Increasing FDA-accelerated approval of single-arm trials in oncology (1992 to 2020)

Pharmaceutical innovativeness index: methodological approach for assessing the value of medicines - a case study of oncology drugs

BACKGROUND

We propose a framework to assess the value of pharmaceutical innovations, with explicit clinical and methodological parameters, based on the therapeutic value and health needs.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS

The study was based on the adaptation of health technology assessment methods documented in the literature, which was applied to a sample of oncological drugs. Difficulties and issues during the application of those tools were identified and addressed to develop a new framework with new and revised domains and clear classification criterion for each domain. Scores were assigned to each level and domain according to their relevance to generate the final score of innovativeness.

RESULTS

The Pharmaceutical Innovation Index (PII) includes four domains, two related to clinical and social dimensions - Therapeutic Need and Added Therapeutic Value - and other two about methodological features - Study Design and Quality (risk of bias). The scores combined after assigned to each domain results Index of the Innovativeness of the medicines represents the degree of pharmaceutical innovation.

CONCLUSION

This work proposes a transparent methodology with well-defined criteria and script; the algorithm developed with authors' weightings and criteria may be switched to best adjust to other applications, perspective or clinical indications, while keeping the transparency and objectiveness.

Assessing patient burden and benefit: A decade of cabozantinib clinical trials

Drug development is complex and costly. Clinical trial participants take on risks, making it essential to maximize trial efficiency and maintain participant safety. Identifying periods of excessive burden during drug development can inform trial design, ensure patient benefit and prevent harm. This study aims to examine all published clinical trials for cabozantinib to assess patient benefit and burden over time. We conducted a retrospective cross-sectional review of interventional clinical trials of cabozantinib for solid cancer treatment. We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane (CENTRAL) and ClinicalTrials.gov. We extracted adverse event rates, median progression-free survival (PFS), median overall survival and objective response rate (ORR) for each included trial. We calculated frequencies of trial characteristics, cumulative grade 3-5 adverse event rates and cumulative ORRs. Out of 1735 studies, 54 publications were included that involved 6372 participants and 21 cancers. Of the 54 studies in our sample, 31 (57.41%) were single-arm trials and 23 (42.60%) had negative results. Trials among and within various indications had conflicting results over time. Cumulative risk to participants increased over time, and clinical benefit decreased. The findings suggest that the risk profile of cabozantinib increased from 2011 to 2016 and has remained elevated but stable while benefit has decreased over time. The use of non-randomized and single-arm trials is concerning, and more methodologically rigorous trials are needed. The results of trials for different indications are inconsistent, and empirical administration may reduce the drug's efficacy.

Review time of oncology drugs and its underlying factors: an exploration in China

Introduction: How the launch delay of drugs and other factors of interest can influence the length of the review period by drug agencies is still unknown, and understanding this can help better strike the trade-off related to review speed. Methods: We included all new oncology drug applications submitted to China's National Medical Product Administration (NMPA) between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2021, and ultimately succeeded in achieving marketing approval. For each drug, the length of the NMPA review process and other major characteristics were collected, including the registration class, approval class, priority review designation, and launch delay relative to the United States, as well as the number of patients enrolled, comparator, and primary endpoint of the pivotal trials supporting the approval. Linear regression model was employed to analyze the effects of factors of interest on the NMPA review time. Results: From 2018 to 2021, NMPA received 137 oncology applications that were ultimately approved. Half of the approvals [76 (55.5%)] were first licensed in the US, leaving a median launch delay of 2.71 years (IQR, 1.03-5.59) in China. In the pivotal studies, the median enrollment was 361 participants (IQR, 131-682), and the use of control groups [90 (65.7%)] and surrogate endpoints [101 (73.7%)] was prevalent. The median review time was 304 days (IQR, 253-376). Multivariate analysis for log-transformed review time showed that larger enrollment (> 92) was associated with a drop of 20.55% in review time (coefficient = -0.230; 95% CI, -0.404 to -0.055; p = 0.010); and a short delay (0 < delay ≤ 1.95 years) was associated with a drop of 17.63% in review time (coefficient = -0.194; 95% CI, -0.325 to -0.062; p = 0.004). Discussion: The short launch delay relative to the US was one important driver to the review speed of NMPA, which might suggest its latent regulatory reliance on the other global regulator during the post-marketing period when new information on the drug's clinical benefit was still lacking.