1
|
Shahzad M, Naci H, Esselen KM, Dottino JA, Wagner AK. Regulatory histories of recently withdrawn ovarian cancer treatment indications of 3 PARP inhibitors in the US and Europe: lessons for the accelerated approval pathway. J Pharm Policy Pract 2024; 17:2351003. [PMID: 38841118 PMCID: PMC11151792 DOI: 10.1080/20523211.2024.2351003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/07/2024] Open
Abstract
Background Withdrawals of drug indications may reveal potential inadequacies in the regulatory approval processes of new drugs. Understanding potential weaknesses of the regulatory approval process is paramount given the increasing use of expedited pathways. In this paper, we focus on three poly-ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors (olaparib, rucaparib and niraparib) for the treatment of women with heavily pretreated, recurrent ovarian cancer, which were eventually withdrawn. Methods We use a comparative case study approach to evaluate the regulatory histories of these drug indications in the US and Europe. Results Two drug indications benefited from the FDA's accelerated approval pathway, which explicitly lowers the bar for evidence of efficacy at the time of approval. Following accelerated approval, manufacturers are mandated to conduct post-marketing studies to confirm clinical benefit. The FDA granted accelerated approval to olaparib and rucaparib based on data on surrogate endpoints and converted the approval to regular approval after the submission of additional data on surrogate endpoints from one of two required confirmatory trials, that is, without data on clinical benefit. Niraparib directly received regular approval based only on data on a surrogate endpoint. By contrast, the EMA granted conditional marketing authorisation to rucaparib and was quicker to restrict usage than the FDA. Conclusion The regulatory histories of these drug indications highlight the need to reform the accelerated approval pathway by ensuring that post-marketing requirements are followed, and that regular approval is only based on evidence of clinical benefit.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mahnum Shahzad
- Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Huseyin Naci
- Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK
| | | | | | - Anita K. Wagner
- Department of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Harvard Pilgrim Health Care Institute, Boston, MA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Liu ITT, Kesselheim AS, Cliff ERS. Clinical Benefit and Regulatory Outcomes of Cancer Drugs Receiving Accelerated Approval. JAMA 2024; 331:1471-1479. [PMID: 38583175 PMCID: PMC11000139 DOI: 10.1001/jama.2024.2396] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/01/2023] [Accepted: 02/13/2024] [Indexed: 04/09/2024]
Abstract
Importance The US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) accelerated approval pathway allows approval of investigational drugs treating unmet medical needs based on changes to surrogate measures considered "reasonably likely" to predict clinical benefit. Postapproval clinical trials are then required to confirm whether these drugs offer clinical benefit. Objective To determine whether cancer drugs granted accelerated approval ultimately demonstrate clinical benefit and to evaluate the basis of conversion to regular approval. Design, Setting, and Participants In this cohort study, publicly available FDA data were used to identify cancer drugs granted accelerated approval from 2013 to 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures Demonstrated improvement in quality of life or overall survival in accelerated approvals with more than 5 years of follow-up, as well as confirmatory trial end points and time to conversion for drug-indication pairs converted to regular approval. Results A total of 129 cancer drug-indication pairs were granted accelerated approval from 2013 to 2023. Among 46 indications with more than 5 years of follow-up (approved 2013-2017), approximately two-thirds (29, 63%) were converted to regular approval, 10 (22%) were withdrawn, and 7 (15%) remained ongoing after a median of 6.3 years. Fewer than half (20/46, 43%) demonstrated a clinical benefit in confirmatory trials. Time to withdrawal decreased from 9.9 years to 3.6 years, and time to regular approval increased from 1.6 years to 3.6 years. Among 48 drug-indication pairs converted to regular approval, 19 (40%) were converted based on overall survival, 21 (44%) on progression-free survival, 5 (10%) on response rate plus duration of response, 2 (4%) on response rate, and 1 (2%) despite a negative confirmatory trial. Comparing accelerated and regular approval indications, 18 of 48 (38%) were unchanged, while 30 of 48 (63%) had different indications (eg, earlier line of therapy). Conclusions and Relevance Most cancer drugs granted accelerated approval did not demonstrate benefit in overall survival or quality of life within 5 years of accelerated approval. Patients should be clearly informed about the cancer drugs that use the accelerated approval pathway and do not end up showing benefits in patient-centered clinical outcomes.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ian T. T. Liu
- Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Aaron S. Kesselheim
- Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Edward R. Scheffer Cliff
- Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Krychtiuk KA, Andersson TL, Bodesheim U, Butler J, Curtis LH, Elkind M, Hernandez AF, Hornik C, Lyman GH, Khatri P, Mbagwu M, Murakami M, Nichols G, Roessig L, Young AQ, Schilsky RL, Pagidipati N. Drug development for major chronic health conditions-aligning with growing public health needs: Proceedings from a multistakeholder think tank. Am Heart J 2024; 270:23-43. [PMID: 38242417 DOI: 10.1016/j.ahj.2024.01.004] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/25/2023] [Revised: 01/11/2024] [Accepted: 01/12/2024] [Indexed: 01/21/2024]
Abstract
The global pharmaceutical industry portfolio is skewed towards cancer and rare diseases due to more predictable development pathways and financial incentives. In contrast, drug development for major chronic health conditions that are responsible for a large part of mortality and disability worldwide is stalled. To examine the processes of novel drug development for common chronic health conditions, a multistakeholder Think Tank meeting, including thought leaders from academia, clinical practice, non-profit healthcare organizations, the pharmaceutical industry, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), payors as well as investors, was convened in July 2022. Herein, we summarize the proceedings of this meeting, including an overview of the current state of drug development for chronic health conditions and key barriers that were identified. Six major action items were formulated to accelerate drug development for chronic diseases, with a focus on improving the efficiency of clinical trials and rapid implementation of evidence into clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | - Javed Butler
- Baylor Scott & White Research Institute, Dallas, TX
| | | | - Mitchell Elkind
- American Heart Association, Dallas, TX; Columbia University, New York, NY
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
NEUMANN PETERJ, CRUMMER ELLIOTT, CHAMBERS JAMESD, TUNIS SEANR. Improving Food and Drug Administration-Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services Coordination for Drugs Granted Accelerated Approval. Milbank Q 2023; 101:1047-1075. [PMID: 37644739 PMCID: PMC10726896 DOI: 10.1111/1468-0009.12670] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/29/2023] [Revised: 07/12/2023] [Accepted: 07/27/2023] [Indexed: 08/31/2023] Open
Abstract
Policy Points The increasing number of drugs granted accelerated approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has challenged the Medicare program, which often pays for expensive therapies despite substantial uncertainty about benefits and risks to Medicare beneficiaries. We recommend several administrative and legislative approaches for improving FDA-Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) coordination around accelerated-approval drugs, including promoting earlier discussions among the FDA, the CMS, and drug companies; strengthening Medicare's coverage with evidence development program; linking Medicare payment to evidence generation milestones; and ensuring that the CMS has adequate staffing and resources to evaluate new therapies. These activities can help improve the integrity; transparency; and efficiency of approval, coverage, and payment processes for drugs granted accelerated approval. CONTEXT The Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s accelerated-approval pathway expedites patient access to promising treatments. However, increasing use of this pathway has challenged the Medicare program, which often pays for expensive therapies despite substantial uncertainty about benefits and risks to Medicare beneficiaries. We examined approaches to improve coordination between the FDA and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) for drugs granted accelerated approval. METHODS We argue that policymakers have focused on expedited pathways at the FDA without sufficient attention to complementary policies at the CMS. Although differences between the FDA and CMS decisions are to be expected given the agencies' different missions and statutory obligations, procedural improvements can ensure that Medicare beneficiaries have timely access to novel therapies that are likely to improve health outcomes. To inform policy options and recommendations, we conducted semistructured interviews with stakeholders to capture diverse perspectives on the topic. FINDINGS We recommend ten areas for consideration: clarifying the FDA's evidentiary standards; strengthening FDA authorities; promoting earlier discussions among the FDA, the CMS, and drug companies; improving Medicare's coverage with evidence development program; tying Medicare payment for accelerated-approval drugs to evidence generation milestones; issuing CMS guidance on real-world evidence; clarifying Medicare's "reasonable and necessary" criteria; adopting lessons from international regulatory-reimbursement harmonization efforts; ensuring that the CMS has adequate staffing and expertise; and emphasizing equity. CONCLUSIONS Better coordination between the FDA and CMS could improve the transparency and predictability of drug approval and coverage around accelerated-approval drugs, with important implications for patient outcomes, health spending, and evidence generation processes. Improved coordination will require reforms at both the FDA and CMS, with special attention to honoring the agencies' distinct authorities. It will require administrative and legislative actions, new resources, and strong leadership at both agencies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- PETER J. NEUMANN
- Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in HealthTufts Medical Center
| | - ELLIOTT CRUMMER
- Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in HealthTufts Medical Center
| | - JAMES D. CHAMBERS
- Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in HealthTufts Medical Center
| | - SEAN R. TUNIS
- Center for the Evaluation of Value and Risk in HealthTufts Medical Center
- Rubix Health
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Cliff ERS, Rome RS, Kesselheim AS, Rome BN. National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guideline Recommendations of Cancer Drugs With Accelerated Approval. JAMA Netw Open 2023; 6:e2343285. [PMID: 37962889 PMCID: PMC10646727 DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.43285] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/01/2023] [Accepted: 10/05/2023] [Indexed: 11/15/2023] Open
Abstract
Importance Many cancer drugs are approved under the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) accelerated approval pathway based on preliminary evidence. It is unclear how this limited evidence is integrated into the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) guidelines, which are common references for clinicians and are used by public and private payers to determine reimbursement for oncology treatments. Objective To analyze the NCCN guidelines' assessments for cancer drug indications that received FDA accelerated approval compared with cancer drug indications that received FDA regular approval. Design, Setting, and Participants This cross-sectional study analyzes FDA-approved indications for cancer drugs that were granted accelerated approval from program inception in 1992 to June 30, 2022. For each drug, the FDA-approved labeling was reviewed to identify all indications. All analyses were performed at the drug-indication level. Exposure The exposure was FDA regulatory status as of October 2022, including regular approval, accelerated approval, accelerated approval converted to regular approval, and withdrawn accelerated approval. Main Outcomes and Measures The level of evidence and consensus (category 1, 2A, 2B, and 3) and treatment preference (preferred, alternative preferred, other recommended, and useful in certain circumstances) ratings assigned by NCCN committees as of February 2023. Results A total of 315 oncology indications for 100 drugs were analyzed. These indications included 156 (50%) with regular approval, 60 (38%) with accelerated approval, 78 (49%) with accelerated approval that was converted to regular approval, and 21 (13%) with withdrawn accelerated approvals. Among all indications, 105 (33%) were rated by the NCCN as having category 1 evidence, 185 (59%) with category 2A, 6 (2%) with category 2B, and 2 (1%) with category 3 evidence. Compared with indications with regular approval, those with accelerated approval were less frequently assigned category 1 evidence (47% vs 3%; P < .001) and were less often listed as preferred treatment options (58% vs 40%; P = .008). Among the 21 withdrawn accelerated approval indications, 8 (38%) remained in the NCCN guidelines, with most having level 2A evidence ratings. Conclusions and Relevance This study found that cancer drug indications with accelerated approval were less likely to be assigned high-level evidence ratings and preferred status in the NCCN guidelines compared with indications with regular approval; most accelerated and regular approval drugs had low-quality evidence ratings but high levels of consensus among oncologists on NCCN committees. Greater clarity on the thresholds and definitions of evidence levels would make the NCCN guidelines more useful to clinicians, patients, and payers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Edward R. Scheffer Cliff
- Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law (PORTAL), Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Rachel S. Rome
- Palliative Medicine, Section of General Internal Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine and Boston Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Aaron S. Kesselheim
- Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law (PORTAL), Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| | - Benjamin N. Rome
- Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law (PORTAL), Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts
- Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Luo X, Du X, Huang L, Guo Q, Lv X, Wang C, Liu H, Zhou Y, Xue X, Li Z, Liu J, Chow SC, Yang Y. Evidence of pre-approval clinical trial supporting the granted conditional approval for novel cancer drugs in China between 2015 and 2022. EClinicalMedicine 2023; 63:102177. [PMID: 37662522 PMCID: PMC10474375 DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102177] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/25/2023] [Revised: 08/03/2023] [Accepted: 08/08/2023] [Indexed: 09/05/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Accelerated approval (AA) of novel anticancer drugs based on surrogacy has attracted considerable concern globally. China National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) also established a similar conditional approval (CA) program to accelerate the approval of novel drugs to address unmet medical needs. This cross-sectional study aimed to evaluate the pre-approval clinical trial evidence and potential challenge of cancer drugs receiving CA in China from policy implementation to 2022. Methods The cancer drugs (initial and supplemental indications) granted CA between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2022 using the public database of the NMPA were analyzed. The characteristics of the cancer drugs received CA were described. Primary efficacy endpoints and safety derived from the pre-approval clinical trial, including response rates (RR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), treatment-related serious adverse events (SAE) and Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) were quantitatively estimated by meta-analysis. Besides, the correlation between the surrogate endpoints and OS was estimated by the reported trial-level correlation analysis. Findings The NMPA approved 72 cancer indications (56 new molecular entities) with CA between 2015 and 2022. 34 indications (47%) were also approved by the FDA or EMA. 74% (53/72) of cancer indications were based on a single-arm trial design while 26% (19/72) for randomized controlled trials. The pooled RR was 0.50 (95% CI: 0.45-0.55, I2 = 96%) with significant differences across cancer types and targets while the pooled hazard risk was 0.39 (95% CI: 0.28-0.53, I2 = 89%) for PFS and 0.67 (95% CI: 0.61-0.73, I2 = 0%) for OS. The pooled treatment-related SAE and Grade ≥3 AEs from single-arm designs resulted in 15% and 25%, respectively. In randomized controlled trials, the pooled treatment-related SAE and Grade ≥3 AEs observed in CA drugs and the control groups were comparable. Surrogate endpoints were widely used as the primary efficacy endpoints in the pre-approval pivotal clinical trials with 75% (54/72) for RR, 10% (7/72) for PFS, and 4% (3/72) for others. Of these, 27% (17/63) of the surrogate endpoints reported a trial-level correlation with OS; three reported high correlation (r ≥ 0.85), two reported moderate correlation (0.70 ≤ r < 0.85) and 12 reported low correlation (r < 0.70). Interpretation The majority of novel cancer drugs that received CA were based on RR designed for single-arm trials. The reported correlations of treatment effect between the surrogate endpoints and OS used for CA were limited. Our findings highlighted that the introduction of OS or quality of life based on RCT in confirmatory clinical trials as much as feasible was essential to ensure the clinical benefits for patients. Funding This study was supported by postdoctoral fellowship from Tsinghua-Peking Joint Centers for Life Sciences (CLS).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Xingxian Luo
- School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
- Key Laboratory of Innovative Drug Research and Evaluation, National Medical Products Administration, Beijing, China
- Tsinghua-Peking Center for Life Sciences, Beijing, China
| | - Xin Du
- School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
- Key Laboratory of Innovative Drug Research and Evaluation, National Medical Products Administration, Beijing, China
| | - Lin Huang
- Department of Pharmacy, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Qixiang Guo
- School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
- Key Laboratory of Innovative Drug Research and Evaluation, National Medical Products Administration, Beijing, China
| | - Xufeng Lv
- Center for Drug Evaluation, National Medical Products Administration, Beijing, China
| | - Cen Wang
- School of Life Sciences, Fudan University, Shanghai, China
| | - Haopeng Liu
- College of Pharmacy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
| | - Yue Zhou
- Department of Pharmacy, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Xuecai Xue
- Department of Pharmacy, Peking University People's Hospital, Beijing, China
| | - Zhuangqi Li
- School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
- Key Laboratory of Innovative Drug Research and Evaluation, National Medical Products Administration, Beijing, China
| | - Jingwen Liu
- School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
- Key Laboratory of Innovative Drug Research and Evaluation, National Medical Products Administration, Beijing, China
| | - Shein-Chung Chow
- Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA
| | - Yue Yang
- School of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
- Key Laboratory of Innovative Drug Research and Evaluation, National Medical Products Administration, Beijing, China
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Bendicksen L, Zuckerman DM, Avorn J, Phillips S, Kesselheim AS. The Regulatory Repercussions of Approving Muscular Dystrophy Medications on the Basis of Limited Evidence. Ann Intern Med 2023; 176:1251-1256. [PMID: 37603868 DOI: 10.7326/m23-1073] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 08/23/2023] Open
Abstract
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved eteplirsen (Exondys 51) for Duchenne muscular dystrophy in 2016 via its accelerated approval program on the basis of a study of 12 boys. After a contentious review process and a high-profile meeting of an external advisory committee, FDA leaders concluded that very small increases in treated patients' levels of dystrophin, a muscle protein, were reasonably likely to predict clinical benefit. The eteplirsen approval, which was followed by approvals of other drugs in the same class via the same pathway, has been controversial because of the questionable evidence underlying these decisions, delays in mandated postapproval testing, and high U.S. prices. Questions remain about the effectiveness and long-term safety of these products. Although the FDA initially set a November 2020 deadline for eteplirsen's manufacturer to complete a clinical trial determining whether the drug has clinical benefit, the company will not complete the trial until 2024 or later. The relationship between levels of truncated dystrophin, the muscle protein studied in eteplirsen's pivotal trial, and clinical outcomes remains uncertain. Despite recent legislative and regulatory changes to the FDA's accelerated approval pathway, the history of eteplirsen and similar drugs points to the need for additional reforms to better balance evidence generation with patient safety and access to promising medications. Lawmakers and regulators should take further action to limit excessive spending on unproven therapies and ensure that drug sponsors conduct robust and timely confirmatory trials after receiving accelerated approval.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Liam Bendicksen
- Program On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law (PORTAL), Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts (L.B.)
| | | | - Jerry Avorn
- Program On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law (PORTAL), Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts (J.A., A.S.K.)
| | - Sophia Phillips
- National Center for Health Research, Washington, DC (D.M.Z., S.P.)
| | - Aaron S Kesselheim
- Program On Regulation, Therapeutics, And Law (PORTAL), Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts (J.A., A.S.K.)
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Cramer A, Sørup FKH, Christensen HR, Petersen TS, Karstoft K. Withdrawn accelerated approvals for cancer indications in the USA: what is the marketing authorisation status in the EU? Lancet Oncol 2023; 24:e385-e394. [PMID: 37657479 DOI: 10.1016/s1470-2045(23)00357-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/25/2023] [Revised: 06/28/2023] [Accepted: 07/19/2023] [Indexed: 09/03/2023]
Abstract
As of April, 2023, 23 accelerated approvals for cancer indications granted by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) since 1992 have been withdrawn from the US market, with 17 (74%) of 23 withdrawn in the past 3 years. The marketing authorisation status of these indications in the EU has not been reported. A review of relevant documents from the FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) was done to investigate whether the accelerated approvals for cancer indications withdrawn by the FDA have a marketing authorisation in the EU to date, and to compare the approval history of these indications by the EMA and FDA. We found that, as of April 20, 2023, nine (39%) of 23 withdrawn accelerated approvals for cancer indications in the USA have a marketing authorisation in the EU for a similar indication. By comparison, only two conditional marketing authorisations for cancer indications have been withdrawn from the EU; both are no longer approved in the USA. These findings indicate a discrepancy in the approval policies between the FDA and EMA and imply either that some patient groups in the USA do not get access to relevant medical treatment, or that some patient groups in the EU are treated with medicine without a positive benefit-risk balance. These discrepancies could potentially be reduced by increased collaboration and information sharing between the two agencies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Allan Cramer
- Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Copenhagen University Hospital - Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg, Copenhagen, Denmark.
| | - Freja K H Sørup
- Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Copenhagen University Hospital - Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Hanne R Christensen
- Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Copenhagen University Hospital - Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Tonny S Petersen
- Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Copenhagen University Hospital - Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg, Copenhagen, Denmark; Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Kristian Karstoft
- Department of Clinical Pharmacology, Copenhagen University Hospital - Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg, Copenhagen, Denmark; Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Jazowski SA, Vaidya AU, Donohue JM, Dusetzina SB, Sachs RE. Time to Confirmatory Study Initiation After Accelerated Approval of Cancer and Noncancer Drugs in the US. JAMA Intern Med 2023; 183:737-739. [PMID: 37213097 PMCID: PMC10203965 DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.0777] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/23/2022] [Accepted: 02/18/2023] [Indexed: 05/23/2023]
Abstract
This cross-sectional study examines and compares the time taken from the accelerated approval of cancer and noncancer drugs to the initiation of confirmatory studies in the US.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Shelley A. Jazowski
- Department of Health Policy, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee
| | - Avi U. Vaidya
- Department of Health Policy, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee
| | - Julie M. Donohue
- Department of Health Policy and Management, University of Pittsburgh School of Public Health, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
| | - Stacie B. Dusetzina
- Department of Health Policy, Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, Nashville, Tennessee
- Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center, Nashville, Tennessee
| | - Rachel E. Sachs
- Washington University in St Louis School of Law, St Louis, Missouri
| |
Collapse
|