as the primary efficacy endpoints in the pre-approval pivotal clinical trials with 75% (54/72) for RR, 10% (7/72) for PFS, and 4% (3/72) for others. Of these, 27% (17/63) of the surrogate endpoints reported a trial-level correlation with OS; three reported high correlation (r ≥ 0.85), two reported moderate correlation (0.70 ≤ r < 0.85) and 12 reported low correlation (r < 0.70).InterpretationThe majority of novel cancer drugs that received CA were based on RR designed for single-arm trials. The reported correlations of treatment effect between the surrogate endpoints and OS used for CA were limited. Our findings highlighted that the introduction of OS or quality of life based on RCT in confirmatory clinical trials as much as feasible was essential to ensure the clinical benefits for patients.FundingThis study was supported by postdoctoral fellowship from Tsinghua-Peking Joint Centers for Life Sciences (CLS).

Project description:ImportanceThe China National Drug Administration (NMPA) established the breakthrough therapy designation (BTD) in 2020 to encourage the accelerated development of drugs for the prevention and treatment of diseases that are life-threatening. However, the differences between BTD and non-BTD cancer drugs regarding clinical benefit, regulatory approval, and price are unclear.ObjectivesTo compare BTD and non-BTD cancer drugs in clinical benefit (defined as efficacy and safety), novelty, time to approval, and average monthly treatment price.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study analyzes the original indication of BTD and non-BTD novel cancer drugs approved by the NMPA between July 8, 2020, and July 8, 2024. Data on efficacy, safety, regulatory approval, and price of cancer drugs were extracted from pivotal clinical trials based on review reports published by the NMPA, peer-reviewed articles or meeting reports, and winning bid prices for cancer drugs in the Chinese provincial-level centralized procurement process.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcome was the efficacy and safety associated with BTD vs non-BTD cancer drugs, including progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), duration of response, serious adverse events, grade 3 or higher adverse events, and treatment-related deaths. In addition, the time to approval, novelty, and initial and latest average monthly treatment prices were evaluated, as well as the average annual reduction rate (AARR; the sum of the reduction rates divided by the number of years for the monthly treatment price) for these cancer drugs.ResultsBetween July 2020 and July 2024, 18 BTD (36%) and 32 non-BTD (64%) cancer drugs were approved by the NMPA. The median (IQR) clinical development time for BTD drugs was significantly shorter than for non-BTD drugs (5.6 [95% CI, 4.3-7.3] vs 6.6 [95% CI, 6.0-8.5] years; P = .02). No significant differences were observed in PFS (HR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.38-0.52] vs HR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.40-0.65]; P = .20), PFS gained (median [IQR], 5.4 [3.9-7.0] vs 2.7 [2.6-5.9] months; P = .77), RR (58% [95% CI, 45%-74%] vs 59% [95% CI, 51%-69%]; P = .85), and duration of response (median [IQR], 18.0 [15.0-21.6] vs 11.1 [7.4-17.4] months; P = .09) between BTD and non-BTD drugs. The rates of serious adverse events (37% [95% CI, 26%-52%] vs 32% [95% CI, 27%-36%]; P = .45), adverse events grade 3 or higher (64% [95% CI, 53%-77%] vs 55% [95% CI, 45%-68%]; P = .31), and treatment-related deaths (2% [95% CI, 1%-4%] vs 1% [95% CI, 1%-2%]; P = .10) were similar between BTD and non-BTD drugs. BTD drugs are more likely to be first-in-class drugs (5 of 18 [28%] vs 1 of 32 [3%]; P = .02). Differences in the median (IQR) initial ($5665 [$3542-$9321] vs $3361 [$2604-$5474]; P = .06) and latest ($5665 [$1553-$9321] vs $2145 [$1318-$4276]; P = .18) average monthly treatment prices for BTD drugs and non-BTD drugs were not significant. The median (IQR) AARRs for BTD drugs and non-BTD drugs were 15.2% (0%-46.9%) and 19.8% (1.0%-42.9%), respectively.Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that BTD has facilitated faster time to market for cancer drugs and improved novelty, but the price of treatment is relatively higher. There was no significant difference on comparative efficacy and safety.

Dataset Information

Timing of Confirmatory Trials for Drugs Granted Accelerated Approval Based on Surrogate Measures From 2012 to 2021.

Publications

Timing of Confirmatory Trials for Drugs Granted Accelerated Approval Based on Surrogate Measures From 2012 to 2021.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets