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: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: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.

Project description:BackgroundThe European Medicine Agency granted marketing approval to 164 orphan medicinal products for rare diseases, among which 28 products intended for the treatment of hereditary metabolic diseases. Taking advantage of its privileged connection with 69 healthcare centres of excellence in this field, MetabERN, the European Reference Network for hereditary metabolic diseases, performed a survey asking health care providers from 18 European countries whether these products are available on the market, reimbursed and therefore accessible for prescription, and actually delivered in their centre.ResultsResponses received from 52 centres (75%) concerned the design of treatment plans, the access to marketed products, and the barriers to delivery. Treatment options are always discussed with patients, who are often involved in their treatment plan. Most products (26/28) are available in most countries (15/18). Among the 15 broadly accessible products (88.5% of the centres), 9 are delivered to most patients (mean 70.1%), and the others to only few (16.5%). Among the 10 less accessible products (40.2% of the centres), 6 are delivered to many patients (66.7%), and 4 are rarely used (6.3%). Information was missing for 3 products. Delay between prescription and delivery is on average one month. Beside the lack of availability or accessibility, the most frequent reasons for not prescribing a treatment are patients' clinical status, characteristic, and personal choice.ConclusionsData collected from health care providers in the MetabERN network indicate that two-third of the orphan medicines approved by EMA for the treatment of hereditary metabolic diseases are accessible to treating patients, although often less than one-half of the patients with the relevant conditions actually received the approved product to treat their disease. Thus, in spite of the remarkable achievement of many products, patients concerned by EMA-approved orphan medicinal products have persistent unmet needs, which deserve consideration. The enormous investments made by the companies to develop products, and the high financial burden for the Member States to purchase these products emphasize the importance of a scrupulous appreciation of treatment value involving all stakeholders at early stage of development, before marketing authorization, and during follow up.

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