Regulatory characteristics and pivotal study design of US Food and Drug Administration approval of drugs for major vs. minor cancer

Factors Associated with Inclusion of Japan in Phase I Multiregional Clinical Trials in Oncology

BACKGROUND

Early inclusion of Japan in the global development program could be a key factor in reducing the drug lag, making participation in phase I multiregional clinical trials (Ph. I MRCTs) an important consideration for oncology drug development in Japan. We aimed to investigate the factors associated with the inclusion of Japan in Ph. I MRCTs in oncology.

METHODS

We compared the trial design, target population, type of primary tested drug, trial conduct profile, and sponsor profile for Ph. I MRCTs with or without Japan conducted by the top 20 companies in more than two countries and started between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2020.

RESULTS

One hundred and ninety-seven Ph. I MRCTs included Japan, and 697 did not. Detailed features of the Ph. I MRCTs in oncology were summarized, and several factors (trial design, target population, trial conduct profile, and sponsor profile) associated with inclusion of Japan in the Ph. I MRCTs were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

It is important for Japanese subsidiaries within global pharmaceutical companies to closely communicate with the headquarters based on medical practice and unmet needs in Japan to join global development from an early stage. In addition, further efforts to attract emerging biopharmaceutical companies to Japan from the regulatory and/or political perspectives would be needed, thereby preventing drug lag in Japan.

Impact of the US Accelerated Approval for New Anticancer Drugs on Time to Verification of Benefit and Regulatory Approval in the EU and Japan

The accelerated approval (AA) program in the USA has succeeded in expediting the regulatory approval of new cancer drugs based on surrogate endpoint data. It is unclear whether the AA program promotes overall drug development, including verification of the clinical benefit, as the verification of drugs granted AA often takes long time. To determine the impact of the AA program on overall drug development, the time required for verification of clinical benefits was compared between anticancer drugs that initially received AA and those that received regular approval (RA). It was found that anticancer drugs that were approved under the AA program took longer time for verification, suggesting that the program may delay the start of a confirmatory study, and there may be room for speeding up the process. In addition, discordance was found in the pivotal study between the USA and the EU and the USA and Japan for obtaining the indication for which AA was granted in the USA and a delay in the start of the confirmatory study for the AA indication was considered to lead to a delay in approval in the EU and Japan. Early initiation of confirmatory studies for AA indications is recommended to reduce the time that patients receive drugs with unproven benefit in the USA, as well as to deliver innovative new drugs to patients earlier in the EU and Japan.

Exploratory Analysis of Drug Lag in New Oncology Drugs Between Japan and the US

BACKGROUND

Drug lag in Japan has greatly decreased over the past decades; however, new instances of drug lag have appeared along with changes in the circumstances of oncology drug development. We aimed to investigate the factors associated with the approval lag for new oncology drugs between Japan and the United States (US) over the past decade by comparing approval dates and modalities, lead indications, approval types, and phase I strategies for earlier approval in Japan.

METHOD

We descriptively evaluated the characteristics of 117 new oncology drugs approved in either Japan or the US from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2020.

RESULTS

Seventy-one drugs were approved in Japan, 112 in the US, five only in Japan, and 46 only in the US. Interestingly, new oncology drugs were predominantly developed by the top 20 pharmaceutical companies in Japan; however, the opposite was true for drugs that were not yet approved in Japan. However, no clear trend was observed in the relationship between drug lag and the studied factors, except for the phase I strategy. There was a numerical but clear trend in which a higher percentage of phase I multiregional clinical trials (MRCTs) in the drug development strategy was observed for drugs with earlier approval in Japan.

CONCLUSION

Participation in global drug development during the early stages, such as during phase I MRCTs, is one of the keys to successfully minimizing this new instance of drug lag in Japan.

Trends in the Quality of Evidence Supporting FDA Drug Approvals: Results from a Literature Review

CONTEXT

New drug approvals in the United States must be supported by substantial evidence from "adequate and well-controlled" trials. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has flexibility in how it applies this standard.

METHODS

The authors conducted a systematic literature review of studies evaluating the design and outcomes of the key trials supporting new drug approvals in the United States. They extracted data on the trial characteristics, endpoint types, and expedited regulatory pathways.

FINDINGS

Among 48 publications eligible for inclusion, 30 covered trial characteristics, 23 covered surrogate measures, and 30 covered regulatory pathways. Trends point toward less frequent randomization, double-blinding, and active controls, with variation by drug type and indication. Surrogate measures are becoming more common but are not consistently well correlated with clinical outcomes. Drugs approved through expedited regulatory pathways often have less rigorous trial design characteristics.

CONCLUSIONS

The characteristics of trials used to approve new drugs have evolved over the past two decades along with greater use of expedited regulatory pathways and changes in the nature of drugs being evaluated. While flexibility in regulatory standards is important, policy changes can emphasize high-quality data collection before or after FDA approval.

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

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.

Update to Drugs, Devices, and the FDA: How Recent Legislative Changes Have Impacted Approval of New Therapies

Two major legislative actions since 2015, the 21st Century Cures Act of 2016 and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Reauthorization Act of 2017, contain significant provisions that potentially streamline drug development times, and by extension, may reduce costs. Evidence suggests, however, that development times have already been significantly affected by previous legislation and FDA programs, through accelerated approval pathways and adoption of more flexible definitions of clinical evidence of efficacy. The COVID-19 pandemic is pushing researchers and commercial entities to further test the limits of drug and vaccine development times and approvals, at an as yet unknown level of risk to patients. COVID-19 drug and vaccine trials are even now making use of accelerated drug approval programs, blended trials, and adaptive trial design to accelerate approval of therapeutics in the pandemic.