Dataset Information

Dose selection and tolerability of anticancer agents evaluated by the European Medicines Agency in the period 2015-2020

ABSTRACT:

Background

Novel anticancer agents are initially evaluated in a palliative setting in phase I studies. The benefit–risk applying the selected dose from these phase I studies can be considered acceptable at time of registration, however, it is unknown if the optimal dose has been selected during drug development.

Methods

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) overview was used to select anticancer agents evaluated between 2015 and 2020. The dose selection and tolerability data of EMA assessed anticancer agents was analysed to evaluate dose selection.

Results

Sixty EPARs were included for analysis. A dose–response relation was identified in five dossiers (8%). The maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was the selected dose for 15 anticancer agents (25%). The MTD was not determined in 27 out of 60 cases (59%). When the MTD was determined but not applied as final dose, the most frequently used dose selection criteria were the combination of toxicity, exposure response, pharmacokinetic data and pharmacodynamic data (in 7 out of 18 cases). Data on tolerability were analysed separately for protein kinase inhibitors and monoclonal antibodies as the dosing interval and mitigation of adverse events (AEs) differs. The median discontinuation, dose reduction and dose interruption rates due to AEs of protein kinase inhibitors were 10%, 26% and 45% for monotherapy and 13%, 47% and 55% for combination therapy, respectively. The median discontinuation rates due to AEs for monoclonal antibodies were 8% for monotherapy and 26% for combination therapy.

Conclusion

The dose–response relationship has not been established for the majority of the registered anticancer agents. The selected posology is often poorly tolerable as reflected by the high discontinuation and dose reduction rates. Due to the absence of dose–response data, it is often unknown if the optimal dose has been selected for anticancer agents. Highlights • The dose–response relationship has not been established for the majority of the anticancer agents.• The posology of anticancer agents is often poorly tolerable, reflected by the high discontinuation and dose reduction rates.• Due to the absence of dose–response data it is often unknown if the optimal dose has been selected for anticancer agents.

SUBMITTER: Maliepaard M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8586755 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

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:ObjectivesStratified medicine is often heralded as the future of clinical practice. Key part of stratified medicine is the use of predictive biomarkers, which identify patient subgroups most likely to benefit (or least likely to experience harm) from an intervention. We investigated how many and what predictive biomarkers are currently included in European Medicines Agency (EMA) licensing.SettingEMA licensing.ParticipantsIndications and contraindications of all drugs considered by the EMA and published in 883 European Public Assessment Reports and Pending Decisions.Primary and secondary outcome measuresData were collected on: the type of the biomarker, whether it selected a subgroup of patients based on efficacy or toxicity, therapeutic area, marketing status, date of licensing decision, date of inclusion of the biomarker in the indication or contraindication and on orphan designation.Results49 biomarker-indication-drug (B-I-D) combinations were identified over 16 years, which included 37 biomarkers and 41 different drugs. All identified biomarkers were molecular. Six drugs (relating to 10 B-I-D combinations) had an orphan designation at the time of licensing. The identified B-I-D combinations were mainly used in cancer and HIV treatment, and also in hepatitis C and three other indications (cystic fibrosis, hyperlipoproteinaemia type I and methemoglobinaemia). In 45 B-I-D combinations, biomarkers were used as predictive of drug efficacy and in four of drug toxicity. It appeared that there was an increase in the number of B-I-D combinations introduced each year; however, the numbers were too small to identify any trends.ConclusionsGiven the large body of literature documenting research into potential predictive biomarkers and extensive investment into stratified medicine, we identified relatively few predictive biomarkers included in licensing. These were also limited to a small number of clinical areas. This might suggest a need for improvement in methods of translation from laboratory findings to clinical practice.

Project description:AimsWe have previously described the European Medicines Agency's (EMA) and the US Food and Drug Administration's guidelines, each for a specific psychiatric indication, on how to design pivotal drug trials used in new drug applications. Here, we report on our efforts over 3 years to retrieve conflicts of interest declarations from EMA. We wanted to assess potential internal industry influence judged as the proportion of guideline committee members with industry conflicts of interest.MethodsWe submitted Freedom of Information requests in February 2020 to access EMA's lists of committee members (and their declared conflicts of interest) involved in drafting the 13 'Clinical efficacy and safety' guidelines available on EMA's website pertaining to psychiatric indications. In our request, we did not specify the exact EMA committees. Here, we describe the received documents and report the proportion of members with industry interests (i.e. defined as any financial industry relationship). It is a follow-up paper to our first report (http://doi.org/10.1017/S2045796021000147).ResultsAfter 2 years and 9 months (November 2022), the EMA sent us member lists and corresponding conflicts of interest declarations from the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human use (CHMP) from 2012, 2013 and 2017. These member lists pertained to 3 of the 13 requested guidelines (schizophrenia, depression and autism spectrum disorder). The 10 remaining guidelines were published before 2011 and EMA stated that they needed to require permission from their expert members (with unknown retrieval rate) and foresaw excessive workload and long wait. Therefore, we withdrew our request. The CHMPs from 2012, 2013 and 2017 had from 34 to 36 members; 39%-44% declared any interests and we judged 14%-18% as having industry interests. For the schizophrenia guideline, we identified two members with industry interests to companies who submitted feedback on the guideline. We did not receive declarations from the Central Nervous System (CNS) Working Party, the CHMP appointed expert group responsible for drafting and incorporating feedback into the guidelines.ConclusionsAfter almost 3 years, we received information, which only partly addressed our request. We recommend EMA to improve transparency by publishing the author names and their corresponding conflicts of interest declarations directly in the 'Clinical efficacy and safety' guidelines and to not remove conflicts of interest declarations after 1 year from their website to reduce the risk of stealth corporate influence during the development of these influential guidelines.