Dataset Information

A comparison of the Food and Drug Administration’s and Health Canada’s regulatory decisions about failed confirmatory trials for oncology drugs: an observational study

ABSTRACT:

Background

Oncology drugs are frequently approved on the basis of surrogate outcomes that require further trials to confirm the benefits, but at times these trials fail and regulators need to decide whether to withdraw approval for the indication and/or to remove the drug from the market. This study compares decisions by the Food and Drug Administration and Health Canada about oncology drugs that were approved using either Accelerated Approval (FDA) or Notice of Compliance with conditions (NOC/c, Health Canada) and that failed confirmatory trials.

Methods

Drug/indications approved by the FDA through its Accelerated Approval Pathway and that later failed confirmatory studies were identified from a published study and additional information on these drugs was collected from Drugs@FDA. Health Canada websites were searched on September 11, 2021 for the same group of drugs to determine if they were approved in Canada under the NOC/c pathway for the same indication as in the US. Information from both the FDA and Health Canada about these products was entered into an Excel spreadsheet. Decisions about whether to withdraw the drugs or remove the failed indication for the drug and requirements for confirmatory studies were compared. In addition, the dates of decisions by the two agencies were compared.

Results

Ten drug/indications were available for comparison. Regulatory decisions were similar in 4 cases, different in 1 case and could not be determined in the remaining 5, in 1 case because decisions were pending in both countries and in the other 4, because the NOC/c had not been fulfilled in Canada. The requirements for the confirmatory studies were similar in both countries. Decisions were made earlier in the United States.

Conclusions

This study shows that decisions made by Health Canada and the FDA about whether to withdraw a drug or remove a failed indication when drug/indications fail a confirmatory trial are usually similar, although the sample size on which this conclusion is made is small. The clinical implications of these similarities and differences should be explored.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40545-021-00375-y.

SUBMITTER: Lexchin J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8555114 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundThe United States Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) consists of adverse event (AE) reports linked to approved drugs. The database is widely used to support post-marketing safety surveillance programs. Sometimes cited as a limitation to the usefulness of FAERS, however, is the 'Weber effect,' which is often summarized by stating that AE reporting peaks at the end of the second year after a regulatory authority approves a drug. Weber described this effect in 1984 based upon a single class of medications prescribed in the United Kingdom. Since that time, the FDA has made a concerted effort to improve both reporting and the database itself. Both volume and quality of AE reporting has dramatically improved since Weber's report, with an estimated 800,000 yearly reports now being logged into FAERS.ObjectiveThe aim of this study was to determine if current FAERS reporting follows the trend described by Weber.MethodsSixty-two drugs approved by the FDA between 2006 and 2010 were included in this analysis. Publicly available FAERS data were used to assess the 'primary suspect' AE reporting pattern for up to a 4-year period following each drug's approval date.ResultsA total of 334,984 AE reports were logged into FAERS for the 62 drugs analyzed here. While a few of the drugs demonstrated what could be considered 'Weber effect' curves, a majority of the drugs showed little evidence for the effect. In fact, the general AE reporting pattern observed in this study appears to consist simply of increasing case counts over the first three quarters after approval followed by relatively constant counts thereafter.ConclusionsOur results suggest that most of the modern adverse event reporting into FAERS does not follow the pattern described by Weber. Factors that may have contributed to this finding include large increases in the volume of AE reports since the Weber effect was described, as well as a concerted effort by the FDA to increase awareness regarding the utility of post-marketing AE reporting.