Dataset Information

Assessment of Food and Drug Administration- and European Medicines Agency-Approved Systemic Oncology Therapies and Clinically Meaningful Improvements in Quality of Life: A Systematic Review.

ABSTRACT:

Importance

For patients with cancer treated with palliative intent, quality of life (QOL) is a critical aspect of treatment decision-making, alongside survival. However, regulatory approval can be based solely on survival measures or antitumor activities, without QOL evidence.

Objective

To investigate whether recently approved oncology therapies demonstrate clinically meaningful improvements in QOL.

Evidence review

This systematic review study identified oncology drug indications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) from January 2006 to December 2017 and supporting clinical trials (QOL publications identified to October 2019). Indications were evaluated for the presence of published QOL evidence; QOL benefits according to the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework version 2.0 (ASCO-VF) and European Society of Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (ESMO-MCBS) QOL bonus criteria; and clinically meaningful improvements in QOL beyond minimal clinically important differences. Hematology trials were not evaluated by ESMO-MCBS. Associations between QOL evidence and approval year were examined using logistic regression models.

Findings

In total, 214 FDA-approved (77 [36%] hematological) and 170 EMA-approved (52 [31%] hematological) indications were included. QOL evidence was published for 40% and 58% of FDA- and EMA-approved indications, respectively. QOL bonus criterion for ASCO-VF and ESMO-MCBS was met in 13% and 17% of FDA-approved and 21% and 24% of EMA-approved indications, respectively. Clinically meaningful improvements in QOL beyond minimal clinically important differences were noted in 6% and 11% of FDA- and EMA-approved indications, respectively. Availability of published QOL evidence at the time of approval increased over time for EMA (odds ratio [OR], 1.13; P?=?.03), however not for FDA (OR, 1.10; P?=?.12). Over time, no increase in awarded QOL bonuses or clinically meaningful improvements in QOL were found.

Conclusions and relevance

The findings of this systematic review suggest that approved systemic oncology therapies often do not have published evidence to suggest QOL improvement, despite its recognized importance. Of indications with evidence of statistical improvement, few have demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements.

SUBMITTER: Arciero V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7879236 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Assessment of Food and Drug Administration- and European Medicines Agency-Approved Systemic Oncology Therapies and Clinically Meaningful Improvements in Quality of Life: A Systematic Review.

Arciero Vanessa V Delos Santos Seanthel S Koshy Liza L Rahmadian Amanda A Saluja Ronak R Everest Louis L Parmar Ambica A Chan Kelvin K W KKW

JAMA network open 20210201 2

<h4>Importance</h4>For patients with cancer treated with palliative intent, quality of life (QOL) is a critical aspect of treatment decision-making, alongside survival. However, regulatory approval can be based solely on survival measures or antitumor activities, without QOL evidence.<h4>Objective</h4>To investigate whether recently approved oncology therapies demonstrate clinically meaningful improvements in QOL.<h4>Evidence review</h4>This systematic review study identified oncology drug indic ...[more]

PMID: 33570573

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the added benefit and revenues of oncology drugs, explore their association, and investigate potential discrepancies between added benefit and revenues across different approval pathways of the European Medicines Agency (EMA).DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingOncology drugs and their indications approved by the EMA between 1995 and 2020.Main outcome measuresAdded benefit was evaluated using ratings published by seven organisations: health technology assessment agencies from the United States, France, Germany, and Italy, two medical oncology societies, and a drug bulletin. All retrieved ratings were recategorised using a four point ranking scale to indicate negative or non-quantifiable, minor, substantial, or major added benefit. Revenue data were extracted from publicly available financial reports and compared with published estimates of research and development (R&D) costs. Finally, the association between added benefit and revenue was evaluated. All analyses were performed within the overall study cohort, and within subgroups based on the EMA approval pathway: standard marketing authorisation, conditional marketing authorisation, and authorisation under exceptional circumstances.Results131 oncology drugs with 166 indications were evaluated for their added benefit by at least one organisation within the required timeframe, yielding a total of 458 added benefit ratings; 189 (41%) were negative or non-quantifiable. The median time to offset the median R&D costs ($684m, £535m, €602m, adjusted to 2020 values) was three years; 50 of 55 (91%) drugs recovered these costs within eight years. Drugs with higher added benefit ratings generally had greater revenues. Negative or non-quantifiable added benefit ratings were more frequent for conditional marketing authorisations and authorisations under exceptional circumstances than for standard marketing authorisations (relative risk 1.53, 95% confidence interval 1.23 to 1.89). Conditional marketing authorisations generated lower revenues and took longer to offset R&D costs than standard marketing authorisations (four years compared with three years).ConclusionsWhile revenues seem to align with added benefit, most oncology drugs recover R&D costs within a few years despite providing little added benefit. This is particularly true for drugs approved through conditional marketing authorisations, which inherently appear to lack comprehensive evidence. Policy makers should evaluate whether current regulatory and reimbursement incentives effectively promote development of the most effective drugs for patients with the greatest needs.

Project description:AimsTo systematically assess the level of evidence for psychotropic drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA).MethodsCross-sectional analysis of all European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) and meta-analyses of the many studies reported in these EPARs. Eligible EPARs were identified from the EMA's website and individual study reports were requested from the Agency when necessary. All marketing authorisation applications (defined by the drug, the route of administration and given indications) for psychotropic medications for adults (including drugs used in psychiatry and addictology) were considered. EPARs solely based on bioequivalence studies were excluded. Our primary outcome measure was the presence of robust evidence of comparative effectiveness, defined as at least two 'positive' superiority studies against an active comparator. Various other features of the approvals were assessed, such as evidence of non-inferiority v. active comparator and superiority v. placebo. For studies with available data, effect sizes were computed and pooled using a random effect meta-analysis for each dose of each drug in each indication.ResultsTwenty-seven marketing authorisations were identified. For one, comparative effectiveness was explicitly considered as not needed in the EPAR. Of those remaining, 21/26 (81%) did not provide any evidence of superiority against an active comparator, 2/26 (8%) were based on at least two trials showing superiority against active comparator and three (11%) were based on one positive trial; 1/26 provided evidence for two positive non-inferiority analyses v. active comparator and seven (26%) provided evidence for one. In total, 20/27 (74%) evaluations reported evidence of superiority v. placebo with two or more trials. Among the meta-analyses of initiation studies against active comparator (57 available comparisons), the median effect size was 0.051 (range -0.503; 0.318). Twenty approved evaluations (74%) reported evidence of superiority v. placebo on the basis of two or more initiation trials and seven based on a single trial. Among meta-analyses of initiation studies against placebo (125 available comparisons), the median effect size was -0.283 (range -0.820; 0.091). Importantly, among the 89 study reports requested on the EMA website, only 19 were made available 1 year after our requests.ConclusionsThe evidence for psychiatric drug approved by the EMA was in general poor. Small to modest effects v. placebo were considered sufficient in indications where an earlier drug exists. Data retrieval was incomplete after 1 year despite EMA's commitment to transparency. Improvements are needed.

Project description:BackgroundPrompted by the Covid-19 pandemic and the need to ensure timely and safe access to medicines during a pandemic, the aim of this study was to compare and contrast the EU and US regulations, processes, and outcomes pertaining to the granting of accelerated Marketing Authorizations (MAs) for COVID-19 vaccines and treatments with a view to determining how effective these regulations were in delivering safe medicines in a timely manner.MethodsMAs for medicines approved for Covid-related indications in the first two pandemic years (March 2020-February 2022) were identified using the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) websites. Authorization reports and utilized regulations were reviewed to determine and compare approval timelines, facilitated pathways, accepted clinical evidence, and effectiveness of the regulations by assessing them against time and safety standards.ResultsBy the end of February 2022, the EMA and FDA had granted 12 and 14 MAs, respectively. Two EU and two US approvals were issued in relation to new indications for already-approved treatments; the remaining ones were first-time approvals of novel vaccines and treatments. The median time to approval was 24 days for the EMA's conditional MAs and 36 days for the USFDA's Emergency Use Authorizations (EUA) for all Covid-19 medicines. This is compared with 23 and 28 days, respectively, specifically for first-time novel vaccines and treatments authorized by both USFDA and EMA. The USFDA and EMA differed markedly in terms of the time taken to approve new indications of already-approved treatment; the USFDA took 65 days for such approval, compared with 133 days for the EMA. Where MAs were issued by both authorities, USFDA approvals were issued before EMA approvals; applications for approval were submitted to the FDA before submission to the EMA. Three EU and two US MAs were based on data from two or more phase 3 clinical trials; the remaining ones were based on single trial data. Only six EU and four US trials had been completed by the time of authorization. This was in line with regulations. While the applicable regulations shared many similarities, there were marked differences. For instance, the EU's conditional MA regulation pertains only to first approvals of new treatments. It does not cover new indications of already-approved treatments. This contrasts with the US, where the EUA regulation applies to both types of applications, something that may have impacted approval timelines. Overall, both EU and US utilized regulations were considered to be effective. For most cases, utilizing such regulations for Covid-19 MAs resulted in faster approval timelines compared to standard MAs. They were flexible enough to manage the process of granting emergency approvals while maintaining strict requirements and allowing comprehensive reviews of the supporting evidence.ConclusionUS and EU regulations were effective in ensuring timely accelerated market access to Covid-19 medicines during the pandemic without compromising the approval standards related to safety or efficacy. The population in both regions will receive comparable access to medicines during a pandemic if sponsors submit their applications to both authorities in parallel.

Project description:At present, antibiotic resistance is one of the most pressing issues in healthcare globally. The development of new medicine for clinical applications is significantly less than the emergence of multiple drug-resistant bacteria, thus modification of existing medicines is a useful avenue. Among several approaches, nanomedicine is considered of potential therapeutic value. Herein, we have synthesized Zinc oxide nanoparticles (ZnO-NPs) conjugated with clinically-approved drugs (Quercetin, Ceftriaxone, Ampicillin, Naringin and Amphotericin B) with the aim to evaluate their antibacterial activity against several Gram-positive (Methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus, Streptococcus pneumoniae and Streptococcus pyogenes) and Gram-negative (Escherichia coli K1, Serratia marcescens and Pseudomonas aeruginosa) bacteria. The nanoparticles and their drug conjugates were characterized using UV-visible spectrophotometry, dynamic light scattering, Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy and atomic force microscopy. Antibacterial activity was performed by dilution colony forming unit method and finally 3-(4,5-dimethylthiazole-2-yl)-2,5-diphenyltetrazolium bromide (MTT) assays were performed to determine their cytotoxic effects against human cell lines. ZnO-NPs revealed maxima surface plasmon resonance band at 374 and after conjugation with beta-cyclodextrin at 379 nm, polydispersity with size in range of 25-45 nm with pointed shaped morphology. When conjugated with ZnO-NPs, drug efficacy against MDR bacteria was enhanced significantly. In particular, Ceftriaxone- and Ampicillin-conjugated ZnO-NPs exhibited potent antibacterial effects. Conversely, ZnO-NPs and drugs conjugated NPs showed negligible cytotoxicity against human cell lines except Amphotericin B (57% host cell death) and Amphotericin B-conjugated with ZnO-NPs (37% host cell death). In conclusion, the results revealed that drugs loaded on ZnO-NPs offer a promising approach to combat increasingly resistant bacterial infections.

Dataset Information

Assessment of Food and Drug Administration- and European Medicines Agency-Approved Systemic Oncology Therapies and Clinically Meaningful Improvements in Quality of Life: A Systematic Review.

Importance

Objective

Evidence review

Findings

Conclusions and relevance

Publications

Assessment of Food and Drug Administration- and European Medicines Agency-Approved Systemic Oncology Therapies and Clinically Meaningful Improvements in Quality of Life: A Systematic Review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets