Dataset Information

Pre-approval and post-approval availability of evidence and clinical benefit of conditionally approved cancer drugs in Europe: A comparison with standard approved cancer drugs.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

Cancer drugs are increasingly approved through expedited regulatory pathways including the European conditional marketing authorization (CMA). Whether, when taking CMA post-approval confirmatory trials into account, the level of evidence and clinical benefit between CMA and standard approved (SMA) drugs differs remains unknown.

Methods

We identified all CMA cancer indications converted to SMA in 2006-2020 and compared these to similar SMA indications with regard to pivotal trial and CMA post-approval confirmatory trial design, outcomes and demonstrated clinical benefit (per the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale). We tested for differences in clinical benefit and whether substantial clinical benefit was demonstrated. To account for the clinical benefit of unconverted CMA indications, we performed sensitivity analyses.

Results

We included 15 SMA and 15 converted CMA cancer indications (17 remained unconverted). Approval of 11 SMA (73%) and four CMA indications (27%) was supported by a controlled trial. Improved overall survival (OS) was demonstrated for four SMA indications (27%). Improved quality of life (QoL) was demonstrated for three SMA (20%) and one CMA indication(s) (7%). Of subsequent CMA post-approval confirmatory trials, 11 were controlled (79%), one demonstrated improved OS (7%) and five improved QoL (36%). After conversion, CMA indications were associated with similar clinical benefit (P = .31) and substantial clinical benefit as SMA indications (risk ratio 1.4, 95% confidence interval 0.57-3.4).

Conclusion

While CMA cancer indications are initially associated with less comprehensive evidence than SMA indications, levels of evidence and clinical benefit are similar after conversion from CMA to SMA.

SUBMITTER: Bloem LT

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9303888 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Policy Points Regulatory agencies may have limited evidence on the clinical benefits and harms of new drugs when deciding whether new therapeutic agents are allowed to enter the market and under which conditions, including whether approval is granted under special regulatory pathways and obligations to address knowledge gaps through postmarketing studies are imposed. In a matched comparison of marketing applications for cancer drugs of uncertain therapeutic value reviewed by both the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA), we found frequent discordance between the two agencies on regulatory outcomes and the use of special regulatory pathways. Both agencies often granted regular approval, even when the other agency judged there to be substantial uncertainty about drug benefits and risks that needed to be resolved through additional studies in the postmarketing period. Postmarketing studies imposed by regulators under special approval pathways to address remaining questions of efficacy and safety may not be suited to deliver timely, confirmatory evidence due to shortcomings in study design and delays, raising questions over the suitability of the FDA's Accelerated Approval and the EMA's Conditional Marketing Authorization as tools for allowing early market access for cancer drugs while maintaining rigorous regulatory standards.ContextRegulatory agencies are increasingly required to make market approval decisions for new drugs on the basis of limited clinical evidence, a situation commonly encountered in cancer. We aimed to investigate how regulators manage uncertainty in the benefit-risk profiles of new cancer drugs by comparing decisions for the world's two largest regulatory bodies-the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA)-over a 5-year period.MethodsWe systematically identified a set of cancer drug-indication pairs for which data on efficacy and safety was less complete than that required for regular approval at time of market entry from 2009 to 2013, as determined by the FDA's use of Accelerated Approval (AA) or the EMA's use of Conditional Marketing Authorization (CMA) pathways, and matched these across the two agencies. Using publicly available information, we compared regulatory pathways and outcomes, final approved indications, and postmarketing obligations imposed by the agencies.FindingsWe identified 21 cancer drug-indication pairs that received FDA AA, EMA CMA, or both. Although most applications relied on identical pivotal trials across the FDA and the EMA, regulatory pathways often differed; 57% of indications received either FDA AA or EMA CMA, and regular approval by the other agency. After approval, the EMA more often accepted single-arm studies to confirm clinical benefit compared to the FDA (75% vs. 29% of indications), and the FDA more commonly requested randomized controlled trials (85% vs. 50%). Forty-one percent of confirmatory trials after FDA AA were conducted in different populations than the approved indication, compared to 13% after EMA CMA. Both agencies relied primarily on surrogate measures of patient benefit for postmarketing obligations. After a median follow-up of 7.25 years, 40% of FDA and 61% of EMA postmarketing obligations after AA and CMA, respectively, were delayed.ConclusionsUS and European regulators often deemed early and less complete evidence on benefit-risk profiles of cancer drugs sufficient to grant regular approval, raising questions over regulatory standards for the approval of new medicines. Even when imposing confirmatory studies in the postmarketing period through special approval pathways, meaningful evidence may not materialize due to shortcomings in study design and delays in conducting required studies with due diligence.

Project description:BackgroundThe cost of new anticancer drugs is rising. We aimed to assess the clinical benefit and price of anti-cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for advanced gastrointestinal cancers.MethodsDrugs approved between 2006 and 2017 for advanced GI malignancies were identified from FDA.gov, and their updated supporting trial data were searched. Incremental clinical benefit was quantified by using ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (grade 0-5) and ASCO Value Framework version 2 (score range -20 to 180). Higher scores indicate larger net benefit, and substantial benefit was defined as score 4 or 5 by the European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO). The Micromedex REDBOOK was used to estimate the monthly average wholesale price (AWP) and total drug price (TDP) over the median treatment duration per patient. Clinical benefit, AWP and TDP of each drug class were assessed.ResultsIn total, 16 GI cancer drugs received FDA approval for 24 indications, including five monoclonal antibodies (mAbs), five oral targeted therapies (TT), two immunotherapeutics (IO), three cytotoxic chemotherapies (CT), and one recombinant fusion protein (aflibercept). Most supporting trials (82%) reported overall survival benefit of less than 3 months and no significant improvement in quality of life. Only five agents (including one TT and one IO) with 21% the of approved indications met the ESMO's threshold of substantial clinical benefit. Median incremental benefit scores of TT and IO were comparable to other drug classes. However their median TDP was much higher at $153 402 and $98 208, respectively, compared to $30 330 USD per patient for CT. The estimated TDP did not correlate with clinical benefit scores.ConclusionMost FDA-approved gastrointestinal cancer drugs do not meet the ESMO threshold of substantial clinical benefit. TT and IO are estimated to carry significant drug costs, and further cost analysis of these drugs is urgently needed.

Project description:ImportanceClinical research supporting US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug approvals is largely conducted outside the US.ObjectiveTo characterize where drugs were tested for FDA approval and to determine how commonly and quickly these drugs received marketing approval in the countries where they were tested, both overall and by country income level and geographical region.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional analysis of trials supporting FDA approval of novel drugs in 2012 and 2014, sponsored by large drug companies, did not involve human participants. The settings were the countries hosting trials supporting US drug approval. Data sources included Drugs@FDA, ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, Google Scholar, EMBASE, and drug regulatory agency websites. Data analysis was completed March through September 2020.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were the proportion of drugs approved for marketing in the countries where they were tested for FDA approval within 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years of FDA approval and the proportion of countries contributing participants to trials supporting FDA approvals receiving market access to the drugs they helped test within 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 years of FDA approval.ResultsIn 2012 and 2014, the FDA approved 34 novel drugs sponsored by large companies, on the basis of a total of 898 trials, 563 of which had location information available. Each drug was tested in a median (interquartile range [IQR]) of 25 (18-37) unique countries, including a median (IQR) of 20 (13-25) high-income countries, 6 (4-11) upper-middle-income countries, and 1 (0-2) low-middle-income country. One drug was approved for marketing in all testing countries within 1 year of FDA approval and 15% (5 of 34 drugs) were approved in all testing countries within 5 years of FDA approval. Of the 70 countries contributing research participants for FDA drug approvals, 7% (5 countries) received market access to drugs they helped test within 1 year of FDA approval and 31% (22 countries) did so within 5 years. Access within 1 year occurred in 13% (5 of 39) of high-income countries, 0 of 22 upper-middle-income countries (0%), and 0 of 9 lower-middle-income countries (0%), whereas at 5 years access rates were 46% (18 of 39 countries), 9% (2 of 22 countries), and 22% (2 of 9 countries), respectively. Approvals were faster in high-income countries (median [IQR], 8 [0-11] months) than in upper-middle-income countries (median [IQR], 11 [5-29] months) or lower-middle-income countries (median [IQR], 17 [11-27] months) after FDA approval. Access was lowest in African countries.Conclusions and relevanceThese findings suggest that substantial gaps exist between where FDA-approved drugs are tested and where they ultimately become available to patients, raising concerns about the equitable distribution of research benefits at the population level.