Abstract:ImportanceNumerous cancer drugs have received accelerated approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) based on clinical trial outcomes that are otherwise not acceptable for traditional FDA approval; the accelerated approval process allows outcomes based on surrogate measures that are only reasonably likely to estimate clinical benefits. In England, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) evaluates the clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of drugs after they have received regulatory approval and issues recommendations regarding their coverage in the National Health Service (NHS). However, the level of concordance between European and FDA decision-making in the context of drugs qualifying for FDA accelerated approval is unknown.ObjectiveTo compare FDA accelerated approval decisions for cancer drugs with NICE coverage decisions.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis retrospective cohort study compared cancer drug indications that received FDA accelerated approval from December 11, 1992, to May 31, 2017, with the same set of drug indication pairs in England until August 31, 2019. Data from European Public Assessment Reports developed by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and public appraisal documents from NICE were used to determine NHS coverage recommendations. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) public appraisal documents were analyzed for drug indications, characteristics of clinical evidence, cost-effectiveness, and coverage decisions. Data were analyzed from September 1 to December 31, 2019.Main Outcomes and MeasuresCancer drug indication coverage decision by NICE.ResultsFrom 1992 to 2017, 93 cancer drug indications received FDA accelerated approval, 6 of which were subsequently withdrawn, leaving 87 cancer drug indications on the market. As of August 2019, 5 of these indications had been withdrawn or denied market authorization for the European Union by the EMA. From the cohort of EMA-approved drugs, an additional 7 drug indications were not recommended by NICE and were not deemed to have sufficient clinical benefits or cost-effectiveness to warrant mandatory public coverage in England; 5 drugs were not recommended based on clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness criteria, and 2 drugs were not recommended based on cost-effectiveness criteria alone. In total, 12 drug indications were not recommended for public coverage in the NHS, and an additional 30 drug indications were not reviewed by either the EMA (14 drug indications) or NICE (16 drug indications) by the study end date. Most drug indications recommended by NICE were conditional on the negotiation of additional confidential discounts, the imposition of restricted indications that limited prescribing to specific patient subgroups, or the collection of additional data. Among the 9 drug indications with evidence of overall survival benefit at the time of NICE review, 2 were not recommended for public funding based on cost-effectiveness criteria.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, 30 cancer drug indications that were granted accelerated approval by the FDA were not subsequently reviewed by either European regulators or NICE, and 12 drugs were denied authorization or coverage owing to insufficient safety, clinical efficacy, or cost-effectiveness. National Health Service coverage of cancer drugs given FDA accelerated approval commonly required additional price concessions, restrictions to approved indications, or review of additional data.

Discrepancy in accelerated approvals for cancer drugs in the United States and Europe

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

Continued cancer drug approvals in Japan and Europe after market withdrawal in the United States: A comparative study of accelerated approvals

Communication of anticancer drug benefits and related uncertainties to patients and clinicians: document analysis of regulated information on prescription drugs in Europe

Assessment of Coverage in England of Cancer Drugs Qualifying for US Food and Drug Administration Accelerated Approval

2023 American Society of Hematology meeting roundup

Oncology Drugs: Evolution, Comparative study of Global Drug Regulatory approval process and various measures to improve availability and accessibility

FDA and EMA Approvals of New Breast Cancer Drugs—A Comparative Regulatory Analysis

New drug approvals in oncology

Updated American Cancer Society lung cancer screening guidelines

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

Cancer: Fast tracked drugs often do not improve clinical outcomes, say researchers

Disparities in Clinical Trial Enrollment– Focus on CAR-T and Bispecific Antibody Therapies

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

Disparities in clinical trial enrollment at a Canadian comprehensive cancer center: A 15‐year retrospective study

Cancer Drug Indication Approvals in China and the United States: a Comparison of Approval Times and Clinical Benefit, 2001–2020

Prevalence of and factors associated with a treatment delay due to the COVID-19 pandemic in patients with gastrointestinal cancer in Europe

Agnostic Administration of Targeted Anticancer Drugs: Looking for a Balance between Hype and Caution

Assessment of the Delay in Novel Anticancer Drugs between China and the United States: A Comparative Study of Drugs Approved between 2010 and 2021

Colorectal cancer screening and prevention