Impact of Early Access Reform on Oncology Innovation in France: Approvals, Patients, and Costs

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40259-024-00658-1

IF: 7.744

2024-04-22

BioDrugs

Abstract:An ambitious reform of the early access (EA) process was set up in July 2021 in France, aiming to simplify procedures and accelerate access to innovative drugs.

oncology,pharmacology & pharmacy,immunology

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Current Regulatory Status in China of Drugs Withdrawn from the US FDA Accelerated Pathway: Implications for Regulation Globally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decision is made as to whether the approval should be converted to a traditional approval or whether the drug should be withdrawn from the market. 2 US Food and Drug AdministrationExpedited programs for serious conditions––drugs and biologics.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
Early access programs for medical devices in France: Overview of recent reforms and outcomes (2015-2022)

Tess Martin,Alexandra Hervias,Xavier Armoiry,Nicolas Martelli

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthpol.2024.105146

IF: 3.255

2024-08-11

Health Policy

Abstract:The medical technology sector is characterised by a constant influx of innovations with the potential to revolutionise patient care. In France, there are several pathways for medical devices to enter the market, from diagnosis-related group tariffs to reimbursement lists. However, traditional regulatory pathways can delay market access for innovative technologies. In response, France has established Early Access Programs to expedite patient access to medical devices. This paper looks at three of these Early Access Programs for medical devices. Innovation Funding, introduced in its final version in 2015, provides temporary coverage for innovative devices and facilitates data collection for informed funding decisions. Transitional Coverage (PECT), established in 2021, targets CE-marked devices for rare or serious conditions. Transitional coverage for digital health applications (PECAN), introduced in 2022, covers digital medical devices, either therapeutic or for patient monitoring. Innovation funding has been granted to 16 technologies out of 35 applications (46%) since 2015. 6 technologies out of 11 (64%) applications benefit from PECT. PECAN, in its first year, has granted a telemonitoring solution with a favourable opinion. The French experience could provide valuable lessons for the development of a harmonised European framework to ensure that innovative medical technologies benefit those who need them, while maintaining high safety standards.
Challenges raised by the economic evaluation of CAR-T-cell therapies. The review by the French National Authority for Health

Véronique Raimond,Emmanuelle Kaltenbach,Christophe Adam,Sébastien Lazzarotto,Catherine Le Galès,Lionel Perrier,Jérôme Wittwer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bulcan.2021.09.001

Abstract:Since 2013, the process of pricing of innovative drugs by the French National Health Insurance has considered both cost-effectiveness and budget impact. CAR-T cell therapies were first subject to economic evaluation from 2019 in France. We aim to describe the process and results of the economic evaluation of tisagenlecleucel and axicabtagene ciloleucel as well as the challenges these evaluations raised. Evaluations submitted by the firms were reviewed by HAS and submitted to the Committee of Economic Evaluation and Public Health (CEESP). The CEESP issued opinions related to: (1) the methodological quality of economic evidence and, (2) the cost-effectiveness and budget impact of the drugs. The CEESP invalidated the estimated incremental cost-utility ratios (ICUR) of tisagenlecleucel due to the insufficient clinical evidence and methodological quality to extrapolate the long-term progression of the disease after treatment and compare tisagenlecleucel with alternatives. The CEESP concluded that tisagenlecleucel was not proven cost-effective. The estimated ICUR of axicabtagene ciloleucel at €114,509/QALY vs. chemotherapies was associated with an acceptable level of methodological quality despite being based on a weak indirect comparison and limited data on quality of life. The CEESP considered axicabtagene ciloleucel ICUR to be "very high" and questioned the societal/community willingness-to-pay of the claimed price. The primary source of uncertainty surrounding the ICUR estimates of both drugs was the lack of hindsight on effectiveness. The economic evaluation of CAR-T cell therapies highlights the risk of inefficient resource allocation driven by limited clinical data. It calls for payment schemes accounting for this risk and effective collection of post-marketing data.
FDA's proposed regulations to expand access to investigational drugs for treatment use: the status quo in the guise of reform

Benjamin R Rossen

Abstract:On December 14, 2006, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) proposed two new regulations in the Federal Register amending current regulations governing expanded access to investigational drugs for treatment use and charging for investigational drugs. The proposals come at a time when FDA has found itself under new pressure to provide seriously ill patients with early access to investigational drugs outside the framework of clinical trials. In recent years, patient advocacy groups have filed citizen petitions with FDA asking the agency to provide specific criteria to patients and sponsors seeking expanded access or to create an early approval mechanism to permit easier access to investigational therapies. Further, FDA has seen proposed federal legislation intended to ensure early patient access to investigational treatments and nearly lost a lawsuit in federal court in which terminally ill patients sought a fundamental right of access to investigational therapies under the Due Process Clause of the Constitution. The proposed rules seek to assuage patient activists, physicians, drug sponsors and other critics who contend that FDA must strike an appropriate balance between allowing patient access to promising treatments while protecting against undue risk and safeguarding the clinical trials process. Although FDA heralded the announcement of the rules as a key step forward to improving patient access, the proposal does not expand access beyond measures currently available under longstanding agency practice and, in fact, creates new regulatory barriers and disincentives to industry participation in expanded access programs. This article examines the proposal in light of historical agency regulation and recent pressures to expand access. Section II describes the historical development of FDA's statutory authority to regulate drugs and the traditional new drug approval process. Section III describes the various methods through which FDA has allowed expanded access to investigational treatments since 1962. Section IV recounts various recent pressures on FDA to reform its expanded access procedures and describes the context in which FDA's recent proposal arises. Section V examines the changes proposed in both the proposed rules to expand access to investigational treatment and charging for investigational drugs. Section VI evaluates the rules and argues that the proposal will fail to expand access for patients because new restrictions on charging provide no incentive for industry participation and the proposed regulations create increased regulatory barriers to access inconsistent with FDA's statutory mandate
Investigating the availability, affordability, and market dynamics of innovative oncology drugs in Morocco: an original report

Nada Benhima,Leila Afani,Mohammed El Fadli,Ismail Essâdi,Rhizlane Belbaraka

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-024-02262-9

2024-10-21

Abstract:Background: The cost of cancer drugs presents a significant challenge to accessibility of treatment worldwide. Projections indicate that by 2040, two-thirds of cancer cases will occur in low- and middle- income countries. Paradoxically, despite this impending burden, LMICs command less than 5% share of global resources for treating cancer. Morocco, like many LMICs, faces significant obstacles in providing innovative cancer treatments to its population. Aim: Firstly, we aimed to conduct an original research investigating the availability and affordability of innovative cancer drugs in Morocco. Secondly, we sought to review the broader market dynamics, pricing, and reimbursement policies in the country. Methods: For the first objective, we identified a preliminary list of medicines approved for oncological indications in the Moroccan market based on resources from ANAM (National Agency for Health Insurance), pharmacy regulators, and online resources that compile information on approved medicines. For the second objective, we exhaustively reviewed the regulatory documents, legal texts and grey literature reports. All the informations were examined by pharma delegates and local experts. Results: As of January 2024, Morocco has 39 innovative anticancer medicines with market authorization. 30% of these drugs were approved after 2020. The majority of approved drugs were for breast, lung, colorectal, and prostate cancer. The period between FDA approval and entry into the Moroccan market ranges from 2 to 7 years, with a median of 3 years for breast cancer drugs and 7 years for more expensive drugs like Olaparib and Osimertinib. 22 out of the 39 drugs are not reimbursed, with an average reimbursement time of 4 years. Compared to prices in France, the most notable pricing disparities concern immunotherapy agents, priced 600 to 900 euros lower in France, while drugs like Pazopanib and Erlotinib cost 50% less in Morocco. Conclusion: Our study reveals significant disparities in the availability and affordability of innovative cancer drugs in Morocco. Regulatory hurdles, importation challenges, and pricing strategies contribute to this inequitable landscape. Addressing systemic barriers, fostering collaborations between stakeholders, and adopting a value-based pricing approach are imperative steps toward ensuring equitable access to high-quality interventions for patients, regardless of their geographical location.
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
Hospital reimbursement price cap for cancer drugs: the French experience in controlling hospital drug expenditures

A Degrassat-Théas,M Bensadon,C Rieu,M Angalakuditi,C Le Pen,P Paubel

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2165/11588320-000000000-00000

2012-07-01

PharmacoEconomics

Abstract:Background: In 2005, the French Government implemented a new way of financing high-cost drugs for hospitals in order to promote innovation. Such drugs are gathered on a positive list, established by the Ministry of Health, with a reimbursement price cap. Hospitals still negotiate with pharmaceutical firms, who set their prices freely, and then charge the national health insurance according to their consumption, without budgetary constraints, but on the condition of good use of care. They are not allowed to charge a price higher than this ceiling price, which is called the 'responsibility tariff' (RT). This measure is included in another, larger reform, which concerns hospital financing through allotted amounts at a specific diagnosis-based level. The purpose of this add-on payment on top of the health funds is firstly to avoid heterogeneity in costs per diagnostic-related group and secondly to avoid an uncontrolled increase of prices due to a lack of interest in negotiation from hospitals, as supplementary funding could reduce hospital price sensitivity. Objectives: The aim of this work was to assess the bargaining power of hospitals with the pharmaceutical firms in the monopoly market of innovative cancer drugs since the implementation of this reimbursement price cap. Methods: This study used data from the French Technical Agency of Information on Hospitals (ATIH; Agence Technique de l'Information sur l'Hospitalisation) and included 487 hospitals, which were public and non-profit private. The analysis was conducted on the cancer drugs of the regulated list. An index representing the ratio of the purchase prices to the RT was built from 2004 to 2007 in order to make a 'before-and-after' comparison. Results: Results showed a transient price decrease in 2005 before an alignment of patented drugs with regulated prices in the context of a dynamic market with a 22.5% yearly growth rate in value between 2004 and 2007. Conclusion: Hospitals are able to impose the RT for single-brand drugs. However, they are no longer able to negotiate below the RT except for generic drugs. Negotiations take place upstream for setting the RT between the public authorities and the firms.
Clinical benefit of anti-PD-(L)1 immunotherapies in advanced cancer in France: a population-based estimate from 2014 to 2021

V Grumberg,F-E Cotté,E Giroux-Leprieur,A-F Gaudin,C Lebbé,I Borget,V. Grumberg,F.-E. Cotté,E. Giroux-Leprieur,A.-F. Gaudin,C. Lebbé,I. Borget

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esmoop.2024.102240

IF: 6.883

2024-02-01

ESMO Open

Abstract:BACKGROUND: In France, the potential benefit of new treatments is initially evaluated by the Haute Autorité de Santé to determine reimbursement and pricing, but rarely afterwards. Although immunotherapies (ITs) have considerably improved the survival of patients, few data are available on their long-term benefit at a population-treated level. The present retrospective study aimed to assess the clinical benefit of ITs compared to the previous standards of care (SoCs) in France from 2014 to 2021.MATERIALS AND METHODS: To do this, we analyzed all ITs from the anti-programmed cell death protein 1/programmed death-ligand 1 [anti-PD-(L)1] class used in monotherapy or in association with another treatment available in early access or reimbursed in France between 2014 and 2021, regardless of indication. The number of patients initiating an IT was retrieved by year, drug and indication. Using extrapolated Kaplan-Meier curves, utility scores and the population treated, the clinical benefit was expressed as the number of deaths prevented (DP), life-years (LYs) and quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) gained compared to previous SoC.RESULTS: Across the period, five ITs were marketed in 21 indications related to eight primary tumor sites. Between 2014 and 2021, 132 924 patients initiated an IT. By December 2021, 16 173 (13 804-17 141) deaths were delayed compared to previous SoC, mainly in lung cancer. Compared to their SoC, ITs provided a gain of 37 316 (33 581-41 048) additional LYs and 27 709 (23 784-30 450) additional QALYs. Lung cancer was the driver indication with 70.6% of LYs and 68.4% of QALYs gained followed by melanoma with 18.7% and 20.4% of the gain, respectively.CONCLUSIONS: Significant gains in DP, LYs and QALYs have been observed in France following the introduction of ITs.

oncology
Expanded Access and Right To Try Requests: The Community Oncologist's Experience

Marjorie E. Zettler,Yolaine Jeune-Smith,Bruce A. Feinberg,Eli G. Phillips,Ajeet Gajra

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/op.20.00569

2021-11-01

JCO Oncology Practice

Abstract:PURPOSE: For patients with cancer who have exhausted approved treatment options and for whom appropriate clinical trials are not available, access to investigational drugs through the US Food and Drug Administration's Expanded Access (EA) program has been an alternative since the program's inception more than 30 years ago. In 2018, federal Right To Try legislation was passed in the United States, creating a second pathway—one that bypasses the US Food and Drug Administration—to obtain unapproved drugs outside of clinical trials. The use of the two programs by community medical oncologists and hematologist-oncologists has not been studied. METHODS: Between October 2019 and February 2020, community oncologists-hematologists from across the United States completed web-based surveys about EA and Right To Try pathways for accessing unapproved drugs for their patients. Physicians were asked about their utilization of, and perceptions of, the two programs. RESULTS: Of the 238 physicians who completed the survey, 46% indicated that they had attempted to gain access to an investigational drug for a patient using the EA program, whereas 14% reported attempting to use Right To Try pathway to obtain an unapproved drug for a patient. Eighty-nine percent of those who tried to use the EA program reported success in obtaining the investigational drug versus 73% of those who attempted to use the Right To Try pathway. CONCLUSION: Our survey found that most community oncologists-hematologists were aware of both the EA and Right To Try pathways, but there is room for improvement in understanding and utilization of the programs.

oncology
[Precision medicine in oncology: A reality… without equity]

Frédérique Pénault-Llorca,Clarisse Audigier-Valette,Pierre-Jean Lamy,Dominique Stoppa Lyonnet,Philippe Camparo,Sophie Beaupère,Xavier Troussard,Laure Gueroult Accolas,Gérard Raymond,Alexandre Auday,Jean-Yves Blay,François Sarkozy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bulcan.2024.08.008

2024-10-08

Abstract:The prognostic of certain cancers improved significantly in recent years thanks not only to the launch of innovative treatments but also to progress made in the diagnostic field. Thus, next-generation sequencing (NGS) became paramount to help characterizing tumors and selecting the most pertinent treatments. The survey conducted by a multi stakeholder committee, at the end of 2022, with 103 actors of the management of cancer patients (public and private centers, labs, prescribers, biologists, pathologists, direction) confirmed the heterogeneity of use of NGS tests across France due to, mainly, the lack of systematic reimbursement of related costs. Référentiel des actes innovants hors nomenclature de biologie (RIHN) covers, in a delayed and partial way, only half of costs engaged by centers. Only those with a critical mass of patients or with a sufficient funding capacity can guarantee an access to large panels. Postponing the initiation of a required treatment represents a risk of loss of opportunity for patients who cannot benefit of this technology. NGS large panels tests, an efficiency lever for cancer treatment, must be part of the care toolbox. Those with a demonstration of value created should nowadays be fully reimbursed by collectivity after HAS' evaluation, for a fair access throughout the territory. Precision diagnostic can open the way to a more personalized and efficient medicine.
Access in all areas? A round up of developments in market access and health technology assessment: part 3

Alice Beattie,Catrin Treharne,Sreeram V Ramagopalan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.57264/cer-2024-0009

2024-02-08

Journal of Comparative Effectiveness Research

Abstract:In this latest update, we explore some of the key updates in market access over recent months including the UK's voluntary scheme for branded medicines pricing, access and growth (VPAG), the first drugs funded by the Innovative Medicines Fund in the UK and the Direct Access Scheme in France, and, finally, the new Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) value assessment framework in the USA.

health care sciences & services
A comparative analysis of two contrasting European approaches for rewarding the value added by drugs for cancer: England versus France

Michael Drummond,Gerard de Pouvourville,Elizabeth Jones,Jennifer Haig,Grece Saba,Hélène Cawston

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40273-014-0144-z

PharmacoEconomics

Abstract:Objectives: Within Europe, contrasting approaches have emerged for rewarding the value added by new drugs. In Ireland, The Netherlands, Sweden and the UK, the price of, and access to, a new drug has to be justified by the health gain it delivers compared with current therapy, typically expressed in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs) gained. By contrast, in France and Germany, the assessment of added benefit is expressed on an ordinal scale, based on an assessment of the clinical outcomes as compared with existing care. This assessment then influences price negotiations. The objective of this paper is to assess the pros and cons of each approach, both in terms of the assessments they produce and the efficiency and practical feasibility of the process. Methods: We reviewed the technology appraisals performed by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) relating to 49 anticancer drug decisions in the UK from September 2003 to January 2012. Estimates of the QALYs gained and incremental cost per QALY gained were then compared with the assessments of the Amélioration du Service Médical Rendu (ASMR) made by the Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS) in France for the same drugs in the same clinical indications. We also undertook a qualitative assessment of the two approaches, considering the resources required, timeliness, transparency, stakeholder engagement, and political acceptability. Results: In the UK, the estimates of QALYs gained ranged from 0.003 to 1.46 and estimates of incremental cost per QALY from £3,320 to £458,000. The estimate of cost per QALY gained was a good predictor of the level of restriction imposed on the use of the drug concerned. Patient access schemes, which normally imply price reductions, were proposed in 45 % of cases. In France, the distribution of ASMRs was I, 12 %; II, 18 %; III, 24 %; IV, 18 %; V, 22 %; and uncategorized/non-reimbursed, 4 %. Since ASMRs of IV and above signify minor or no improvement over existing therapy, these ratings imply that, in around 40 % of cases, the drugs concerned would face price controls. Overall, the assessments of value added in the two jurisdictions were very similar. A superior ASMR rating was associated with higher QALYs gained. However, a superior ASMR was not associated with a lower incremental cost per QALY. There are substantial differences in respect of the other attributes considered, but these mainly reflect the result of institutional choices in the jurisdictions concerned and it is not possible to conclude that one approach is universally superior to the other. Conclusions: The two approaches produce very similar assessments of added value, but have different attributes in terms of cost, timeliness, transparency and political acceptability. How these considerations impact market access and prices is difficult to assess, because of the lack of transparency concerning prices in both countries and the fact that market access also depends on a broader range of factors. There is some evidence of convergence in the approaches, with the movement in France towards producing cost-effectiveness estimates and the movement in the UK towards negotiated prices.
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.
Oncology Drugs: Evolution, Comparative study of Global Drug Regulatory approval process and various measures to improve availability and accessibility

Shagun Sharma,Khushbu Sharma,Pooja Verma,Shivali Rahi,Arpana Rana

DOI: https://doi.org/10.22270/ijdra.v10i2.542

2022-06-28

International Journal of Drug Regulatory Affairs

Abstract:Cancer is the leading cause of death worldwide and is a well-known fact that it can be cured if detected and treated early. Cancer treatment has evolved from conventional therapies like vinca alkaloids, photodynamic and radiation therapy, chemotherapy to immunotherapy. Recent advances in tumour agnostic therapies based on cancer genetics and molecular features has led to a single drug treating different types of cancers. Next Generation sequencing (NGS) represents an effective way to gather large amount of genomic information about a cancer. The concept of precision medicine goes along with an understanding of the cancer genome as determined by NGS. Thus with an array of cancer diagnosis and treatment options the marketing approval process globally is challenging. This is mainly due to lack of harmonization of guidelines. This review evaluates the approval process of oncology drugs in US, EU and India. Recent USFDA initiatives like Project Orbis involving multi country collaboration and real time oncology review while EU PRIME and WHO proposed reliance pathway are several global initiatives which accelerates assessment process. New NDCT rules introduced in India in 2019 is one of the key step towards faster availability and accessibility of Cancer drugs in the country. Countries with high resource settings like USA and EU have recognized this and have made several initiatives to provide early access to patients. USA has several pathways for speeding up the regulatory approval process for oncology drugs. India has recently came up with New Drugs and Clinical Trial rules, 2019 (NDCT rules 2019) which laid down the provisions of Provisions of Accelerated approval, Expedited review and Clinical trial waivers ensures faster availability and accessibility of cancer drugs in the country. Although a lot of initiatives have already been taken in this direction still there is a strong need to harmonize the requirements globally for faster availability and accessibility of drug in the country for the much-needed patients.
PRE-MARKET CLINICAL EVALUATIONS OF INNOVATIVE HIGH-RISK MEDICAL DEVICES IN EUROPE

Frank Hulstaert,Mattias Neyt,Imgard Vinck,Sabine Stordeur,Mirjana Huić,Stefan Sauerland,Marja R. Kuijpers,Payam Abrishami,Hindrik Vondeling,Bruno Flamion,Silvio Garattini,Mira Pavlovic,Hans van Brabandt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266462312000335

2012-07-01

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care

Abstract:Objectives: High-quality clinical evidence is most often lacking when novel high-risk devices enter the European market. At the same time, a randomized controlled trial (RCT) is often initiated as a requirement for obtaining market access in the US. Should coverage in Europe be postponed until RCT data are available? We studied the premarket clinical evaluation of innovative high-risk medical devices in Europe compared with the US, and with medicines, where appropriate. Methods: The literature and regulatory documents were checked. Representatives from industry, Competent Authorities, Notified Bodies, Ethics Committees, and HTA agencies were consulted. We also discuss patient safety and the transparency of information. Results: In contrast to the US, there is no requirement in Europe to demonstrate the clinical efficacy of high-risk devices in the premarket phase. Patients in Europe can thus have earlier access to a potentially lifesaving device, but at the risk of insufficiently documented efficacy and safety. Variations in the stringency of clinical reviews, both at the level of Notified Bodies and Competent Authorities, do not guarantee patient safety. We tried to document the design of premarket trials in Europe and number of patients exposed, but failed as this information is not made public. Furthermore, the Helsinki Declaration is not followed with respect to the registration and publication of premarket trials. Conclusions: For innovative high-risk devices, new EU legislation should require the premarket demonstration of clinical efficacy and safety, using an RCT if possible, and a transparent clinical review, preferably centralized.

public, environmental & occupational health,health care sciences & services,medical informatics
An accelerated access pathway for innovative high-risk medical devices under the new European Union Medical Devices and health technology assessment regulations? Analysis and recommendations

Rosanna Tarricone,Helen Banks,Oriana Ciani,Werner Brouwer,Michael F Drummond,Reiner Leidl,Nicolas Martelli,Laura Sampietro-Colom,Rod S. Taylor

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/17434440.2023.2192868

IF: 3.439

2023-04-05

Expert Review of Medical Devices

Abstract:The new European Union (EU) Regulations for medical devices (MDs) and health technology assessment (HTA) are welcome developments that should increase the quality of clinical evidence for MDs and reduce fragmentation in the EU market access process. To fully exploit anticipated benefits, their respective assessment processes should be closely coordinated, particularly for promising, highly innovative MDs. Accelerated approval is worth exploring for certain categories of high-risk MDs to keep the EU regulatory process competitive compared to accelerated MD approval programs elsewhere (e.g. US). Problems observed in worldwide accelerated drug and MD regulatory approval programs are reviewed, including greater uncertainty in premarket clinical evidence generation and lack of oversight for post approval evidence requirements. Implications for MD approval, HTA and coverage are explored. Through analysis of two decades of drug and MD accelerated approval programs worldwide, recommendations for an Accelerated Access Pathway for select innovative, high-risk MDs are proposed to fit the EU context, leverage the two new regulations, increase opportunities for Expert Panels to provide timely advice regarding manufacturers' evidence generation plans along the MD lifecycle (pre, postmarket), and safely speed patient access while promoting increased collaboration among Member States on coverage decisions.

engineering, biomedical
Oncologists' reflections on patient rights and access to compassionate use drugs: A qualitative interview study from an academic cancer center

Jeremiah Stout,Cambray Smith,Jan Buckner,Alex A Adjei,Mark Wentworth,Jon C Tilburt,Zubin Master

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0261478

IF: 3.7

2021-12-17

PLoS ONE

Abstract:The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) allows patients with serious illnesses to access investigational drugs for "compassionate use" outside of clinical trials through expanded access (EA) Programs. The federal Right-to-Try Act created an additional pathway for non-trial access to experimental drugs without institutional review board or FDA approval. This removal of oversight amplifies the responsibility of physicians, but little is known about the role of practicing physicians in non-trial access to investigational drugs. We undertook semi-structured interviews to capture the experiences and opinions of 21 oncologists all with previous EA experience at a major cancer center. We found five main themes. Participants with greater EA experience reported less difficulty accessing drugs through the myriad of administrative processes and drug company reluctance to provide investigational products while newcomers reported administrative hurdles. Oncologists outlined several rationales patients offered when seeking investigational drugs, including those with stronger health literacy and a good scientific rationale versus others who remained skeptical of conventional medicine. Participants reported that most patients had realistic expectations while some had unrealistic optimism. Given the diverse reasons patients sought investigational drugs, four factors-scientific rationale, risk-benefit ratio, functional status of the patient, and patient motivation-influenced oncologists' decisions to request compassionate use drugs. Physicians struggled with a "right-to-try" framing of patient access to experimental drugs, noting instead their own responsibility to protect patients' best interest in the uncertain and risky process of off-protocol access. This study highlights the willingness of oncologists at a major cancer center to pursue non-trial access to experimental treatments for patients while also shedding light on the factors they use when considering such treatment. Our data reveal discrepancies between physicians' sense of patients' expectations and their own internal sense of professional obligation to shepherd a safe process for patients at a vulnerable point in their care.
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
FDA and EMA Approvals of New Breast Cancer Drugs—A Comparative Regulatory Analysis

Chandra P. Leo,Bettina Hentschel,Thomas D. Szucs,Cornelia Leo

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers12020437

2020-02-13

Cancers

Abstract:Breast cancer is the most common cancer in women worldwide and the solid tumor type for which the highest number of drugs have been approved to date. This study examines new drug approvals for breast cancer by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA), based on an analysis of regulatory documents from both agencies for the period from 1995 to 2018. Of the 29 breast cancer drugs approved over this time span, 17 received positive decisions from both the FDA and EMA, including all drugs licensed after 2008. Nineteen of the 25 FDA-approved drugs, but none of the EMA approvals, benefited from special regulatory pathways (such as fast track, breakthrough therapy, or priority review). In the U.S.A., four accelerated approvals were granted (of which one, for bevacizumab, was later revoked), while only two drugs received provisional approvals following EMA review. New breast cancer drugs were approved approximately twelve months earlier in the United States than in Europe. These results suggest that a broader use of special regulatory pathways by EMA could help to accelerate access to novel drugs for European breast cancer patients.

oncology
Future European health care: cost containment, health care reform and scientific progress in drug research

G Emilien

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1751(199704)12:2<81::AID-HPM460>3.0.CO;2-3

Abstract:The cost of the development of a new pharmaceutical product from its conception and synthesis through to the regulatory approval process has more than quadrupled in the last 20 years. Both clinical and total development times have increased substantially. To amortize the costs incurred, the pharmaceutical industry has taken an international dimension. The incentives for pharmaceutical firms to discover and develop new drugs depend on the length of the development and regulatory review process plus the potential market size. Recent regulatory, economic and political changes may have significant implications for the future of new drug developments in Europe. The European Union industrial policy felt that there is a need for convergence in the area of pricing. It is recommended that the policy should aim to contain growth in pharmaceutical expenses by means specific to reimbursement rather than direct price controls. By encouraging doctors to prescribe and customers to use generics, competition is enhanced to bring down drug prices. More emphasis is being laid by government in educating customers to cost-awareness and cost-benefit ratios with regard to pharmaceuticals. Concerning clinical trials, European harmonization has been achieved by significant developments: the rights and integrity of the trial subjects are protected; the credibility of the data is established; and the ethical, scientific and technical quality of the trials has improved. Future European health care forecasts a whole change in the pharmaceutical business. Important issues in cost and outcome measurement should be carefully planned and considered in drug development. Due to important mergers and acquisitions, the pharmaceutical sector will consist mainly of important multinational corporations. In this way, valuable new products may be brought to the market.

Impact of Early Access Reform on Oncology Innovation in France: Approvals, Patients, and Costs

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

Early access programs for medical devices in France: Overview of recent reforms and outcomes (2015-2022)

Challenges raised by the economic evaluation of CAR-T-cell therapies. The review by the French National Authority for Health

FDA's proposed regulations to expand access to investigational drugs for treatment use: the status quo in the guise of reform

Investigating the availability, affordability, and market dynamics of innovative oncology drugs in Morocco: an original report

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

Hospital reimbursement price cap for cancer drugs: the French experience in controlling hospital drug expenditures

Clinical benefit of anti-PD-(L)1 immunotherapies in advanced cancer in France: a population-based estimate from 2014 to 2021

Expanded Access and Right To Try Requests: The Community Oncologist's Experience

[Precision medicine in oncology: A reality… without equity]

Access in all areas? A round up of developments in market access and health technology assessment: part 3

A comparative analysis of two contrasting European approaches for rewarding the value added by drugs for cancer: England versus France

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

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

PRE-MARKET CLINICAL EVALUATIONS OF INNOVATIVE HIGH-RISK MEDICAL DEVICES IN EUROPE

An accelerated access pathway for innovative high-risk medical devices under the new European Union Medical Devices and health technology assessment regulations? Analysis and recommendations

Oncologists' reflections on patient rights and access to compassionate use drugs: A qualitative interview study from an academic cancer center

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

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

Future European health care: cost containment, health care reform and scientific progress in drug research