US FDA breakthrough therapy designation and consumer drug advertising: a recipe for confusion

Neeraj G Patel,Ayman Mohammad,Joseph S Ross,Reshma Ramachandran

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-076138

2024-02-21

BMJ

Abstract:Neeraj G Patel and colleagues examine how drugs approved through the FDA breakthrough pathway are advertised to consumers and argue that the name contributes to overestimation of benefits

medicine, general & internal

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Current Regulatory Status in China of Drugs Withdrawn from the US FDA Accelerated Pathway: Implications for Regulation Globally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decision is made as to whether the approval should be converted to a traditional approval or whether the drug should be withdrawn from the market. 2 US Food and Drug AdministrationExpedited programs for serious conditions––drugs and biologics.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
Clinical Benefit, Price, and Regulatory Approval of Cancer Drugs Granted Breakthrough Therapy Designation in China, 2020-2024

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

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.39080

2024-01-01

JAMA Network Open

Abstract:ImportanceThe China National Drug Administration (NMPA) established the breakthrough therapy designation (BTD) in 2020 to encourage the accelerated development of drugs for the prevention and treatment of diseases that are life-threatening. However, the differences between BTD and non-BTD cancer drugs regarding clinical benefit, regulatory approval, and price are unclear.ObjectivesTo compare BTD and non-BTD cancer drugs in clinical benefit (defined as efficacy and safety), novelty, time to approval, and average monthly treatment price.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis cross-sectional study analyzes the original indication of BTD and non-BTD novel cancer drugs approved by the NMPA between July 8, 2020, and July 8, 2024. Data on efficacy, safety, regulatory approval, and price of cancer drugs were extracted from pivotal clinical trials based on review reports published by the NMPA, peer-reviewed articles or meeting reports, and winning bid prices for cancer drugs in the Chinese provincial-level centralized procurement process.Main Outcomes and MeasuresThe main outcome was the efficacy and safety associated with BTD vs non-BTD cancer drugs, including progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), duration of response, serious adverse events, grade 3 or higher adverse events, and treatment-related deaths. In addition, the time to approval, novelty, and initial and latest average monthly treatment prices were evaluated, as well as the average annual reduction rate (AARR; the sum of the reduction rates divided by the number of years for the monthly treatment price) for these cancer drugs.ResultsBetween July 2020 and July 2024, 18 BTD (36%) and 32 non-BTD (64%) cancer drugs were approved by the NMPA. The median (IQR) clinical development time for BTD drugs was significantly shorter than for non-BTD drugs (5.6 [95% CI, 4.3-7.3] vs 6.6 [95% CI, 6.0-8.5] years; P = .02). No significant differences were observed in PFS (HR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.38-0.52] vs HR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.40-0.65]; P = .20), PFS gained (median [IQR], 5.4 [3.9-7.0] vs 2.7 [2.6-5.9] months; P = .77), RR (58% [95% CI, 45%-74%] vs 59% [95% CI, 51%-69%]; P = .85), and duration of response (median [IQR], 18.0 [15.0-21.6] vs 11.1 [7.4-17.4] months; P = .09) between BTD and non-BTD drugs. The rates of serious adverse events (37% [95% CI, 26%-52%] vs 32% [95% CI, 27%-36%]; P = .45), adverse events grade 3 or higher (64% [95% CI, 53%-77%] vs 55% [95% CI, 45%-68%]; P = .31), and treatment-related deaths (2% [95% CI, 1%-4%] vs 1% [95% CI, 1%-2%]; P = .10) were similar between BTD and non-BTD drugs. BTD drugs are more likely to be first-in-class drugs (5 of 18 [28%] vs 1 of 32 [3%]; P = .02). Differences in the median (IQR) initial ($5665 [$3542-$9321] vs $3361 [$2604-$5474]; P = .06) and latest ($5665 [$1553-$9321] vs $2145 [$1318-$4276]; P = .18) average monthly treatment prices for BTD drugs and non-BTD drugs were not significant. The median (IQR) AARRs for BTD drugs and non-BTD drugs were 15.2% (0%-46.9%) and 19.8% (1.0%-42.9%), respectively.Conclusions and RelevanceThe findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that BTD has facilitated faster time to market for cancer drugs and improved novelty, but the price of treatment is relatively higher. There was no significant difference on comparative efficacy and safety.
Regulatory Incentives for Innovation: The FDA's Breakthrough Therapy Designation

Amitabh Chandra,Jennifer Kao,Kathleen L. Miller,Ariel D. Stern

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_01434

2024-03-18

Abstract:Abstract Regulators of new products confront a tradeoff between speeding a product to market and collecting additional product quality information. The FDA's Breakthrough Therapy Designation (BTD) provides an opportunity to understand if regulators can use new policy to innovate around this tradeoff. We find that the BTD program shortened clinical development times by 23 percent and did not impact the ex post safety profile of drugs with the designation. The BTD program had the greatest impact on less experienced firms and reduced clinical trial design complexity. The results suggest that targeted regulatory innovation can shorten R&D periods without compromising product quality.

economics,social sciences, mathematical methods
Premarket Pivotal Trial End Points and Postmarketing Requirements for FDA Breakthrough Therapies

Maryam Mooghali,Joshua D. Wallach,Joseph S. Ross,Reshma Ramachandran

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.30486

2024-08-29

JAMA Network Open

Abstract:Importance The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) awards the breakthrough therapy designation to expedite development and review of therapeutics intended to treat serious conditions when preliminary clinical evidence demonstrates potential substantial improvement over existing therapies on clinically significant end points. Under the 21st Century Cures Act of 2016, the FDA is required to publish and routinely update a list of surrogate markers to provide industry sponsors with indication-specific information about end points that were or may be considered for approval. Therapeutics that are granted breakthrough therapy designation can receive accelerated or traditional approval; however, little is known about those approved through the latter pathway, where postmarketing confirmatory studies are typically not required, regardless of the end point used. Objective To evaluate the primary end points used in premarket pivotal trials supporting FDA breakthrough therapy–designated approvals and to determine whether postmarketing studies confirming efficacy were required for approvals based on pivotal trials using surrogate markers as primary end points. Design, Setting, and Participants This cross-sectional study used data from the Drugs@FDA database for all original breakthrough therapy–designated approvals from inception to December 31, 2023, in the US. The first designation was approved on November 1, 2013. Data analysis was performed in January 2024. Main Outcomes and Measures Descriptive analyses were used to characterize the breakthrough therapy–designated indication approval pathways, the primary end points of pivotal efficacy trials, and their postmarketing requirements or commitments. Results From 2013 to 2023, the FDA approved 157 original indications with breakthrough therapy designation. Of these, 52 (33%) were granted accelerated approval and 105 (67%) were granted traditional approval. All accelerated approvals were based on pivotal trials using surrogate markers as primary end points and had FDA-required postmarketing studies to confirm efficacy. Of these 52 indications, 51 (98%) were approved based on surrogate end points listed in the FDA table of surrogate end points for the same indication. Among traditional approvals, 61 (58%) were based on pivotal trials using surrogate markers as primary end points, of which 4 (7%) had FDA-required postmarketing studies to confirm efficacy and 39 (64%) were approved based on surrogate end points listed in the FDA table for the same indication. Conclusions and Relevance In this cross-sectional study of original FDA breakthrough therapy–designated approvals from 2013 to 2023, trials supporting these approvals often used surrogate markers as primary end points (even when not approved via accelerated approval) and lacked FDA-required postmarketing studies to verify clinical benefit. These findings suggest that requiring postmarketing studies for breakthrough therapy–designated indications approved based on surrogate markers, regardless of approval pathway, may increase patient and clinician certainty of the expected clinical benefit.

medicine, general & internal
Special FDA designations for drug development: orphan, fast track, accelerated approval, priority review, and breakthrough therapy

Daniel Tobias Michaeli,Thomas Michaeli,Sebastian Albers,Tobias Boch,Julia Caroline Michaeli

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-023-01639-x

2023-11-14

The European Journal of Health Economics

Abstract:Abstract Background Over the past decades, US Congress enabled the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to facilitate and expedite drug development for serious conditions filling unmet medical needs with five special designations and review pathways: orphan, fast track, accelerated approval, priority review, and breakthrough therapy. Objectives This study reviews the FDA’s five special designations for drug development regarding their safety, efficacy/clinical benefit, clinical trials, innovation, economic incentives, development timelines, and price. Methods We conducted a keyword search to identify studies analyzing the impact of the FDA's special designations (orphan, fast track, accelerated approval, priority review, and breakthrough therapy) on the safety, efficacy/clinical benefit, trials, innovativeness, economic incentives, development times, and pricing of new drugs. Results were summarized in a narrative overview. Results Expedited approval reduces new drugs’ time to market. However, faster drug development and regulatory review are associated with more unrecognized adverse events and post-marketing safety revisions. Clinical trials supporting special FDA approvals frequently use small, non-randomized, open-label designs. Required post-approval trials to monitor unknown adverse events are often delayed or not even initiated. Evidence suggests that drugs approved under special review pathways, marketed as “ breakthroughs ”, are more innovative and deliver a higher clinical benefit than those receiving standard FDA approval. Special designations are an economically viable strategy for investors and pharmaceutical companies to develop drugs for rare diseases with unmet medical needs, due to financial incentives, expedited development timelines, higher clinical trial success rates, alongside greater prices. Nonetheless, patients, physicians, and insurers are concerned about spending money on drugs without a proven benefit or even on drugs that turn out to be ineffective. While European countries established performance- and financial-based managed entry agreements to account for this uncertainty in clinical trial evidence and cost-effectiveness, the pricing and reimbursement of these drugs remain largely unregulated in the US. Conclusion Special FDA designations shorten clinical development and FDA approval times for new drugs treating rare and severe diseases with unmet medical needs. Special-designated drugs offer a greater clinical benefit to patients. However, physicians, patients, and insurers must be aware that special-designated drugs are often approved based on non-robust trials, associated with more unrecognized side effects, and sold for higher prices.

health policy & services,economics
Breakthrough Therapy Cancer Drugs and Indications With FDA Approval: Development Time, Innovation, Trials, Clinical Benefit, Epidemiology, and Price

Daniel Tobias Michaeli,Thomas Michaeli

DOI: https://doi.org/10.6004/jnccn.2023.7110

IF: 12.6934

2024-04-22

Journal of the National Comprehensive Cancer Network

Abstract:Background: The breakthrough therapy designation (BTD) facilitates the development of drugs with a large preliminary benefit in treating serious or life-threatening diseases. This study analyzes the FDA approval, trials, benefits, unmet needs, and pricing of breakthrough and nonbreakthrough therapy cancer drugs and indications. Patients and Methods: We analyzed 355 cancer indications with FDA approval (2012–2022). Breakthrough and nonbreakthrough indications were compared regarding their FDA approval, innovativeness, clinical trials, epidemiology, and price. Data were extracted from FDA labels, the Global Burden of Disease study, and the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. Hazard ratios (HRs) for overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and relative risk (RR) of tumor response were meta-analyzed across randomized controlled trials. Objective response rates (ORRs) were meta-analyzed for single-arm trials. Results: We identified 137 breakthrough and 218 nonbreakthrough cancer indications. The median clinical development time was 3.2 years shorter for breakthrough drugs than for nonbreakthrough drugs (5.6 vs 8.8 years; P =.002). The BTD was more frequently granted to biomarker-directed indications (46% vs 34%; P =.025) supported by smaller trials (median, 149 vs 326 patients; P <.001) of single-arm (53% vs 27%; P <.001) and phase I or II design (61% vs 31%; P <.001). Breakthrough indications offered a greater OS (HR, 0.69 vs 0.74; P =.031) and tumor response (RR, 1.48 vs 1.32; P =.006; ORR, 52% vs 40%; P =.004), but not a PFS benefit (HR, 0.53 vs 0.58; P =.212). Median improvements in OS (4.8 vs 3.2 months; P =.002) and PFS (5.4 vs 3.3 months; P =.005) but not duration of response (8.7 vs 4.7 months; P =.245) were higher for breakthrough than for nonbreakthrough indications. The BTD was more frequently granted to first-in-class drugs (42% vs 28%; P =.001) and first-in-indication treatments (43% vs 29%; P <.001). There were no differences in treatment and epidemiologic characteristics between breakthrough and nonbreakthrough drugs. Breakthrough drugs were more expensive than nonbreakthrough drugs (mean monthly price, $38,971 vs $22,591; P =.0592). Conclusions: The BTD expedites patient access to effective and innovative, but also expensive, new cancer drugs and indications.

oncology
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
Unveiling the impacts of FDA Breakthrough Therapy Designation: a dual-perspective examination of economic and developmental outcomes for biotechnology companies

Joab Williamson,Alexander James Spicer,Elina Louramo,Juho Jalkanen

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drudis.2024.103919

IF: 8.369

2024-02-18

Drug Discovery Today

Abstract:Biotechnology and small pharma companies must recognize the opportunity presented by FDA Breakthrough Therapy Designation (BTD) to expedite drug development for serious conditions. This paper evaluates BTD economic and developmental impacts on such companies. Analysis of 29 BTD events from 2017 to 2022 revealed immediate share price boosts and improved drug approval rates, alongside faster development times. Yet, long-term share prices underperformed relative to the broader market, underscoring...

pharmacology & pharmacy
Maintaining a Fair Balance? Narrative and Non-Narrative Strategies in Televised Direct-to-Consumer Advertisements for Prescription Drugs Aired in the United States, 2003-2016

Jiawei Liu,Rosemary J Avery,Jungyon Janice Kim,Jeff Niederdeppe

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10810730.2022.2077863

2022-03-04

Abstract:Televised direct-to-consumer advertising for prescription drugs (hereafter DTCA) are among the most widespread forms of health communication encountered by American adults. DTCA shape public understanding of health problems and support the commercial interests of pharmaceutical companies by offering prescription drugs as a treatment option. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires DTCA to present fair and balanced information regarding drug benefits versus risks. While narrative persuasion theory suggests that narratives can enhance persuasion by facilitating message processing and reducing counter-arguing, prior assessments of the balance between drug benefits versus risk information in DTCA have largely overlooked whether the ads employ narratives and/or other evidentiary strategies that may confer a persuasive advantage. This study content analyzed narrativity in DTCA aired on television between 2003 and 2016 for four different health conditions (heart disease, diabetes, depression, and osteoarthritis). Results showed that while televised DTCA spent more time discussing drug risks than drug benefits, both narratives and factual evidence were more frequently used to communicate drug benefits than drug risks. These findings raise concerns that narratives are strategically used by DTCA to highlight drug benefits rather than drug risks, which could lead to inaccurate perceptions of drug risks among viewers.
Experimental Study of the Promotional Implications of Proprietary Prescription Drug Names

Susana Peinado,Amie C. O’Donoghue,Kevin R. Betts,Ryan S. Paquin,Kristen Giombi,Jennifer E. Arnold,Bridget J. Kelly,Christine Davis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-024-00704-8

2024-09-29

Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science

Abstract:The meaning and characteristics embedded in proprietary drug names have the potential to affect name recall, perceptions of drug benefits and risks, and attitudes toward a drug. In this study, we examined: (1) whether names that reference the drug's medical indication affect consumers' and primary care physicians' (PCPs') perceptions of the drug and (2) whether names that overstate the drug's efficacy affect consumers' and PCPs' perceptions of the drug.

pharmacology & pharmacy,medical informatics
Visual images of prescription drug benefits in direct-to-consumer television advertisements

Helen W Sullivan,Amie C O'Donoghue,Molly Lynch,Mihaela Johnson,Christine Davis,Jacqueline B Amoozegar,Douglas J Rupert

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pec.2021.02.024

Abstract:Objective: Images demonstrating a prescription drug's efficacy are often included in direct-to-consumer television advertisements. The current research assessed whether exaggerated efficacy images can mislead individuals, and whether providing accurate quantitative information can reduce these misperceptions. Methods: We conducted two experimental studies with internet panelists 60 years and older testing drug efficacy images in television ads for wet age-related macular degeneration (N = 901) and plaque psoriasis (N = 902). In each study, participants viewed one of six ads that varied in the efficacy images included (no image, accurate image, exaggerated image) and the presentation of quantitative information (absent, present). Measures included recall, perceptions, and numeracy. Results: In both studies, participants who saw exaggerated images were more likely than those who saw no image or accurate images to overestimate efficacy. Presenting quantitative information increased participants' gist and verbatim recall of drug efficacy, and in some cases, led participants to have more accurate perceptions of the drug's efficacy even in the presence of exaggerated images. Higher numeracy was associated with better gist and verbatim recall. Conclusions: These results support visual persuasion theory. Moreover, they show that exaggerating benefits visually can mislead viewers. Practice implications: Stakeholders should ensure that images in direct-to-consumer promotion are accurate and non-misleading.
How Often Are Drugs Made Available Under the Food and Drug Administration's Expanded Access Process Approved?

Amy E. McKee,André O. Markon,Kirk M. Chan‐Tack,Peter Lurie,Kirk M. Chan-Tack

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jcph.960

2017-09-15

The Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

Abstract:In this review of individual patient expanded-access requests to the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research for the period Fiscal Year 2010 to Fiscal Year 2014, we evaluated the number of applications received and the number allowed to proceed. We also evaluated whether drugs and certain biologics obtained under expanded access went on to be approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Finally, we considered concerns that adverse events occurring during expanded access might place sponsors at risk for legal liability. Overall, 98% of individual patient expanded-access requests were allowed to proceed. During the study period, among drugs without a previous approval for any indication or dosage form, 24% of unique drugs (ie, multiple applications for access to the same drug were considered to relate to 1 unique drug), and 20% of expanded-access applications received marketing approval by 1 year after initial submission; 43% and 33%, respectively, were approved by 5 years after initial submission. A search of 3 legal databases and a database of news articles did not appear to identify any product liability cases arising from the use of a product in expanded access. Our analyses seek to give physicians and patients a realistic perspective on the likelihood of a drug's approval as well as certain information regarding the product liability risks for commercial sponsors when providing expanded access to investigational drugs. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)'s expanded-access program maintains a careful balance between authorizing patient access to potentially beneficial drugs and protecting them from drugs that may have unknown risks. At the same time, the agency wishes to maintain the integrity of the clinical trials process, ultimately the best way to get safe and effective drugs to patients.
TV commercials for prescription drugs: a discourse analytic perspective

Lewis H Glinert

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2005.03.003

Abstract:Background: The US Food and Drug Administration has called for research that may assist in developing standards for risk/benefit messages in the promotion of prescription drugs. Linguistics-based models of meaning and inference, though frequently applied to advertising, have not hitherto been used in this arena. Objective: This study was intended to illustrate how discourse analysis, a methodology for microanalysis of texts in context, can elucidate the workings and interplay of promotional, informational, and other functions of direct-to-consumer drug advertising, anticipating threats to "fair balance" and pinpointing textual phenomena and issues suited to empirical study. Methods: The text and visuals of a small corpus were analyzed along several dimensions, using theoretical insights of linguistic pragmatics and ethnography of speech to ask what the advertisement is seeking to do and what messages a viewer is likely to derive. Results: The linguistic and rhetorical features include an intense switching and fusion of styles and modalities: the traditional advertising distinction between personal and impersonal, "company" and "consumer", was ostentatiously flouted. The role of spokesperson was assigned to characters in a real or virtual narrative. The narrative portion of the text and images often struck an ironic or postmodern note, eg, by mixing science with science fiction. The overall functions of the commercials (promotional, informational, and aesthetic) were themselves frequently blended. The text deployed several linguistic or rhetorical strategies to send a double message for promotional advantage, including syntactic-semantic ambiguity, voice-over risk messages at odds with upbeat visuals, and a vagueness of certain words in particular contexts. Conclusions: Findings contribute to our understanding of how TV commercials convey meaning with respect to drug benefits and risks, with implications for advertisers, regulators, and patient education. They also suggest new foci for empirical study.
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
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.
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
Australian access to FDA-approved breakthrough therapy designation medicines: a 10-year review

Senthil Lingaratnam,Safeera Yasmeen Hussainy,Alexandra Murphy,Cale Perrin,Melbin Samuvel,Elahe Mehrvarz,Chiao Xin Lim,John Zalcberg

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/20523211.2024.2389120

2024-08-21

Abstract:Background: Regulatory pathways adopted by the United States Food Drug and Administration (FDA) and Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) enable expedited approval of medicines that are thought to offer significant clinical advantage over existing options for severe diseases. Objectives: To review Australian accessibility to medicines approved through the FDA breakthrough therapy designation (BTD) process including timelines and approvals by the TGA and Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) for listing on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS). Methods: Retrospective review of published reports from the FDA, TGA, PBAC and PBS for BTDs from 1 January 2013-31 August 2023. Uniform data about BTD and milestone dates were collected. Analysis included all BTDs approved by FDA until 31-August-2022. Main outcome measures: Rates of approval by TGA and PBAC, and PBS-listing; and median (interquartile range, IQR) time from FDA submission to FDA approval, and FDA approval to TGA approval, PBAC approval and PBS listing for cancer and non-cancer medicines. Results: Of 237 BTDs across 156 medicines, 68% were approved by the TGA, and 37% were listed on the PBS. Median (IQR) time from FDA submission to FDA approval was shorter for cancer compared to non-cancer; 179 days (140-210) vs 232 days (181-245), p < 0.02. Time from FDA approval to PBS listing was similar for cancer and non-cancer; median 744 days (IQR, 549-1136) and 733 days (IQR 440-960) respectively, with improvements for cancer BTDs noted for 2018-2022 compared to 2013-2017; 566 days (IQR 319-831) vs 880 days (IQR 620-1362), p < 0.02 but not for non-cancer BTDs. Conclusion: BTD medicines are accessible in Australia approximately 2 years after FDA approval. Since 2018, time to PBS listing for cancer therapies improved, mirroring shorter FDA approval times for this category. Further understanding of clinical studies and context by therapeutic area may improve timely and safe access to life-saving medicines.
Physician Perspectives on the Food and Drug Administration's Decision to Grant Accelerated Approval to Aducanumab for Alzheimer's Disease

Sanket S Dhruva,Aaron S Kesselheim,Steven Woloshin,Robin Z Ji,Zhigang Lu,Jonathan J Darrow,Rita F Redberg

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/cpt.2954

Abstract:In June 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval to aducanumab, a monoclonal antibody indicated for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease. The accelerated approval decision was controversial due to concerns about the use of an unvalidated surrogate measure, beta-amyloid, as the basis for approval and a lack of clinical outcome benefit. Between October 2021 and September 2022, we conducted a survey of a nationally representative group of internists, medical oncologists, and cardiologists to understand perspectives around aducanumab's approval and how this FDA decision may influence trust in other drugs approved through the accelerated approval program. Among 214 physician respondents familiar with the accelerated approval of aducanumab, 184 (86%) would not prescribe or recommend aducanumab. Further, 143 (67%) physicians reported losing trust in other drugs approved through the accelerated approval program due to the FDA's decision with aducanumab. As a growing number of similar novel Alzheimer's disease treatments are on the horizon, the first of which, lecanemab, already has received accelerated approval in January 2023, our survey findings provide insight into the impact of the FDA's regulatory decisions on the perspectives and prescribing behavior of physicians concerning these novel drug treatments.
Can we learn lessons from the FDA's approval of aducanumab?

Kathy Y Liu,Robert Howard

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41582-021-00557-x

Abstract:On 7 June 2021, aducanumab was granted accelerated approval for the treatment of Alzheimer disease (AD) by the FDA on the basis of amyloid-lowering effects considered reasonably likely to confer clinical benefit. This decision makes aducanumab the first new drug to be approved for the treatment of AD since 2003 and the first drug to ever be approved for modification of the course of AD. Many have questioned how scientific evidence, expert advice and the best interests of patients and families were considered in the approval decision. In this article, we argue that prior to approval, the FDA and Biogen's shared interpretation of clinical trial data - that high-dose aducanumab was substantially clinically effective - avoided conventional scientific scrutiny, was prominently advanced by patient representative groups who had been major recipients of Biogen funds, and raised concerns that safeguards were insufficient to mitigate regulatory capture within the FDA. Here, we reflect on events leading to the FDA's decision on 7 June 2021 and consider whether any lessons can be learned for the field.

US FDA breakthrough therapy designation and consumer drug advertising: a recipe for confusion

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

Clinical Benefit, Price, and Regulatory Approval of Cancer Drugs Granted Breakthrough Therapy Designation in China, 2020-2024

Regulatory Incentives for Innovation: The FDA's Breakthrough Therapy Designation

Premarket Pivotal Trial End Points and Postmarketing Requirements for FDA Breakthrough Therapies

Special FDA designations for drug development: orphan, fast track, accelerated approval, priority review, and breakthrough therapy

Breakthrough Therapy Cancer Drugs and Indications With FDA Approval: Development Time, Innovation, Trials, Clinical Benefit, Epidemiology, and Price

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

Unveiling the impacts of FDA Breakthrough Therapy Designation: a dual-perspective examination of economic and developmental outcomes for biotechnology companies

Maintaining a Fair Balance? Narrative and Non-Narrative Strategies in Televised Direct-to-Consumer Advertisements for Prescription Drugs Aired in the United States, 2003-2016

Experimental Study of the Promotional Implications of Proprietary Prescription Drug Names

Visual images of prescription drug benefits in direct-to-consumer television advertisements

How Often Are Drugs Made Available Under the Food and Drug Administration's Expanded Access Process Approved?

TV commercials for prescription drugs: a discourse analytic perspective

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

Clinical Benefit and Regulatory Outcomes of Cancer Drugs Receiving Accelerated Approval

New drug approvals in oncology

Australian access to FDA-approved breakthrough therapy designation medicines: a 10-year review

Physician Perspectives on the Food and Drug Administration's Decision to Grant Accelerated Approval to Aducanumab for Alzheimer's Disease

Can we learn lessons from the FDA's approval of aducanumab?