Dataset Information

Comparison of FDA accelerated vs regular pathway approvals for lung cancer treatments between 2006 and 2018.

ABSTRACT: Regulatory agencies around the world have been using flexible requirements for approval of new drugs, especially for cancer drugs. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is mostly the first agency to approve new drugs worldwide, mainly due to the faster terms of the accelerated pathway and breakthrough therapy designation. Surrogate endpoints and preliminary data (e.g. single-arm and phase 2 studies) are used for these new approvals, however larger effect sizes are expected. We aim to compare FDA Accelerated vs Regular Pathway approvals and Breakthrough therapy designations (BTD) for lung cancer treatments between 2006 and 2018 regarding study design, sample size, outcome measures and effect size. We assessed the FDA database to collect data from studies that formed the basis of approvals of new drugs or indications for lung cancer spanning from 2006 to 2018. We found that accelerated pathway approvals are based on significantly more single-arm studies with small sample sizes and surrogate primary endpoints. However, effect size was not different between the pathways. A large proportion of studies used to support regular pathway approvals also showed these characteristics that are related to low quality and uncertain evidence. Compared to other approvals, BTD were more frequently based on single-arm studies. There was no significant difference in use of surrogate endpoints or sample size. 44% of BTD were based on studies demonstrating large effect sizes, proportionally more than approvals not receiving this designation. In conclusion, based on the indicators of evidence quality we extracted, criteria's for granting accelerated approval and breakthrough therapy designation seen not clear. Faster approvals are in the majority full of uncertainties which should be viewed with caution and the patient have to be communicated to allow shared decision making. Post-marketing validation is essential.

SUBMITTER: Ribeiro TB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7380631 | biostudies-literature | 2020

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparison of FDA accelerated vs regular pathway approvals for lung cancer treatments between 2006 and 2018.

Ribeiro Tatiane Bomfim TB Buss Lewis L Wayant Cole C Nobre Moacyr Roberto Cuce MRC

PloS one 20200724 7

Regulatory agencies around the world have been using flexible requirements for approval of new drugs, especially for cancer drugs. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is mostly the first agency to approve new drugs worldwide, mainly due to the faster terms of the accelerated pathway and breakthrough therapy designation. Surrogate endpoints and preliminary data (e.g. single-arm and phase 2 studies) are used for these new approvals, however larger effect sizes are expected. We aim to compare ...[more]

PMID: 32706800

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceGovernment and the pharmaceutical industry make substantive contributions to pharmaceutical innovation. This study compared the investments by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and industry and estimated the cost basis for assessing the balance of social and private returns.ObjectivesTo compare NIH and industry investments in recent drug approvals.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study of NIH funding associated with drugs approved by the FDA from 2010 to 2019 was conducted from May 2020 to July 2022 and accounted for basic and applied research, failed clinical candidates, and discount rates for government spending compared with analogous estimates of industry investment.Main outcomes and measuresCosts from the NIH for research associated with drug approvals.ResultsFunding from the NIH was contributed to 354 of 356 drugs (99.4%) approved from 2010 to 2019 totaling $187 billion, with a mean (SD) $1344.6 ($1433.1) million per target for basic research on drug targets and $51.8 ($96.8) million per drug for applied research on products. Including costs for failed clinical candidates, mean (SD) NIH costs were $1441.5 ($1372.0) million per approval or $1730.3 ($1657.6) million per approval, estimated with a 3% discount rate. The mean (SD) NIH spending was $2956.0 ($3106.3) million per approval with a 10.5% cost of capital, which estimates the cost savings to industry from NIH spending. Spending and approval by NIH for 81 first-to-target drugs was greater than reported industry spending on 63 drugs approved from 2010 to 2019 (difference, -$1998.4 million; 95% CI, -$3302.1 million to -$694.6 million; P = .003). Spending from the NIH was not less than industry spending considering clinical failures, a 3% discount rate for NIH spending, and a 10.5% cost of capital for the industry (difference, -$1435.3 million; 95% CI, -$3114.6 million to $244.0 million; P = .09) or when industry spending included prehuman research (difference, -$1394.8 million; 95% CI, -$3774.8 million to $985.2 million; P = .25). Accounting for spillovers of NIH-funded basic research on drug targets to multiple products, NIH costs were $711.3 million with a 3% discount rate, which was less than the range of reported industry costs with 10.5% cost of capital.Conclusions and relevanceThe results of this cross-sectional study found that NIH investment in drugs approved from 2010 to 2019 was not less than investment by the pharmaceutical industry, with comparable accounting for basic and applied research, failed clinical trials, and cost of capital or discount rates. The relative scale of NIH and industry investment may provide a cost basis for calibrating the balance of social and private returns from investments in pharmaceutical innovation.

Dataset Information

Comparison of FDA accelerated vs regular pathway approvals for lung cancer treatments between 2006 and 2018.

Publications

Comparison of FDA accelerated vs regular pathway approvals for lung cancer treatments between 2006 and 2018.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets