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1992 to 2017, 93 cancer drug indications received FDA accelerated approval, 6 of which were subsequently withdrawn, leaving 87 cancer drug indications on the market. As of August 2019, 5 of these indications had been withdrawn or denied market authorization for the European Union by the EMA.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.

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

Current Regulatory Status in China of Drugs Withdrawn from the US FDA Accelerated Pathway: Implications for Regulation Globally

Clinical Benefit and Regulatory Outcomes of Cancer Drugs Receiving Accelerated Approval

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

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

Regulatory characteristics and pivotal study design of US Food and Drug Administration approval of drugs for major vs. minor cancer

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

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

Influence of Expedited Programs in the United States on Oncology Drug Development in Japan

New drug approvals in oncology

Efficacy evaluation of anticancer agents in single-arm clinical trials: analysis of review reports from Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency

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

Redefining Available Therapy in Oncology Accelerated Approval Decisions

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

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

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

Review on the Accelerated SFDA Approval for Cancer Drugs in the Past 5 Years

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

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

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

Clinical development time is shorter for new anticancer drugs approved via accelerated approval in the US or via conditional approval in the EU