Redefining Available Therapy in Oncology Accelerated Approval Decisions

Shruti Rajesh Patel,Maya Ramachandran,Angela Ai,Christopher T. Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.24.00892

IF: 45.3

2024-10-27

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:When weighing rapid approval for follow-on drugs, should @FDAOncology recognize the drugs that came before?

oncology

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Current Regulatory Status in China of Drugs Withdrawn from the US FDA Accelerated Pathway: Implications for Regulation Globally

Xingxian Luo,Lin Huang,Xin Du,Yue Yang,Xufeng Lv,Xiaohong Zhang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s1470-2045(24)00025-1

2024-01-01

Abstract:In 1992, in an effort to bring novel drugs to market more quickly and meet patient needs in a timely manner, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) pioneered an accelerated approval initiative on the basis of surrogate endpoints that are reasonably predictive of clinical benefit for the treatment of serious or life-threatening diseases. 1 US Food and Drug AdministrationAccelerated approval program. https://www.fda.gov/drugs/nda-and-bla-approvals/accelerated-approval-programDate accessed: October 24, 2023 Google Scholar By contrast to regular approval, accelerated approval requires post-market confirmatory clinical trials to establish the clinical benefit of the drug, then a decision is made as to whether the approval should be converted to a traditional approval or whether the drug should be withdrawn from the market. 2 US Food and Drug AdministrationExpedited programs for serious conditions––drugs and biologics. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/expedited-programs-serious-conditions-drugs-and-biologicsDate accessed: October 24, 2023 Google Scholar In the past 3 years, this expedited pathway has attracted extensive criticism, including failure to complete confirmatory clinical trials in a timely manner, 3 Fashoyin-Aje LA Mehta GU Beaver JA Pazdur R The on- and off-ramps of oncology accelerated approval. N Engl J Med. 2022; 387: 1439-1442 Crossref PubMed Scopus (33) Google Scholar , 4 Gyawali B Kesselheim AS Ross JS The accelerated approval program for cancer drugs—finding the right balance. N Engl J Med. 2023; 389: 968-971 Crossref PubMed Scopus (9) Google Scholar use of surrogate endpoints (eg, progression-free survival) in confirmatory clinical trials, 5 Parikh RB Hubbard RA Wang E et al. Exposure to US cancer drugs with lack of confirmed benefit after US Food and Drug Administration accelerated approval. JAMA Oncol. 2023; 9: 567-569 Crossref PubMed Scopus (6) Google Scholar and failure to withdraw drugs quickly from the markets when they have been shown to not have clinical benefit. 6 Akhade A Sirohi B Gyawali B Global consequences of the US FDA's accelerated approval of cancer drugs. Lancet Oncol. 2022; 23: 201-203 Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (10) Google Scholar Concerns have also been raised that cancer drugs given accelerated approval by the FDA could lead to difficult decisions in other countries, especially in some low-income and middle-income countries that do not have their own regulatory agencies or that have weak regulatory capacity. 6 Akhade A Sirohi B Gyawali B Global consequences of the US FDA's accelerated approval of cancer drugs. Lancet Oncol. 2022; 23: 201-203 Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (10) Google Scholar , 7 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 Summary Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (3) Google Scholar
New drug approvals in oncology

Razelle Kurzrock,Hagop M. Kantarjian,Aaron S. Kesselheim,Ellen V. Sigal

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41571-019-0313-2

IF: 78.8

2020-02-04

Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology

Abstract:The traditional regulatory drug approval paradigm comprising discrete phases of clinical testing that culminate in a large randomized superiority trial has historically been predominant in oncology. However, this approach has evolved in the current era of drug development, with multiple other development pathways now being utilized. Indeed, treatment approaches designed on the basis of an improved understanding of cancer biology have led to unprecedented responses in early phase trials, sometimes resulting in drug approvals in the absence of large-scale trials. At the same time, improved molecular diagnostic technologies have led to the identification of ever-smaller patient subgroups for molecularly targeted therapy. Moreover, new FDA regulatory paradigms have enabled the rapid review and accelerated approval of certain drugs in the absence of survival data. Regulatory approvals based on large-cohort trials with surrogate or intermediate clinical end points or on non-inferiority trials, as well as new tumour-agnostic indications, also set important precedents in the field. In this Viewpoint, we asked two leading oncologists involved in clinical drug development, an expert in regulatory science and prescription drug policy and a prominent patient advocate, to provide their opinions on the implications of these changes in regulatory practices for patient care.

oncology
The value of the accelerated approval pathway: real-world outcomes associated with reducing the time between innovations

William Wong,Stacey Kowal,Tu My To,Achal Patel,David Veenstra,Louis Garrison,Meng Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2217/fon-2023-0514

2024-01-24

Future Oncology

Abstract:Aim: We investigated the effect of shortening time between innovations with the accelerated approval (AA) pathway on patient outcomes for three solid tumors. Methods: This real-world analysis evaluated patients receiving sequential AA pathway-approved innovations after initial treatment with existing therapies in three solid tumor case studies. Outcomes attributable to AA were estimated and assumed approval occurred at the time of conversion to approval and extrapolated to the US population. Results: Survival gains from accessing innovative therapies were 2.3–3.8-times higher when using the AA pathway. At the US population level, AA was associated with ∼8000 life-years gained across all three tumor case studies. Conclusion: In areas of rapid clinical development, the value of existing therapies can be enhanced by earlier access to AA pathway innovations and should be considered when evaluating the AA program. The US Food and Drug Administration's accelerated approval pathway provides patients with access to innovative drugs sooner than standard regulatory pathways. Using three case studies in solid tumors, this study measured how many patients on current cancer drugs received future cancer drugs because of the accelerated approval pathway and asked whether quicker access to new drugs resulted in them living longer. In three cancer case studies, the accelerated approval pathway led to more patients receiving future cancer drugs. Patients who received future drugs through the AA pathway lived longer than patients who did not have access to them. The accelerated approval pathway is important because it can improve outcomes of current cancer drugs by giving patients additional treatments to choose from in the future and therefore a chance to live longer. Policymakers should consider this when thinking about making changes to the accelerated approval pathway.

oncology
Use of Single-Arm Trials in FDA Approvals of Treatments in Relapsed or Refractory B-Cell Lymphoma

Denise Zou,Eileen Zhang,Sherry Wu,Virgil Rose

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1182/blood-2023-189855

IF: 20.3

2023-11-28

Blood

Abstract:Background: Single-arm trials are commonly used to evaluate therapies targeting life-threatening or rare diseases (e.g., late-stage cancers that are relapsed or refractory to prior interventions). A number of oncology products supported by single-arm trials have been approved by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The draft guidance issued by the FDA on 24 March 2023 recommended key considerations for trial design and analysis when a single-arm trial is considered appropriate to support accelerated approval. The objective of this study was to assess how often anticancer drugs approved by the FDA were based on single-arm trials in a typical relapsed or refractory indication and to evaluate the quality of trial design and data leading to approvals. Methods: We reviewed past approvals between 2006 and 2023 listed on the FDA website, focusing on the indication of relapsed or refractory B-cell lymphoma. Of 11 approvals identified, eight were supported by single-arm trials and three were based on randomized controlled trials. Approvals based on single-arm trials were further investigated, and each trial was analyzed for the following criteria as recommended by the draft FDA guidance: 1) if the endpoint was based on response rate assessed using appropriate criteria; 2) if the sample size was sufficient to provide robust estimates of efficacy and safety profile; and 3) if the magnitude and duration of response were adequate. Results: Among the eight approvals based on single-arm trials, one was approved in 2017, one in 2018, and two each in 2020, 2021, and 2023. Three were chimeric antigen receptor T-cell (CAR-T) therapies and were granted regular approval; the other five were non-CAR-T therapies which were granted accelerated approval. The primary endpoints adopted by all the trials were overall response rates (defined as complete and partial responders) and duration of response determined by an independent review committee. The magnitude of overall response rates reported by most trials ranged from 48% to 72% (with more than 50% of them with a complete response); one trial reported an overall response rate of 29% with complete response rate of 13%. A minimal median follow-up of six months after response was achieved in all trials. The estimated median duration of response varied from 10.3 to 21.7 months, with three trials reporting medians not reached. Based on the trial description, the analysis population was pre-specified for the evaluation of efficacy, ranging from 68 to 192 participants. Conclusion: Submissions based on single-arm trials for oncology therapies in the relapsed and refractory setting tended to be well accepted by FDA for accelerated and regular approval when the key criteria of trial design and data quality were adequately met.

hematology
Recent and anticipated novel drug approvals (3Q 2024 through 2Q 2025)

Matthew H Rim,Collin Dean,Enela Aliaj,Brittany L Karas,Farah Barada,Andrew M Levitsky

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ajhp/zxae242

2024-11-07

Abstract:Purpose: Health-system pharmacists play a crucial role in monitoring the pharmaceutical pipeline to manage formularies, allocate resources, and optimize clinical programs for new therapies. This article aims to support pharmacists by sharing new and anticipated novel drug approvals. Summary: Selected drug approvals anticipated in the 12-month period covering the third quarter of 2024 through the second quarter of 2025 are reviewed. The analysis emphasizes drugs expected to have significant clinical and financial impact in hospitals and clinics selected from 54 novel drugs awaiting US Food and Drug Administration approval. New cell therapies for treating cancers continue to enter the drug pipeline, while novel targeted therapies for biliary tract, gastric, pancreatic, and breast cancers, as well as 3 subcutaneous versions of already approved drugs given intravenously, are awaiting approval. Additionally, many novel drugs are being developed for treatment of rare and ultra-rare diseases such as hereditary angioedema, macular telangiectasia, congenital adrenal hyperplasia, and Barth syndrome. Two new subcutaneous drugs for hemophilia, a new oral medication for hereditary angioedema, a novel monoclonal antibody for atopic dermatitis, and the first oral penem antibiotic are also in the pipeline. Conclusion: New drugs with various indications for cancers and rare diseases continue to strengthen the drug pipeline.
The US Food and Drug Administration Dual Mandate for Rapid Drug Review and Equity

Rebecca A. Miksad,Cleo A. Ryals

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.11447

2024-05-02

JAMA Network Open

Abstract:The metrics of success for oncology drug development and approval shifted with the shorter time to approval associated with the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 2018 Real-Time Oncology Review (RTOR) program and the newly mandated FDA Diversity Action Plan (DAP) requirements. 1 -4 The study by Mooghali et al 5 found that premarket evidence for RTOR indications was often drawn from surrogate end points. However, postmarketing requirements to confirm benefit for RTOR indications with traditional approval were infrequent. Mooghali et al 5 conclude that additional postmarketing requirements for trials with surrogate end points may be important to sustain the flexibility of the RTOR program. An active critical test case is how the RTOR program adapts premarketing and postmarketing evidence requirements to meet DAP objectives. The RTOR program and DAP requirements focus on distinct but complementary aspects of drug development and approval: speed to patient access and equity in data supporting access, respectively. The FDA Oncology Center of Excellence also has implemented other mechanisms, such as Project Orbis and the Product Quality Assessment Aid to expedite drug review and Project Equity to advance clinical trial diversity and evidence generation for historically underrepresented patient populations. 2 ,3,6 These initiatives reflect a broader FDA strategy to improve patient outcomes through regulatory efficiency and accurate understanding of outcomes for the intended patient population. The DAP gained legislative backing as a requirement in late 2022, the same year a draft guidance was issued. The final guidance is pending as of March 2024, and there is limited publicly available experience. In particular, it is unknown how the FDA will assess achievement of DAP goals for RTOR eligibility and the extent of postmarketing studies that are highlighted in the draft DAP guidance. 1 Despite prior FDA efforts to improve clinical trial diversity, overall recruitment of racially and ethnically diverse patient populations remains disproportionately low. For example, although Black patients account for approximately 20% of all patients with multiple myeloma, they represent approximately 4% of patients enrolled in myeloma clinical trials. 1 Population-level studies confirm racial and ethnic inequities in clinical trial participation across multiple cancer types. 7 The drivers of inequitable trial participation include trial eligibility criteria that disproportionately exclude Black, Indigenous, and people of color; geographic and transportation barriers; earned mistrust of the medical and clinical research system, bias among trial staff, and lack of partnership with Black, Indigenous, and people of color communities in clinical trial design. 8 Several of the multilevel drivers are addressed in the DAP and prior FDA guidance documents related to advancing clinical trial diversity. 1 Consideration of DAP goals early in the drug development process and early discussion with the FDA is likely the most effective approach to meeting the dual objectives of access and equity. A critical challenge to developing a meaningful DAP is deeply understanding the characteristics of patients who will likely benefit from the therapy. These characteristics extend beyond race and ethnicity to include other historically underrepresented populations based on age, sex, gender identity, socioeconomic status, pregnancy and lactation status, and disability. 1 Unfortunately, current and detailed epidemiologic information is not always available in research publications, existing incidence databases or disease registries. Availability of data is particularly challenging for rare diseases, regional or community differences, and specific indications (eg, second-line treatment for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer after a specific first-line chemotherapy regimen). One approach is to leverage data from electronic health records (EHRs) to extract additional patient demographic and clinical details not usually captured in other databases, such as claims and registry data. To make sense of complex data from disparate EHR sources and to enable efficient drug development and access programs, such as the RTOR, advanced analytic approaches and technology-based solutions are needed. For example, artificial intelligence and machine learning approaches can be applied to EHR data to support DAP enrollment goal-setting for specific indications and settings, optimization of trial eligibility criteria for diversity, and identification of potential trial sites enriched for diverse patient populations. Still, it will be important to assess and mitigate potential algorithmic bias in leveraging artificial intelligence and machine learning in these contexts. Additionally, equitable implementat -Abstract Truncated-

medicine, general & internal
Expediting treatments in the 21st century: orphan drugs and accelerated approvals

Reuben Domike,G. K. Raju,Jamie Sullivan,Annie Kennedy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13023-024-03398-1

2024-11-12

Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases

Abstract:In response to activated patient communities' catalyzation, two significant efforts by the FDA to expedite treatments have now been in place for multiple decades. In 1983, the United States Congress passed the Orphan Drug Act to provide financial incentives for development of drugs for rare diseases. In 1992, partly in response to the HIV epidemic, the FDA implemented Accelerated Approval (AA) to expedite access to promising new therapies to treat serious conditions with unmet medical need based on surrogate marker efficacy while additional clinical data is confirmed.

genetics & heredity,medicine, research & experimental
Characteristics of Anticancer Drugs Approved Under the Accelerated Approval Program in the US: Success or Failure in Converting to Regular Approval

Yoshihiro Oda,Mamoru Narukawa

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-023-00607-0

2024-01-06

Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science

Abstract:Accelerated approval (AA) program expedites access to promising drugs for life-threatening conditions, particularly in oncology. However, challenges arise from the trade-off between faster access and the certainty of clinical benefits. We examined the differences between the indications for successful conversion of AA to regular approval (RA) and those withdrawn from the perspective of whether the confirmatory trial was appropriately designed and conducted to verify the efficacy estimated in the pivotal trial for AA (AA trial).

pharmacology & pharmacy,medical informatics
The Utilization of the Accelerated Approval Pathway in Oncology: A Case Study of Pembrolizumab

Robert Kester,Sunita Zalani,Scot Ebbinghaus,Eric Rubin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40265-024-02111-7

2024-11-20

Drugs

Abstract:The accelerated approval (AA) pathway was established by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to provide earlier access to therapies for patients with serious medical conditions and unmet medical needs. Since its inception, the AA pathway has been used for novel treatments across different therapeutic areas, but most prominently in oncology, including the immune checkpoint inhibitor class. This review article describes the history of regulatory approvals for pembrolizumab, an immunotherapy agent targeting programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1), and use of the AA pathway and the corresponding regulatory decisions made by the FDA. From its first AA in September 2014 to February 2024, pembrolizumab has used the accelerated pathway for roughly 40% of the approved indications listed in the US Prescribing Information and was the first oncology therapy to receive an AA for an alternate dosing regimen and a tissue-agnostic indication. As of February 2024, 14 of the 18 indication-specific AAs and 1 post-marketing requirement (PMR) for the alternate dosing regimen AA were converted to traditional approvals. Accelerated approvals for two indications were withdrawn, and the remaining ongoing PMRs are not due until later in 2024 or 2025. The median conversion time from AA to traditional approval was 2.6 years, which is roughly 6 months earlier than the median time reported for oncology AAs. While FDA was the first agency to establish an expedited approval pathway, regulators from other countries have established similar pathways. For pembrolizumab, approximately half of the datasets that supported US AAs also supported expedited approval, or sometimes full approval, in Canada, EU, Australia or Japan. Ultimately, the AA pathway balances the provision of earlier access to therapies with overcoming uncertainty about potential effectiveness, and therefore it is important to confirm treatment benefit and withdraw indications that do not confirm benefit in a timely manner. The regulatory strategy and use of this expedited program for pembrolizumab highlights the importance of the AA pathway in providing oncology patients with earlier access to life-saving medications.

pharmacology & pharmacy,toxicology
Considerations for Single-Arm Trials to Support Accelerated Approval of Oncology Drugs

Feinan Lu,Tao Wang,Ying Lu,Jie Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2405.12437

2024-05-21

Abstract:In the last two decades, single-arm trials (SATs) have been effectively used to study anticancer therapies in well-defined patient populations using durable response rates as an objective and interpretable clinical endpoints. With a growing trend of regulatory accelerated approval (AA) requiring randomized controlled trials (RCTs), some confusions have arisen about the roles of SATs in AA. This paper is intended to elucidate conditions under which an SAT may be considered reasonable for AA. Specifically, the paper describes (1) two necessary conditions for designing an SAT, (2) three sufficient conditions that help either optimize the study design or interpret the study results, (3) four conditions that demonstrate substantial evidence of clinical benefits of the drug, and (4) a plan of a confirmatory RCT to verify the clinical benefits. Some further considerations are discussed to help design a scientifically sound SAT and communicate with regulatory agencies. Conditions presented in this paper may serve as a set of references for sponsors using SATs for regulatory decision.

Applications
Abstract 974: Phase II Trial of the Wee1 Inhibitor Adavosertib in Advanced Refractory Solid Tumors with CCNE1 Amplification

Siqing Fu,Shuyang Yao,Yuan,Rebecca A. Previs,Anthony Elias,Richard D. Carvajal,Thomas J. George,Ying Yuan,Yuko Yamamura,Shannon N. Westin,Yan Xing,Ecaterina E. Dumbrava,Daniel D. Karp,Sarina A. Piha‐Paul,Apostolia M. Tsimberidou,Jordi Rodón,Naoko Takebe,Charles A. Kunos,Karen H. Lu,Khanda Keyomarsi,Funda Meric‐Bernstam

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7445.am2021-974

IF: 11.2

2021-01-01

Cancer Research

Abstract:Background: Wee1 kinase, which prevents premature mitotic entry by inhibiting cyclin-dependent kinases (CDKs), may be essential when cyclin E1 is overexpressed in order to prevent DNA damage and cell death. In preclinical studies, cancer models harboring CCNE1 amplification are highly sensitive to treatment with adavosertib, a Wee1 kinase inhibitor. A multicenter phase 2 study was conducted to assess the antitumor activity of adavosertib in patients with CCNE1 amplified advanced refractory solid tumors. Methods: Patients with advanced refractory solid tumors harboring CCNE1 amplification pre-identified in a Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments (CLIA)-certified laboratory were eligible. They had refractory disease, on standard options available, or they declined standard-of-care therapy. Eligible patients must be aged ≥ 18 years and had measurable disease per RECIST (Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors) 1.1, ECOG (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) performance status of 0-1, and adequate organ functions. After informed consent, patients received adavosertib 300 mg daily on days 1 to 5 and 8 to 12 of a 21-day cycle. The primary endpoint was objective response rate (ORR). The trial employed Simon's two-stage design. Results: Between January 22, 2019 and May 20, 2020, 29 patients with 12 tumor types were enrolled on study: ovarian = 14, breast = 3, endometrial = 2; and carcinosarcoma, cholangiocarcinoma, esophageal, gallbladder, germ cell tumor, melanoma, prostate, sarcoma, sarcomatoid and urothelial = 10 (1 each tumor). Median follow-up was 11.7 months. The median line of prior systemic therapy was 4 (range 1-8). Twenty-seven patients were evaluable for response. In these patients, 7 confirmed partial responses (PR) were observed, for an ORR of 25.9% (95% CI 15.1-47.5%). The median progression-free survival was 4.0 months and one-year overall survival was 55%. In 13 patients with measurable high-grade serous ovarian cancer, 5 achieved PR (38.5%) and 8 had stable disease ≥6 months/PR (61.5%). Other PRs were seen in 1 urothelial carcinoma and 1 melanoma. Fifteen patients experienced grade 3 or higher treatment-related adverse events: neutropenia (24%), thrombocytopenia (17%), anemia (14%), nausea (17%), diarrhea (17%) and fatigue (17%). Sixteen patients required dose duction of adavosertib to 250 mg, and 7 further to 200 mg. Biomarker analysis is ongoing to investigate potential biomarkers of response. Conclusions: Adavosertib monotherapy demonstrates promising clinical activity in patients with refractory solid tumors harboring CCNE1 amplification, especially in high-grade serous ovarian cancer. Further exploration of adavosertib in CCNE1 amplified high grade serous ovarian cancer is warranted. Citation Format: Siqing Fu, Shuyang Yao, Yuan Yuan, Rebecca A. Previs, Anthony D. Elias, Richard Carvajal, Thomas J. George, Ying Yuan, Yuko Yamamura, Shannon Westin, Yan Xing, Ecaterina E. Ileana Dumbrava, Daniel D. Karp, Sarina A. Piha-Paul, Apostolia M. Tsimberidou, Jordi Rodon, Naoko Takebe, Charles Kunos, Karen Lu, Khanda Keyomarsi, Funda Meric-Bernstam. Phase II trial of the Wee1 inhibitor adavosertib in advanced refractory solid tumors with CCNE1 amplification [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the American Association for Cancer Research Annual Meeting 2021; 2021 Apr 10-15 and May 17-21. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2021;81(13_Suppl):Abstract nr 974.
Is Canada Moving towards a More Agile Regulatory Approval and Reimbursement Process with a Shifting Role for Real-World Evidence (RWE) for Oncology Drugs?

Catherine Y. Lau,Nigel S. B. Rawson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol31090414

2024-09-19

Current Oncology

Abstract:Canada is known to have a complex pathway for new drug approval and reimbursement, resulting in delayed access for patients with serious and life-threatening diseases, such as cancer. Several recent publications from key stakeholders, including patients, physicians and policymakers, highlight patient helplessness, physician frustrations and policymakers entangled in a massive network of bureaucracy unable to make headway. Several quantitative and qualitative assessments using time from regulatory approvals to successful reimbursements confirm long review times and high rejection rates for oncology drugs, especially those receiving conditional approvals. A consensus forum of 18 Canadian oncology clinicians recently voiced frustration with the process and inability to deliver guideline-supported efficacious therapies to their patients. This manuscript compares data extracted from publicly available data sources from 2019 to June 2024 to previous publications. Methods: Public databases from Health Canada, the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), which is in the process of changing to Canada's Drug Agency, and the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance (pCPA) were reviewed and the data collected were analyzed with descriptive statistics. Results: From the data, three trends emerge, (i) an increasing number of oncology drugs are receiving conditional approvals from Health Canada, (ii) the percentage of conditionally approved oncology drugs receiving positive reimbursement recommendations from CADTH is still low but appears to be improving, but delays in access are now contingent upon pCPA deciding whether to negotiate price and then the duration of any negotiation, and (iii) real-world evidence is no longer part of the decision-making for conditional approvals. A slight increase in the positive endorsement of RWE used to support CADTH recommendations was observed. Conclusions: The lack of timely access to oncology drugs hurts Canadian patients. While a small trend of improvement appears to be emerging, longer-term data collection is required to ensure sustained patient benefits.

oncology
Clinical Benefit and Regulatory Outcomes of Cancer Drugs Receiving Accelerated Approval

Ian T T Liu,Aaron S Kesselheim,Edward R Scheffer Cliff

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2024.2396

IF: 11.816

2024-05-07

JAMA

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.
Analysis of post-marketing requirements for oncology drug conditional approvals in the United States and China

Chenghao Ge,Jing An,Xiaoyuan Chen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e35454

IF: 3.776

2024-07-30

Heliyon

Abstract:Background: Conditional approvals, also known as accelerated approvals, have been introduced by many pharmaceutical regulators around the world, allowing innovative drugs to enter the market earlier on the basis of limited evidence. This research aims to systematically analyze and compare the post-marketing requirements for conditional approvals of oncology drugs in China and the United States. By collecting and categorizing different types of post-marketing requirements, this study seeks to elucidate how these requirements are proposed and discern the underlying logic and patterns. Methods: This study delved into oncology drug approvals, encompassing FDA accelerated approvals (up to December 31, 2022) and NMPA conditional approvals (from 2017 to December 31, 2022). Leveraging review documents from FDA and NMPA, comprehensive data on product characteristics, all post-marketing commitments and requirements, and especially those related to confirmatory requirements were extracted. The analysis incorporated descriptive statistics, visualizations such as Upset plots, and thorough examination of confirmatory requirement timeframes. Findings: This study examined 168 FDA accelerated approvals and 41 NMPA conditional approvals for oncology indications. Post-marketing requirements displayed diversity: FDA emphasized confirmatory studies, clinical pharmacology studies, and more, while NMPA predominantly focused on confirmatory studies. Confirmatory requirement timeframes indicated higher FDA-required completion times for new confirmatory trials compared to continued completion of original pivotal trials. In contrast, NMPA's requirement patterns were comparatively singular, with relatively fixed timeframes. FDA's evolving trend showed decreasing timeframes over time, suggesting an increasing demand for timely confirmatory data. Interpretation: Conditional approvals offer a unique approach to bring potentially life-saving drugs to the market faster, despite limited supporting evidence. Our analysis of oncology drug conditional approvals in the U.S. and China reveals diverse post-marketing requirement patterns. This study provides valuable insights for regulatory decision-making in a dynamic pharmaceutical landscape. Balancing the risks and rewards of conditional approvals is crucial in ensuring both patient safety and timely access to innovative treatments.
A review of FDA-approved acute myeloid leukemia therapies beyond ‘7 + 3’

Alexandre Bazinet,Sarit Assouline

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17474086.2021.1875814

2021-01-19

Expert Review of Hematology

Abstract:Introduction: The standard anthracycline and cytarabine-based chemotherapy for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) has changed relatively little since the 1970s and produces unsatisfactory outcomes in many patients. In the past two decades, a better understanding of the pathophysiology and heterogeneity of this disease has led to promising new therapies, resulting in a flurry of new drug approvals. Areas covered: The MEDLINE database, ClinicalTrials.gov and conference proceedings were reviewed for the most salient literature concerning FDA-approved drugs for AML beyond standard chemotherapy: gemtuzumab ozogamicin, hypomethylating agents, Fms-like tyrosine kinase 3 (FLT3) inhibitors, isocitrate dehydrogenase (IDH) inhibitors, venetoclax, liposomal cytarabine and daunorubicin (CPX-351), and hedgehog pathway inhibitors. Key evidence for their efficacy is discussed. For each drug category, indications, typical usage and responses, major toxicities, and future directions for research are highlighted. Expert opinion: The treatment paradigm for AML is rapidly evolving. Promising new drugs targeting driver mutations have improved outcomes in specific AML subgroups. In parallel, advances in low-intensity therapies have allowed patients unfit for standard induction chemotherapy to achieve meaningful disease control. Further work is ongoing to identify synergistic drug combinations as well as optimal treatment selection guided by individual patient and disease features.

hematology
Project Confirm: Accelerated Drug Approvals for CML—Response

Kendra L. Sweet,Jorge E. Cortes,Jane F. Apperley,Mel Mann,Michael J. Mauro,Vivian G. Oehler,Cristina Ruiz,Charles A. Schiffer,Lori A. Ehrlich,Gulsum E. Pamuk,Joseph Wynne,Gautam U. Mehta,Olanrewaju O. Okusanya,R. Angelo de Claro,Marc R. Theoret,B. Douglas Smith,Kelly J. Norsworthy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-23-3234

IF: 13.801

2024-01-06

Clinical Cancer Research

Abstract:We thank Beumer and Salamone for their interest in our perspective piece (1). We note that they agree with our assertion that it is unlikely most patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) require the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKI). However, the authors expressed concerns about the scope of Project Optimus and inadequate reliance on therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) for TKI dose optimization.

oncology
[Expedited program and utilization for anticancer drug approval in China and the United States]

Q Zhu,H Y Huang,A Q Yu,X Y Meng,Y Leng,H Fang,Z W Li,Y Tang,J Li,N Li

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn112152-20231024-00250

2024-09-23

Abstract:Objective: To systematically summarize and comparatively analyze the development, establishment and usage of oncology drugs speedy review approaches in China and in the United States between 2012 and 2021. Methods: Based on National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) websites, the development and current status of the speedy review approaches were consulted and summarized. Approved oncology drugs in China and in the United States (87 in China, 118 in the United States) over the past decade were analyzed using chi-square test for group comparison. Results: Five speedy approaches have been established in China and in the United States, three of which are the same, priority review, conditional approval or accelerated approval and breakthrough therapy. The rest two are special review and approval, special examination and approval in China, and fast track and real-time oncology review in the United States. Compared to the United States, speedy review approaches in China set up late (1992 vs. 2005). The overall utilization rates of the oncology drugs speedy review approaches were similar between the China and United States (90.8% vs. 92.4%, P=0.800) in the previous 10 years, and priority review have highest utilization rates in both China and the United States without significant group difference (77.0% vs. 82.2%, P=0.381); relatively low utilization rates of conditional approval (31.0% vs. 44.9%, P=0.041) and breakthrough therapy (2.3% vs. 50.0%, P＜0.001) were seen in China. 52.9% of new drugs applied for special examination and approval in China and 40.7% of new drugs applied for fast track in the United States. Overall, the priority review both in China and the United States are stable, with a similar average annual utilization rate (84.8% vs. 83.7%); accelerated approval and breakthrough therapies in the United States fluctuate wildly, but the situation is tending towards stability in the last 3 years. Conclusions: Both China and the United States have established a relatively complete accelerated review system, with an overall utilization rate over 90%; China's accelerated review started late, although the overall utilization rate is close to that of the United States. The utilization rates of conditional approval and breakthrough therapy are still relatively low. Flexible usage of speedy review approaches, gaining regulatory recognition to use alternative endpoints, achieving real-time review and guidance are keys to accelerate new drug development in China.
Subsequent Indications in Oncology Drugs: Pathways, Timelines, and the Inflation Reduction Act

Julie A. Patterson,James Motyka,Rayan Salih,Robert Nordyke,John M. O’Brien,Jonathan D. Campbell

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-024-00706-6

2024-10-07

Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science

Abstract:Recent research has raised questions about potential unintended consequences of the Inflation Reduction Act's Drug Price Negotiation Program (DPNP), suggesting that the timelines introduced by the law may reduce manufacturer incentives to invest in post-approval research towards additional indications. Given the role of multiple indications in expanding treatment options in patients with cancer, IRA-related changes to development incentives are especially relevant in oncology. This study aimed to describe heterogeneous drug-level trajectories and timelines of subsequent indications in a cohort of recently approved, multi-indication oncology drugs, including overall, across subgroups of drugs characterized by the timing and pace of additional indications, and by drug type (i.e., small molecule vs. biologic).

pharmacology & pharmacy,medical informatics
Access to innovative therapies in pediatric oncology: Report of the nationwide experience in Canada

Sandra Judd,Gabriel Revon‐Riviere,Stephanie A. Grover,Rebecca J. Deyell,Magimairajan Issai Vanan,Victor A. Lewis,Lucie Pecheux,Alexandra P. Zorzi,Catherine Goudie,Raoul Santiago,Thai Hoa Tran,Lesleigh S. Abbott,Josee Brossard,Paul Moorehead,Saima Alvi,Carol Portwine,Avram Denburg,James A. Whitlock,Sarah Cohen‐Gogo,Daniel A. Morgenstern

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cam4.7033

IF: 4.711

2024-02-24

Cancer Medicine

Abstract:Background The need for new therapies to improve survival and outcomes in pediatric oncology along with the lack of approval and accessible clinical trials has led to "out‐of‐trial" use of innovative therapies. We conducted a retrospective analysis of requests for innovative anticancer therapy in Canadian pediatric oncology tertiary centers for patients less than 30 years old between 2013 and 2020. Methods Innovative therapies were defined as cancer‐directed drugs used (a) off‐label, (b) unlicensed drugs being used outside the context of a clinical trial, or (c) approved drugs with limited evidence in pediatrics. We excluded cytotoxic chemotherapy, cellular products, and cytokines. Results We retrieved data on 352 innovative therapy drug requests. Underlying diagnosis was primary CNS tumor 31%; extracranial solid tumor 37%, leukemia/lymphoma 22%, LCH 2%, and plexiform neurofibroma 6%. RAS/MAP kinase pathway inhibitors were the most frequently requested innovative therapies in 28% of all requests followed by multi‐targeted tyrosine kinase inhibitors (17%), inhibitors of the PIK3CA‐mTOR‐AKT pathway (8%), immune checkpoints inhibitors (8%), and antibody drug conjugates (8%). In 112 out of 352 requests, innovative therapies were used in combination with another anticancer agent. 48% of requests were motivated by the presence of an actionable molecular target. Compassionate access accounted for 52% of all requests while public insurance was used in 27%. Mechanisms of funding varied between provinces. Conclusion This real‐world data collection illustrates an increasing use of "out‐of‐trial" innovative therapies in pediatric oncology. This new field of practice warrants further studies to understand the impact on patient trajectory and equity in access to innovative therapies.

oncology
New Oncologic Drugs from 2008 to 2023-Differences in Approval and Access between the United States, Europe and Brazil

Rafael Balsini Barreto,Andressa Moretti Izidoro,Mario Henrique Furlanetto Miranda

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/curroncol31080332

2024-08-02

Abstract:Introduction: Advancements in oncology have revolutionized cancer treatment, with new drugs being approved at different rates worldwide. Our objective was to evaluate the approval of new oncological drugs for solid tumors by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and the Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (ANVISA) since 2008. Methods: Data were collected from public and online databases by searching for the date of submission, the date of the procedure, the date of approval, clinical indication, and drug characteristics. The distribution was tested using the Shapiro-Wilk, test and comparisons were made using the Mann-Whitney U test; the data are reported using median days and interquartile range (IQR1-IQR3). Results: In total, 104 new oncologic drugs for the treatment of solid tumors were approved by the three agencies: 98 by the FDA, 90 by the EMA, and 68 by ANVISA. The cancer types with the highest number of first indications were lung cancer (n = 24), breast cancer (n = 15), and melanoma (n = 15). Most approvals were for oral medications (n = 63) and tyrosine-kinase inhibitors or other small-molecule inhibitors (n = 54). Time to approval after submission was as follows: the FDA-224 days (167-285); the EMA-364 days (330-418); and ANVISA-403 days (276-636) (p < 0.00001 for the FDA to the EMA and the FDA to ANVISA). The difference between submission dates among the agencies was as follows: EMA-FDA: 24 days (0-85); ANVISA-FDA: 255 (114-632); and ANVISA-EMA: 260 (109-645). The difference in approval dates between the agencies was as follows: EMA-FDA: 185 days (59-319); ANVISA-FDA: 558 (278-957); and ANVISA-EMA: 435 days (158-918). Conclusions: New oncologic drugs are submitted to the FDA and EMA for approval on similar dates; however, the longer appraisal period by the EMA pushes the approval date for Europe to approximately 6 months later. The same steps at ANVISA delay the approval by 1.5 years. Such procedures cause a significant difference in available medications between these regions.

Redefining Available Therapy in Oncology Accelerated Approval Decisions

Current Regulatory Status in China of Drugs Withdrawn from the US FDA Accelerated Pathway: Implications for Regulation Globally

New drug approvals in oncology

The value of the accelerated approval pathway: real-world outcomes associated with reducing the time between innovations

Use of Single-Arm Trials in FDA Approvals of Treatments in Relapsed or Refractory B-Cell Lymphoma

Recent and anticipated novel drug approvals (3Q 2024 through 2Q 2025)

The US Food and Drug Administration Dual Mandate for Rapid Drug Review and Equity

Expediting treatments in the 21st century: orphan drugs and accelerated approvals

Characteristics of Anticancer Drugs Approved Under the Accelerated Approval Program in the US: Success or Failure in Converting to Regular Approval

The Utilization of the Accelerated Approval Pathway in Oncology: A Case Study of Pembrolizumab

Considerations for Single-Arm Trials to Support Accelerated Approval of Oncology Drugs

Abstract 974: Phase II Trial of the Wee1 Inhibitor Adavosertib in Advanced Refractory Solid Tumors with CCNE1 Amplification

Is Canada Moving towards a More Agile Regulatory Approval and Reimbursement Process with a Shifting Role for Real-World Evidence (RWE) for Oncology Drugs?

Clinical Benefit and Regulatory Outcomes of Cancer Drugs Receiving Accelerated Approval

Analysis of post-marketing requirements for oncology drug conditional approvals in the United States and China

A review of FDA-approved acute myeloid leukemia therapies beyond ‘7 + 3’

Project Confirm: Accelerated Drug Approvals for CML—Response

[Expedited program and utilization for anticancer drug approval in China and the United States]

Subsequent Indications in Oncology Drugs: Pathways, Timelines, and the Inflation Reduction Act

Access to innovative therapies in pediatric oncology: Report of the nationwide experience in Canada

New Oncologic Drugs from 2008 to 2023-Differences in Approval and Access between the United States, Europe and Brazil