Dataset Information

Real-world outcomes associated with new cancer medicines approved by the Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency: A retrospective cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Real-World Data (RWD) studies are increasingly used to support regulatory approvals, reimbursement decisions, and changes in clinical practice for novel cancer drugs. However, few studies have systematically appraised their quality or compared outcomes to pivotal trials.

Methods

All RWD studies (2010-2019) for drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) from 2010 to 2015 for solid organ tumours in the non-curative setting were identified. Quality assessment was undertaken using the Newcastle Ottawa Scale. Survival differences between each RWD study and the pivotal trial were determined using a related sample Wilcoxon signed-rank test.

Results

293 RWD studies for 45 of the 57 drug indications approved by the FDA/EMA were identified. The most common tumour types were prostate cancer (29%, n = 86) and melanoma (15%, n = 43). A quarter of the studies had industry funding. No high-quality studies were identified, and 78% were low quality. Comparative survival analysis between RWD and pivotal trials was possible for 224 studies (37 drug indications). Differences in median survival between the RWD studies and their corresponding trial ranged from -32 months to 21 months (IQR -4·2 months to 1·6 months). Low-quality studies were more likely to report superior survival outcomes (23%) compared to higher quality studies (8%) (p = 0.02).

Conclusion

RWD study quality for novel cancer drugs is low and of insufficient rigour to inform reimbursement decisions and clinical practice. RWD studies seeking publication should provide a completed quality assessment tool on submission. Greater investment in properly designed RWD studies is required.

SUBMITTER: Boyle JM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8442759 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceFor 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.ObjectiveTo investigate whether recently approved oncology therapies demonstrate clinically meaningful improvements in QOL.Evidence reviewThis 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.FindingsIn 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 relevanceThe 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.

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:Objective To determine the availability of data on overall survival and quality of life benefits of cancer drugs approved in Europe.Design Retrospective cohort study.Setting Publicly accessible regulatory and scientific reports on cancer approvals by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) from 2009 to 2013.Main outcome measures Pivotal and postmarketing trials of cancer drugs according to their design features (randomisation, crossover, blinding), comparators, and endpoints. Availability and magnitude of benefit on overall survival or quality of life determined at time of approval and after market entry. Validated European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) used to assess the clinical value of the reported gains in published studies of cancer drugs.Results From 2009 to 2013, the EMA approved the use of 48 cancer drugs for 68 indications. Of these, eight indications (12%) were approved on the basis of a single arm study. At the time of market approval, there was significant prolongation of survival in 24 of the 68 (35%). The magnitude of the benefit on overall survival ranged from 1.0 to 5.8 months (median 2.7 months). At the time of market approval, there was an improvement in quality of life in seven of 68 indications (10%). Out of 44 indications for which there was no evidence of a survival gain at the time of market authorisation, in the subsequent postmarketing period there was evidence for extension of life in three (7%) and reported benefit on quality of life in five (11%). Of the 68 cancer indications with EMA approval, and with a median of 5.4 years' follow-up (minimum 3.3 years, maximum 8.1 years), only 35 (51%) had shown a significant improvement in survival or quality of life, while 33 (49%) remained uncertain. Of 23 indications associated with a survival benefit that could be scored with the ESMO-MCBS tool, the benefit was judged to be clinically meaningful in less than half (11/23, 48%).Conclusions This systematic evaluation of oncology approvals by the EMA in 2009-13 shows that most drugs entered the market without evidence of benefit on survival or quality of life. At a minimum of 3.3 years after market entry, there was still no conclusive evidence that these drugs either extended or improved life for most cancer indications. When there were survival gains over existing treatment options or placebo, they were often marginal.

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:OBJECTIVE:To compare review outcome alignment between European Medicines Agency (EMA) and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for medicines approved by both agencies in the time period 2014-2016. DESIGN:Using publicly available information from FDA and EMA websites, new active substances (NASs) approved by each agency from 2014 to 2016 were identified and their characteristics assessed. Divergences in regulatory outcomes for simultaneous (within 91 days) submissions to both agencies were identified and then examined for use of facilitated regulatory pathways and orphan designations; submitted versus approved indications; and approval times. RESULTS:In 2014-2016, 115 NASs were approved by EMA or FDA or both; 74/115 were new chemical entities and 41 new biological/biotechnology entities; 82/115 were approved by both agencies, 24 only by FDA and nine only by EMA. Simultaneous submission occurred for 52/115; 13/52 received expedited review by both agencies and 18 only by FDA; 8/52 received conditional approval from both agencies, 2/52 only from FDA and 1/52 only from EMA; 17/52 were designated as orphans by both agencies and 10/52 by FDA only; 31/52 indications were approved as submitted and 21 changed by EMA and 29/46 were approved as submitted (six not assessed) and 17/46 changed by FDA. Median FDA review timelines were 319 days compared with 409 days for EMA. CONCLUSIONS:There was general agreement in EMA / FDA conditional approvals. FDA used expedited pathways and orphan designation more often than EMA, suggesting stricter EMA criteria or definitions for these designations or less flexible processes. Despite consistency in submitted indications, there was lack of concordance in approved indications, which should be further investigated. FDA review times are faster because of a wider range of expedited pathways and the two-step EMA process; this may change with recent revisions to EMA accelerated assessment guidelines and the launch of Priority Medicines.