Search

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the uptake of medicines licensed as orphan drugs by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or European Medicines Agency (EMA) into the WHO Model list of essential medicines and the WHO Model list of essential medicines for children from 1977 to 2021. METHODS: We collated and analysed data on drug characteristics, reasons for adding or rejecting medicines, and time between regulatory approval and inclusion in the lists. We compared trends in listing orphan drugs before and after revisions to the inclusion criteria of the essential medicines lists in 2001, as well as differences in trends for listing orphan and non-orphan drugs, respectively.FINDINGS: The proportion of orphan drugs in the essential medicines lists increased from 1.9% (4/208) in 1977 to 14.6% (70/478) in 2021. While orphan drugs for communicable diseases have remained stable over time, we observed a considerable shift towards more orphan drugs for noncommunicable diseases, particularly for cancer. The median period for inclusion in the essential medicines lists after either FDA or EMA first approval was 13.5 years (range: 1-28 years). Limited clinical evidence base and uncertainty about the magnitude of net benefit were the most frequent reasons to reject proposals to add new orphan drugs to the essential medicines lists.CONCLUSION: Despite lack of a global definition of rare diseases, the essential medicines lists have broadened their scope to include medicines for rare conditions. However, the high costs of many listed orphan drugs pose accessibility and reimbursement challenges in resource-constrained settings.

BACKGROUND: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has expanded the use of surrogate markers in drugs approved for oncology/hematology indications. This has likely resulted in a greater number of approvals and possibly drugs coming to market faster, but it is unknown whether these drugs also improve overall survival (OS) for patients taking them. METHODS: We sought to estimate the percentage of oncology drugs that have shown to improve OS in a cross-sectional analysis of US FDA oncology drug approvals (2006-2023). We searched for OS data in registration trials and the peer-reviewed literature. RESULTS: We found 392 oncology drug approvals. Eighty-seven (22%) drug approvals were based on OS, 147 drug approvals were later tested for OS benefit (38% of all approvals and 48% of drugs approved on a surrogate), and 130 (33%) have yet to be tested for OS benefit. Of the 147 drug approvals later tested for OS, 109 (28% of all approvals and 74% of drugs later tested for OS) have yet to show OS benefit, whereas 38 (10% of all approvals and 26% of drugs later tested for OS benefit) were later shown to have OS benefit. In total, 125 out of 392 (32%) drugs approved for any indication have been shown to improve OS benefit at some point, and 267 (68%) have yet to show approval. CONCLUSION: About 32% of all oncology drug approvals have evidence for an improvement in OS. Higher standards are needed in drug regulation to ensure that approved drugs are delivering better patient outcomes, specifically in regards to survival.

We report our initial real-world experience with 177Lu-PSMA-617 radioligand therapy. Methods: We performed a retrospective review of patients treated with 177Lu-PSMA-617. Pretreatment PSMA PET, laboratory findings, overall survival, a fall in prostate-specific antigen by 50% (PSA50), and toxicities were evaluated. Results: Ninety-nine patients were included. Sixty patients achieved a PSA50. Seven of 18 (39%) patients who did not meet the TheraP PSMA imaging criteria achieved a PSA50. Nineteen of 31 (61%) patients who did not meet the VISION laboratory criteria achieved a PSA50. Sixty-three patients had a delay or stoppage in therapy, which was due to a good response in 19 patients and progressive disease in 14 patients. Of 10 patients with a good response who restarted treatment, 9 subsequently achieved a PSA50 on retreatment. The most common toxicities were anemia (33%) and thrombocytopenia (21%). Conclusion: At our center, patients who did not meet the TheraP PSMA imaging criteria or the VISION laboratory criteria benefited from 177Lu-PSMA-617 radioligand therapy.

Previous estimates of the likelihood of a drug tested in phase I trials obtaining FDA clearance are out of date. In the intervening years, newer pharmaceuticals have been developed, resulting in new delivery systems and lines of therapies. We sought to explore and update these estimates by comprehensively searching drugs tested in phase I trials and to determine the factors associated with later receiving FDA approval. In a cross-sectional analysis, we searched for anti-tumor drugs tested in phase I trials and published in scientific journals or presented at hematology/oncology conferences. For each drug, we searched PubMed for phase II and phase III studies testing the drug for the same indication tested in phase I studies. We found 51 drug approvals; four were withdrawn. The probability of a drug tested in 2015 being approved by 2021 was 6.2%. Drugs tested as monotherapy were more likely to receive approval than drugs tested in combination, and monoclonal antibodies were more likely to receive approval than drugs of other mechanisms. In adjusted models, response rates higher than 40% in phase I studies, demonstrating an improvement in overall survival (OS) in phase III studies, and drugs tested as monotherapy were associated with receiving FDA approval. When looking at all drugs tested during a single year, most drugs were not approved, and among those that are approved, almost 8% are withdrawn. Response rates higher than 40%, testing a drug as monotherapy, and demonstrating an improvement in OS were associated with receiving FDA approval.

Concerns have been raised that regulatory programs to accelerate approval of cancer drugs in cancer may increase uncertainty about benefits and harms for survival and quality of life (QoL). We analyzed all pivotal clinical trials and all non-pivotal randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for all cancer drugs approved for the first time by the FDA between 2000 and 2020. We report regulatory and trial characteristics. Effects on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival and tumor response were summarized in meta-analyses. Effects on QoL were qualitatively summarized. Between 2000 and 2020, the FDA approved 145 novel cancer drugs for 156 indications based on 190 clinical trials. Half of indications (49%) were approved without RCT evidence; 82% had a single clinical trial only. OS was primary endpoint in 14% of trials and QoL data were available from 25%. The median OS benefit was 2.55 months (IQR, 1.33-4.28) with a mean hazard ratio for OS of 0.75 (95%CI, 0.72-0.79, I-2 = 42). Improvement for QoL was reported for 7 (4%) of 156 indications. Over time, priority review was used increasingly and the mean number of trials per indication decreased from 1.45 to 1.12. More trials reported results on QoL (19% in 2000-2005; 41% in 2016-2020). For 21 years, novel cancer drugs have typically been approved based on one single, often uncontrolled, clinical trial, measuring surrogate endpoints. This leaves cancer patients without solid evidence that novel drugs improve their survival or QoL and there is no indication towards improvement.

Concerns have been raised that regulatory programs to accelerate approval of cancer drugs in cancer may increase uncertainty about benefits and harms for survival and quality of life (QoL). We analyzed all pivotal clinical trials and all non-pivotal randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for all cancer drugs approved for the first time by the FDA between 2000 and 2020. We report regulatory and trial characteristics. Effects on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival and tumor response were summarized in meta-analyses. Effects on QoL were qualitatively summarized. Between 2000 and 2020, the FDA approved 145 novel cancer drugs for 156 indications based on 190 clinical trials. Half of indications (49%) were approved without RCT evidence; 82% had a single clinical trial only. OS was primary endpoint in 14% of trials and QoL data were available from 25%. The median OS benefit was 2.55 months (IQR, 1.33-4.28) with a mean hazard ratio for OS of 0.75 (95%CI, 0.72-0.79, I-2 = 42). Improvement for QoL was reported for 7 (4%) of 156 indications. Over time, priority review was used increasingly and the mean number of trials per indication decreased from 1.45 to 1.12. More trials reported results on QoL (19% in 2000-2005; 41% in 2016-2020). For 21 years, novel cancer drugs have typically been approved based on one single, often uncontrolled, clinical trial, measuring surrogate endpoints. This leaves cancer patients without solid evidence that novel drugs improve their survival or QoL and there is no indication towards improvement.

Concerns have been raised that regulatory programs to accelerate approval of cancer drugs in cancer may increase uncertainty about benefits and harms for survival and quality of life (QoL). We analyzed all pivotal clinical trials and all non-pivotal randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for all cancer drugs approved for the first time by the FDA between 2000 and 2020. We report regulatory and trial characteristics. Effects on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival and tumor response were summarized in meta-analyses. Effects on QoL were qualitatively summarized. Between 2000 and 2020, the FDA approved 145 novel cancer drugs for 156 indications based on 190 clinical trials. Half of indications (49%) were approved without RCT evidence; 82% had a single clinical trial only. OS was primary endpoint in 14% of trials and QoL data were available from 25%. The median OS benefit was 2.55 months (IQR, 1.33-4.28) with a mean hazard ratio for OS of 0.75 (95%CI, 0.72-0.79, I-2 = 42). Improvement for QoL was reported for 7 (4%) of 156 indications. Over time, priority review was used increasingly and the mean number of trials per indication decreased from 1.45 to 1.12. More trials reported results on QoL (19% in 2000-2005; 41% in 2016-2020). For 21 years, novel cancer drugs have typically been approved based on one single, often uncontrolled, clinical trial, measuring surrogate endpoints. This leaves cancer patients without solid evidence that novel drugs improve their survival or QoL and there is no indication towards improvement.

Concerns have been raised that regulatory programs to accelerate approval of cancer drugs in cancer may increase uncertainty about benefits and harms for survival and quality of life (QoL). We analyzed all pivotal clinical trials and all non-pivotal randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for all cancer drugs approved for the first time by the FDA between 2000 and 2020. We report regulatory and trial characteristics. Effects on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival and tumor response were summarized in meta-analyses. Effects on QoL were qualitatively summarized. Between 2000 and 2020, the FDA approved 145 novel cancer drugs for 156 indications based on 190 clinical trials. Half of indications (49%) were approved without RCT evidence; 82% had a single clinical trial only. OS was primary endpoint in 14% of trials and QoL data were available from 25%. The median OS benefit was 2.55 months (IQR, 1.33-4.28) with a mean hazard ratio for OS of 0.75 (95%CI, 0.72-0.79, I-2 = 42). Improvement for QoL was reported for 7 (4%) of 156 indications. Over time, priority review was used increasingly and the mean number of trials per indication decreased from 1.45 to 1.12. More trials reported results on QoL (19% in 2000-2005; 41% in 2016-2020). For 21 years, novel cancer drugs have typically been approved based on one single, often uncontrolled, clinical trial, measuring surrogate endpoints. This leaves cancer patients without solid evidence that novel drugs improve their survival or QoL and there is no indication towards improvement.

Concerns have been raised that regulatory programs to accelerate approval of cancer drugs in cancer may increase uncertainty about benefits and harms for survival and quality of life (QoL). We analyzed all pivotal clinical trials and all non-pivotal randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for all cancer drugs approved for the first time by the FDA between 2000 and 2020. We report regulatory and trial characteristics. Effects on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival and tumor response were summarized in meta-analyses. Effects on QoL were qualitatively summarized. Between 2000 and 2020, the FDA approved 145 novel cancer drugs for 156 indications based on 190 clinical trials. Half of indications (49%) were approved without RCT evidence; 82% had a single clinical trial only. OS was primary endpoint in 14% of trials and QoL data were available from 25%. The median OS benefit was 2.55 months (IQR, 1.33-4.28) with a mean hazard ratio for OS of 0.75 (95%CI, 0.72-0.79, I-2 = 42). Improvement for QoL was reported for 7 (4%) of 156 indications. Over time, priority review was used increasingly and the mean number of trials per indication decreased from 1.45 to 1.12. More trials reported results on QoL (19% in 2000-2005; 41% in 2016-2020). For 21 years, novel cancer drugs have typically been approved based on one single, often uncontrolled, clinical trial, measuring surrogate endpoints. This leaves cancer patients without solid evidence that novel drugs improve their survival or QoL and there is no indication towards improvement.

Objectives: To map the timing and nature of regulatory reliance pathways used to authorize COVID-19 vaccines in Latin America.Methods: An observational study was conducted assessing the characteristics of all COVID-19 vaccine authorizations in Latin America. For every authorization it was determined whether reliance was used in the authorization process. Subgroups of reference national regulatory authorities (NRAs) and non-reference NRAs were compared.Results: 56 authorizations of 10 different COVID-19 vaccines were identified in 18 countries, of which 25 (44.6%) used reliance and 12 (21.4%) did not. For the remaining 19 (33.0%) it was not possible to determine whether reliance was used. Reference agencies used reliance less often (40% of authorizations with a known pathway) compared to non-reference agencies (100%). The median review time was just 15 days and does not meaningfully differ between reliance and non-reliance authorizations.Conclusions: This study demonstrated that for these vaccines, despite reliance pathways being associated with numerous rapid authorizations, independent authorization review times were not considerably longer than reliance reviews; reliance pathways were not a prerequisite for rapid authorization. Nevertheless, reliance pathways provided rapid authorizations in response to the COVID-19 emergency.

PD-L1 expression is associated with differential response in cancers treated with checkpoint inhibitors. Clinical trials for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals of programmed death receptor-1 (PD-1)/programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) inhibitors include limited subgroup analyses based on PD-L1 expression. We aimed to define the characteristics of PD-L1 defined subgroups of clinical trials leading to FDA approvals for new indications of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors. FDA approvals for PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors from January 2014 to December 2020 were identified and the clinical trials leading to each drug approval were reviewed. We collected key variables from publicly available information on FDA website and peer-reviewed publications of clinical trials. We assessed regulatory characteristics (approval date, approved drug[s], cancer type, line of therapy and biomarker-restricted approval criteria) of each approval. Clinical trials leading to approvals were reviewed for trial design (RCT vs single arm study, primary endpoint) and PD-L1 defined subgroup design (no subgroup analysis, single threshold 2-group analysis, nested subgroups and adjacent subgroups). We then compared regulatory and trials characteristics (trial design, primary endpoint and biomarker approval criteria) between studies with nested and adjacent subgroups. There were 60 approvals for PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors between January 2014 and December 2020. Twelve of 60 (20%) did not include any PD-L1 subgroups. Twenty-five of 60 (42%) approvals reported only two subgroups, 14 (23%) included adjacent subgroups and 9 (15%) had nested subgroups. Twenty-five of 60 trials (42%) are single arm studies. Comparison of characteristics between trials with nested subgroup design and adjacent subgroup design did not show differences. We conclude that approvals for new indications of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors are based on studies that do not include comprehensive reporting of outcomes by PD-L1 biomarker subgroups.

ImportanceAlthough several cancer drugs receive US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval each month, it is unclear how many of these cancer drugs transform the treatment landscape significantly by tumor group. Specifically, it remains unclear how many of these newly approved cancer drugs displace the existing standard-of-care therapies for their indication vs being added to existing therapies.ObjectiveTo examine how many cancer drugs displace the standard-of-care therapies vs being added to existing therapy or filling breaks in systemic treatments in the metastatic setting, adjuvant setting, or maintenance setting.Design, setting, and participantsRetrospective cross-sectional study using landmark trials leading to FDA approval of cancer drugs between May 1, 2016, and May 31, 2021. The study evaluated all FDA approvals for cancer drugs between May 1, 2016, and May 31, 2021, using the FDA Oncology (Cancer)/Hematologic Malignancies Approval Notifications website. All clinical trials leading to FDA approval of cancer drugs during this period were examined.Main outcomes and measuresA drug was determined to have displaced the prior standard-of-care therapy by evaluating the comparator arm (or lack thereof) in the clinical trial leading to the drug's approval and also by reviewing National Comprehensive Cancer Network Guidelines. Cancer drug approvals were categorized as first-line displacing if a drug was approved for use in the first-line setting and displaced the prior standard-of-care drug for an indication, first-line drug alternatives/new if a drug was approved for use in the first-line setting but did not displace the standard of care at the time of approval or was a new drug that was first of its class for an approved indication, add on if a drug was approved in combination with a previously approved therapy for a disease or if a drug was approved for use in the adjuvant or maintenance settings, and later line if a drug was approved for use in the second-, th

ImportanceAdjuvant therapies are often approved based on improvements in disease-, progression-, or relapse-free survival (ie, an event). An important estimate in adjuvant therapies is the cost per event averted.ObjectiveTo characterize the costs per event averted of anticancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between January 2018 and March 2022.Design, setting, and participantsIn this cross-sectional study, all approvals were reviewed from the FDA website. Approvals selected for the analysis needed to be drawn from randomized trials involving anticancer drugs studied in the adjuvant treatment of solid tumors. Treatments of nonsolid tumors; nonrandomized, noncontrolled trials; and unpublished trials were excluded. Approvals between January 2018 and March 2022 were included, and 11 trials met inclusion criteria. The monthly costs of each agent were abstracted from the Micromedex RED BOOK database. All variables included in calculations were derived from the original trial publication. Information abstracted for each approval included the name of the drug approved, name of the trial, primary end point, dosing regimen in the trial, median duration of treatment, tumor type, monthly costs per drug, and the number needed to treat for the primary end point. Data were analyzed in March 2022.Main outcomes and measuresThe cost per event averted for each agent studied in each clinical trial; the monthly cost of each drug, the cost per patient for each drug, the primary clinical end point studied in each trial; the study's design and setting.ResultsA total of 11 approvals were included in the study. From January 2018 to March 2022, all approvals were based on a surrogate end point as the primary end point, with no trials demonstrating, to date, an overall survival benefit. The median cost per event averted of drugs in the adjuvant setting was $1 610 000 (range, $820 000 to $2 640 000). The median cost of a complete adjuvant treatment was $158 000 per

ImportanceIt is unknown whether and to what degree trials submitted to the US FDA to support drug approval adhere to NCCN guideline-recommended care in their baseline and surveillance CNS imaging protocols.ObjectiveWe sought to characterize the frequency with which the trials cited in US FDA drug approvals for first line advanced NSCLC between 2015 and 2020 deviated from NCCN guideline-recommended care for baseline and surveillance CNS imaging.Design, setting, and participantsRetrospective observational analysis using publicly available data of (1) list of trials cited by the FDA in drug approvals for first line advanced NSCLC from 2015 to 2020 (2) individual trial protocols (3) published trial data and supplementary appendices (4) archived versions of the NCCN guidelines for NSCLC from 2009 to 2018 (the years during which the trials were enrolling).Main outcomes and measuresEstimated percentage of trials for first line advanced NSCLC leading to FDA approval which deviated from NCCN guideline-recommended care with regards to CNS baseline and surveillance imaging.ResultsA total of 14 studies that had been cited in FDA drug approvals for first line advanced NSCLC met our inclusion criteria between January 1, 2015 and September 30, 2020. Of these trials, 8 (57.1%) deviated from NCCN guidelines in their baseline CNS imaging requirement. The frequency of re-assessment of CNS disease was variable amongst trials as well, with 9 (64.3%) deviating from NCCN recommendations.Conclusions and relevanceThe trials supporting US FDA drug approvals in first line advanced NSCLC often have CNS imaging requirements that do not adhere to NCCN guidelines. Many trials permit alternative, substandard methods and the proportion of patients undergoing each modality is uniformly not reported. Nonstandard CNS surveillance protocols are common. To best serve patients with advanced NSCLC in the US, drug approvals by the FDA must be based on trials that mirror clinical practice and have imaging r

ObjectiveTo examine factors associated with accrual rate in industry sponsored clinical trials supporting US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cancer drug approvals from 2015 to 2020.Design, setting and participantsRetrospective cross-sectional study included 194 pivotal trials supporting cancer drug approvals by the US FDA from 2015 to 2020.InterventionsClinical trials were analysed for the type of blinding, primary endpoint, whether crossover was specified in the publication, study phase, line of therapy, response rate, investigational sites, manufacturer and randomisation ratio.Main outcome measuresThe main outcome was the rate of accrual, which is the number of patients accrued in the study per open month of enrolment.ResultsThe study consisted of 133 randomised (68%) and 61 (32%) non-randomised clinical trials. In randomised studies, we found the accrual rate was higher in trials investigating first and second line drugs (adjusted rate ratios (aRR): 1.55, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.09), phase III trials (aRR: 2.13, 95% CI 1.48 to 2.99), and for studies sponsored by Merck (aRR: 1.47, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.37), adjusting for other covariates. In contrast, the primary endpoint of a study, presence of crossover, single agent response rate, the number of investigational sites, population disease burden and skewed randomisation ratios were not associated with the rate of accrual. In the non-randomised adjusted model, the accrual rate was 2.03 higher (95% CI 1.10 to 3.92) for clinical trials sponsored by manufacturer, specifically Merck. Primary endpoint, crossover, trial phase, response rate, the number of investigational sites, disease burden or line of therapy were not associated with the rate of accrual.ConclusionIn this cross-sectional study, line of therapy, study phase and manufacturer were the only factors associated with accrual rate. These findings suggest many proffered factors for speedy trial accrual are not associated with greater enrolment rates.

IntroductionThe number of oncologic drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on the basis of surrogate endpoints is rising. However, many surrogates have not demonstrated a correlation with clinically meaningful outcomes like overall survival. We sought to investigate surrogate validation studies conducted by the FDA over the past 17 years.MethodsWe reviewed analyses of surrogate outcomes published by the FDA from 2005 to 2022. Data extracted included the number of clinical trials included in each analysis, the associations of surrogate outcomes with OS or other surrogates, and the authors' interpretation of these associations.ResultsOf the 15 surrogate analyses conducted by the FDA, only one demonstrated a strong correlation between a surrogate outcome and overall survival. 87% only included clinical trials submitted to the FDA in their analysis, and all were published from 2014 onwards.DiscussionThe vast majority of FDA analyses of surrogate outcomes did not find strong correlations between surrogates and overall survival, raising concern about the use of such outcomes as endpoints in clinical trials. As most studies were based on limited data, further research is required to assess the true validity of surrogate outcomes.Policy summaryDrugs approved on the basis of surrogates that are not associated with clinically meaningful outcomes can cause significant harm to patients. Until surrogate outcomes have been thoroughly and robustly validated, they should be used with caution in drug approval decisions.

BackgroundWhen a new drug comes to the market, the incentive for the sponsoring company is to maximize the treatment duration in order for the patient to reap the full therapeutic benefit of the product and achieve a positive trial result. We sought to enumerate instances when an already-approved oncology drug was used as a comparator for a newer drug seeking approval and compare the duration of treatment when it is used in the intervention arm to when it is used as a comparator.Patients and methodsIn a cross-sectional analysis, we searched drug approval announcements for advanced, metastatic, or unresectable cancers between 2009 and 2020. We included studies reporting on an approved drug and studies reporting on when the same drug was used as a comparator for other drugs seeking Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. We examined median progression-free survival and duration of treatment for when the drug was initially approved and for when the drug was used as a comparator for other drugs that were seeking approval.ResultsOf the 23 instances when an approved drug was later used as a comparator against a newer drug seeking FDA approval, we found 11 instances (47.8%) where the drug, when used as a comparator arm, had a shorter duration of treatment than when it was used in the intervention arm. The median duration of treatment in the study initially testing the drug was 6.0 months (range: 2.2-12.7 months), whereas the median duration of treatment when the same drug was used as a comparator was 4.9 months (range: 1.7-12.0 months).ConclusionsThese results suggest that there is bias in how long a patient receives a given therapy, and this bias favors the newer therapy. Clinical trialists should seek to utilize methodology that reduces bias so that the relative efficacy of newer drugs can be objectively assessed.

This cross-sectional study estimates all US Food and Drug Administration anticancer approvals in recent years and evaluates if an association exists between their cost and efficacy.

AimDrug approvals for genome-informed indications have been increasing in recent years, but it is unknown how many of them have demonstrated an improvement in overall survival (OS). We assessed the frequency of approved genome-informed drugs demonstrating improvements in OS and progression-free survival (PFS) and whether the frequencies differed by cancer type.Materials and methodsWe searched all Food and Drug Administration approvals from 2006 to 2020, and for each drug that was approved for a genomic indication, we then searched on PubMed for randomised studies examining OS or PFS.ResultsWe found 53 drugs approved for 92 unique indications from 2006 to 2020. We found that 50 drugs (55%) approved for a genomic indication had a randomised study evaluating OS benefit, and of those, only 22 demonstrated an improvement in OS. Similarly, 52 drugs (57%) evaluated PFS benefit, and 51 of these studies demonstrated an improvement in PFS. Drugs approved for BRAF V600 melanoma demonstrated an improvement in OS more often than drugs approved for ALK non-small cell lung cancer. The median improvement in OS was 4.7 months (range 1.5 months-49.1 months).ConclusionAlthough there is widespread enthusiasm for this class of agents, and many demonstrate impressive response rates, further trials or post-marketing studies are needed to ascertain the impact on survival and quality of life, the magnitude of these gains, and the cost-effectiveness of these agents.

Background: A biosimilar is a biological medicine highly similar to another already approved biological medicine (reference product). The availability of biosimilars promotes competition and subsequently lower prices. Changing the current biosimilar clinical comparability trial requirements may lead to lower biosimilar development costs that potentially could increase patients’ access to biologics. Objective: The aim was to determine the perceptions of industry and medicines agency regulators regarding the value, necessity, and future developments of the European biosimilar clinical comparability trial requirements for establishing biosimilarity. Methods: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with eight European national medicines agency regulators and 17 pharmaceutical company employees or consultants with experience in biologics between September 2018 and August 2019. Data were subjected to content analysis. Results: In general, the participants expected that clinical comparability trial requirements will continue to be reduced, in particular based on advancements in analytical testing and knowledge generated from prior biosimilar approvals. However, there are also competing issues at play, such as competition, physician’s trust, and ethical considerations. Participants also reported that any new initiative to reduce or waive biosimilar clinical requirements needs to be scientifically sound and could potentially lower biosimilar development costs. Conclusion: The main findings are that biosimilar clinical comparability trial requirements are likely to change in the near future. Clarity is needed on how to ensure adequate correlation between physicochemical data, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic studies, and the drugs’ performance in the clinic, as well as how to continue sufficient immunogenicity assessment. Obtaining this clarity can facilitate regulatory assessment of the next biosimilars.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Expanded Access (EA) Program, which allows for compassionate uses of unapproved therapeutics and diagnostics outside of clinical trials, has gained significant traction during the Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. While development of vaccines has been the major focus, uncertainties around new vaccine safety and effectiveness have spawned interest in other pharmacological options. Experimental drugs can also be approved under the FDA Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) program, designed to combat infectious disease and other threats. Here, we review the US experience in 2020 with pharmacological EA and EUA approvals during the pandemic. We also provide a description of, and clinical rationale for, each of the EA- or EUA-approved drugs (e.g. remdesivir, convalescent plasma, propofol 2%, hydroxychloroquine, ruxolitinib, bamlanivimab, baricitinib, casirivimab plus imdevimab) during the pandemic and concluding reflections on the EA program and its potential future uses.

Advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) are innovative therapies that mainly target orphan diseases and high unmet medical needs. The uncertainty about the product's benefit-risk balance at the time of approval, the limitations of nonclinical development, and the complex quality aspects of those highly individualized advanced therapies are playing a key role in the clinical development, approval, and post-marketing setting for these therapies. This article reviews the current landscape of clinical development of advanced therapies, its challenges, and some of the efforts several stakeholders are conducting to move forward within this field. Progressive iteration of the science, methodologically sound clinical developments, establishing new standards for ATMPs development with the aim to ensure consistency in clinical development, and the reproducibility of knowledge is required, not only to increase the evidence generation for approval but to set principles to achieve translational success in this field. Most authorized ATMPs are based on small, open-label, uncontrolled, and single-arm pivotal trials using single and intermediate variables to evaluate outcomes. Health authorities are demanding methodologically sound clinical development to guide higher-quality evidence generation and decision-making. New standards for ATMP development are required to ensure consistency in clinical development

The approval of a new drug for cancer treatment by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) is based on positive, well-designed randomized phase III clinical trials (RCTs). However, not all of them are analyzed to support the recommendations. For this reason, there are different scales to quantify and evaluate the quality of RCTs and the magnitude of the clinical benefits of new drugs for treating solid tumors. In this review, we discuss the value of the progression-free survival (PFS) as an endpoint in RCTs and the concordance between it and the overall survival (OS) as a measure of the quality of clinical trial designs. We summarize and analyze the different scales to evaluate the clinical benefits of new drugs such as the The American Society of Clinical Oncology value framework (ASCO-VF-NHB16) and European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) and the concordance between them, focusing on metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC). We propose several definitions that would help to evaluate the quality of RCT, the magnitude of clinical benefit and the appropriate approval of new drugs in oncology.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Expanded Access (EA) Program, which allows for compassionate uses of unapproved therapeutics and diagnostics outside of clinical trials, has gained significant traction during the Coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. While development of vaccines has been the major focus, uncertainties around new vaccine safety and effectiveness have spawned interest in other pharmacological options. Experimental drugs can also be approved under the FDA Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) program, designed to combat infectious disease and other threats. Here, we review the US experience in 2020 with pharmacological EA and EUA approvals during the pandemic. We also provide a description of, and clinical rationale for, each of the EA- or EUA-approved drugs (e.g. remdesivir, convalescent plasma, propofol 2%, hydroxychloroquine, ruxolitinib, bamlanivimab, baricitinib, casirivimab plus imdevimab) during the pandemic and concluding reflections on the EA program and its potential future uses.

The University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and University of California San Francisco (UCSF) codeveloped 68Ga-PSMA-11 by conducting a bicentric pivotal phase 3 clinical trial for PET imaging for prostate cancer. On December 1, 2020, 2 separate new drug applications (NDAs) submitted by each institution (NDA 212642 for UCLA and NDA 212643 for UCSF) were approved by the Food and Drug Administration as the first drug for PET imaging of prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-positive lesions in men with prostate cancer. This article briefly describes the background, clinical development, regulatory approach, and regulatory process for NDA filing and approval. In the second part of this article, key chemistry, manufacturing, and controls (CMC) information is provided to facilitate abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) submission.

This cross-sectional study of all hematology/oncology drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2020 assesses the functioning of the drug approval process following disruptions related to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Information on the extent of drug exposure to mothers and infants during pregnancy and lactation normally becomes available years after regulatory approval of a drug. Clinicians face knowledge gaps on drug selection and dosing in pregnancy and infant exposure during breastfeeding. Physiological changes during pregnancy often result in lower drug exposures of antiretrovirals, and in some cases a risk of reduced virologic efficacy. The International Maternal Pediatric Adolescent AIDS Clinical Trials (IMPAACT) network and the World Health Organization (WHO)-convened Pediatric Antiretrovirals Working Group collaboratively organized a workshop of key stakeholders in June 2019 to define key standards to generate pharmacology data for antiretrovirals to be used among pregnant and lactating women; review the antiretroviral product pipeline; describe key gaps for use in low-income and middle-income countries; and identify opportunities to undertake optimal studies allowing for rapid implementation in the clinical field. We discussed ethical and regulatory principles, systemic approaches to obtaining data for pregnancy pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) studies, control groups, optimal sampling times during pregnancy, and pharmacokinetic parameters to be considered as primary end points in pregnancy PK/PD studies. For lactation studies, the type of milk to collect, ascertainment of maternal adherence, and optimal PK methods to estimate exposure were discussed. Participants strongly recommended completion of preclinical reproductive toxicology studies prior to phase III, to allow study protocols to include pregnant women or to allow women who become pregnant after enrolment to continue in the trial. The meeting concluded by developing an algorithm for design and interpretation of results and noted that recruitment of pregnant and lactating women into clinical trials is critical.

We assessed the frequency that oncology drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) based on a single-arm study when there is already evidence of existing and available treatments. For this, we conducted a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of FDA-approved oncology drugs based on a single-arm study. All FDA announcements for all oncology drugs approved from May 2014 through June 2019 on a single-arm trial were included. We then performed a systematic search in PubMed, looking for studies on other drugs for the same indication as the FDA drug approval. For the 60 indications, we found 38 instances (63%) of existing therapies being used for the same indication. Of those, we found that 20 drugs were approved based upon a response rate lower than response rates of existing therapies in the same indication. Among oncology drugs that were FDA-approved based on a single-arm study, we found evidence of existing, available therapies being used for the same indication as the FDA-approved drug in the majority of indications (63%), and in one-third of all indications, the response rates for existing therapies were numerically better than the FDA-approved drug. These results suggest that there are inconsistencies in the standards set for oncology drug approvals, and many uncontrolled trials leading to drug approvals could have contemporary controls for which equipoise exists.

The expanding list of treatment options available to patients with cancer is a source of excitement. Drugs with novel mechanisms of action receive attention at academic meetings and approval of novel drugs are cited as a victory of medical research. This is evidenced by the interest in number of new drug approvals each year. The Food and Drug Administration provides a yearly report of New Molecular Entities approved by the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. High numbers of approved drugs is celebrated and equated with improvement in patient outcomes, as well as evidence of the effectiveness of regulatory agencies [1]. While more effective therapies lead to improved outcome, merely having more options may erode outcomes in unexpected ways. We discuss 3 different clinical scenarios where having more options can lead to worse outcomes.

ImportanceBoth novel and next-in-class cancer drugs have a role in oncology, but the relative development of each is understudied.ObjectiveTo characterize the mechanisms of action of anticancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between 2009 and 2020, noting how many approvals were based on a new mechanism of action vs next-in-class approvals.Design, study, and participantsThis cross-sectional study included all anticancer drugs approved by the FDA from January 2009 to December 2020. The mechanism of action of each drug was extracted from FDA labels. Supportive-care treatments were excluded.ExposuresName of drug approved, date of approval, indication, tumor type, mechanism of action, broad pharmaceutical class, and biological target. Approvals considering all tumor types and each tumor type separately were classified in 3 nonoverlapping categories: new mechanism of action, next in class, or subsequent approval.Main outcomes and measuresThe number of all approvals each year; the number of approvals based on a new mechanism of action, either by drug (considering all tumor types) or by indication (considering tumor types separately); and the frequency of these numbers over time.ResultsOverall, 332 approvals were included. Between 2009 and 2020, there was an increase in the total number of approvals from 8 to 57. We found that 209 approvals (63%) were for a next-in-class indication in a new tumor type (84 [25%]) or a subsequent indication of the same drug in the same tumor type (195 [59%]). When considering each tumor type separately, 123 approvals (37%) were based on a new mechanism of action.Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, approvals based on a new mechanism of action represented a minority of all approvals. Further consideration of incentives for drug development are needed to prioritize novel or highly innovative and transformative anticancer drugs.

ImportanceIncreasingly, cost-effectiveness analyses are being done to determine the value of rapidly increasing oncology drugs; however, this assumes that these analyses are unbiased.ObjectiveTo analyze the characteristics of cost-effectiveness studies and to determine characteristics associated with whether an oncology drug is found to be cost-effective.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cross-sectional study included 254 cost-effectiveness analyses for 116 oncology drugs that were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration from 2015 to 2020.ExposuresEach drug was analyzed for the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio per quality-adjusted life year, the funding of the study, the authors' conflict of interest, the threshold of willingness-to-pay, from what country's perspective the analysis was done, and whether a National Institute for Health and Care Excellence cost-effectiveness analysis had been done.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcome was the odds of a study concluding that a drug was cost-effective.ResultsThere were 116 drug approvals with 254 studies and country perspectives. Of the country perspectives, 132 (52%) were from the US. Forty-seven of 78 drugs with cost-effective studies had been shown to improve overall survival, whereas 15 of 38 of drugs without a cost-effectiveness study had been shown to improve overall survival. Having a study funded by a pharmaceutical company was associated with higher odds of a study concluding that a drug was cost-effective than studies without funding (odds ratio, 41.36; 95% CI, 11.86-262.23).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cross-sectional study, pharmaceutical funding was associated with greater odds that an oncology drug would be found to be cost-effective. These findings suggest that simply disclosing potential conflict of interest is inadequate. We encourage cost-effectiveness analyses by independent groups.

Despite both enthusiasm and concern regarding data sharing from clinical trials, few studies have documented the outputs of data sharing. The FDA has a considerable collection of raw data from drugs for their marketing authorization. An examination of data sharing with the FDA provides a snapshot into studies that this may facilitate.

ImportanceThe growth of cancer drug spending in the US has outpaced spending in nearly all other sectors, and an increasing proportion of the drug development pipeline is devoted to oncology. In 2018, there was a record number of drugs entering the US market.ObjectiveTo estimate the number of patients with cancer who are eligible for the newly approved drug-indication pairs, and project potential spending and use of the approvals in the US.Design, setting, participantsThis is a retrospective review of 2018 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oncology drug approvals with estimation of the eligible population. The cost of new therapy was estimated, and savings from displaced therapies were subtracted. Two-way sensitivity analysis explored uncertainty in pricing and market diffusion. Data were collected between March 1, 2019, and September 30, 2019.ExposuresData related to the cancer drug approval (ie, indications, approval pathway, basis for approval), cancer incidence, and drug price were extracted from publicly available sources, including the FDA, National Cancer Institute, and American Cancer Society websites, as well as the RED BOOK database.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the projected net expenditure in the US associated with the new therapies. The secondary outcome described how variable market diffusion and pricing permit expected levels of spending.ResultsA total of 46 oncology approvals were included in the analysis, with 17 novel drugs and 29 new indications. The average price per patient per treatment course was $150 384. From a national perspective and with 100% market diffusion, the projected net expenditure for newly approved drugs was $39.5 billion per year. To maintain the recent trend of cancer drug spending, the 2018 cancer drug approvals need to be used in fewer than 20% of eligible patients.Conclusions and relevanceNew cancer drugs approved by the FDA in 2018 would drastically increase cancer drug spending in the US if used wi

IntroductionWomen continue to be underrepresented in oncology clinical trials, leading to poor, underpowered subgroup analyses that cannot be generalized to cancer patients in practice. In 2014, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) released an Action Plan, which included actions to improve the quality and reporting of demographic subgroup data. We sought to evaluate the five-year progress since the release of this report by assessing the credibility of sex-specific subgroup analyses in oncology clinical trials.MethodsWe reviewed the FDA Hematology/Oncology Approvals website for New Molecular Entities (NMEs) that were approved for adults from 2015 to 2020. Publications and their supplementary indexes were reviewed by two authors (K.J. & A.R.) against ten criteria that gauge the credibility of subgroup analyses by assessing factors related to study design, analysis, and context. One point was awarded for each criteria met, for a maximum score of 10.ResultsWe identified a total of 73 NMEs approved for cancer treatment between 2015-2020, of which 61 met our eligibility criteria. Of these, 32 studies (52 %) reported a subgroup analysis by sex and were included in our analysis. Phase 2 (41 %) and Phase 3 (53 %) studies represented most studies. No study met ≥3 credibility criteria.ConclusionOnly half the studies included in our analysis reported outcomes by sex, which suggests the activities stipulated in the 2014 US FDA Action Plan might be ineffective. This is concerning as uncredible sex-specific subgroup analyses can lead to wrongful clinical decision-making and poor patient outcomes.Policy summaryOur findings suggest sex-specific subgroup analyses in oncology are not credible and users of these data should interpret results with caution. Regulatory bodies, such as the US FDA, ought to mandate subgroup analyses by demographic groups in drug applications. Peer-reviewed journals could ensure investigators disclose study results by sex as a condition for publica

BackgroundPrior studies have evaluated the percentage of cancer patients with advanced or metastatic cancer who are eligible for and respond to genome-targeted therapy, but since that publication, the number of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals for drugs targeting genetic indications has grown rapidly. We sought to update the estimates of both eligibility for and response to genome-targeted and genome-informed therapies in US cancer patients for FDA-approved drugs to reflect estimates as of 2020.Materials and methodsWe used mortality data from the American Cancer Society to estimate eligibility for these drugs, based on prevalence statistics from the published literature. We then multiplied eligibility by the response rate in the FDA label to generate an estimate for the percentage of US cancer patients who respond.ResultsFor genome-targeted therapy, we estimate that the eligibility increased from 5.13% in 2006 to 13.60% in 2020. For genome-targeted therapy, we estimate that the response increased from 2.73% in 2006 to 7.04% in 2020.ConclusionsThe percentage of US cancer patients who are eligible for and respond to genome-targeted therapy has increased over time. Most of the increase in eligibility for genome-targeted therapies was seen after 2018, whereas most of the increase in response was seen before 2018.

BackgroundIn November 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) provided Emergency Use Authorizations (EUA) for 2 novel virus-neutralizing monoclonal antibody therapies, bamlanivimab and REGN-COV2 (casirivimab plus imdevimab), for the treatment of mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in adolescents and adults in specified high-risk groups. This has challenged clinicians to determine the best approach to use of these products.MethodsA panel of experts in pediatric infectious diseases, pediatric infectious diseases pharmacy, pediatric intensive care medicine, and pediatric hematology from 29 geographically diverse North American institutions was convened. Through a series of teleconferences and web-based surveys, a guidance statement was developed and refined based on review of the best available evidence and expert opinion.ResultsThe course of COVID-19 in children and adolescents is typically mild and there is no high-quality evidence supporting any high-risk groups. There is no evidence for safety and efficacy of monoclonal antibody therapy for treatment of COVID-19 in children or adolescents, limited evidence of modest benefit in adults, and evidence for potential harm associated with infusion reactions or anaphylaxis.ConclusionsBased on evidence available as of December 20, 2020, the panel suggests against routine administration of monoclonal antibody therapy (bamlanivimab, or casirivimab and imdevimab), for treatment of COVID-19 in children or adolescents, including those designated by the FDA as at high risk of progression to hospitalization or severe disease. Clinicians and health systems choosing to use these agents on an individualized basis should consider risk factors supported by pediatric-specific evidence and ensure the implementation of a system for safe and timely administration that does not exacerbate existing healthcare disparities.

The development of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines began in March 2020 in response to a request from the White House Coronavirus Task Force. Within 4 days of the request, the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel was established and the first meeting took place (virtually-as did subsequent meetings). The Panel comprises 57 individuals representing 6 governmental agencies, 11 professional societies, and 33 medical centers, plus 2 community members, who have worked together to create and frequently update the guidelines on the basis of evidence from the most recent clinical studies available. The initial version of the guidelines was completed within 2 weeks and posted online on 21 April 2020. Initially, sparse evidence was available to guide COVID-19 treatment recommendations. However, treatment data rapidly accrued based on results from clinical studies that used various study designs and evaluated different therapeutic agents and approaches. Data have continued to evolve at a rapid pace, leading to 24 revisions and updates of the guidelines in the first year. This process has provided important lessons for responding to an unprecedented public health emergency: Providers and stakeholders are eager to access credible, current treatment guidelines; governmental agencies, professional societies, and health care leaders can work together effectively and expeditiously; panelists from various disciplines, including biostatistics, are important for quickly developing well-informed recommendations; well-powered randomized clinical trials continue to provide the most compelling evidence to guide treatment recommendations; treatment recommendations need to be developed in a confidential setting free from external pressures; development of a user-friendly, web-based format for communicating with health care providers requires substantial administrative support; and frequent updates are necessary as clinical evidence rapidly emerges.

The goal of clinical research is to improve clinical practice. In progressive neurodegenerative conditions without any disease-slowing therapies, this will result in eventual approval of a first disease-modifying treatment. Clinical trials will still be needed to discover treatments that are more effective, safer, or more convenient. This will generate controversies over how to design these trials; specifically, controversies about the use of a placebo control. We consider ethical guidance for these studies with attention to 3 designs: placebo-controlled trials in the absence of the new drug, placebo-controlled trials with the approved drug as background therapy, and trials with the new drug as an active control. To understand the practical implications of these designs, we examine experiences in drug development in multiple sclerosis. We conclude by contemplating the future of clinical trials in Alzheimer disease.

DISCLOSURES: Funding for this summary was contributed by Arnold Ventures, California Health Care Foundation, Harvard Pilgrim Health Care, and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan to the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER), an independent organization that evaluates the evidence on the value of health care interventions. ICERs annual policy summit is supported by dues from Aetna, Americas Health Insurance Plans, Anthem, Allergan, Alnylam, AstraZeneca, Biogen, Blue Shield of CA, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Cambia Health Services, CVS, Editas, Express Scripts, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKline, Harvard Pilgrim, Health Care Service Corporation, HealthFirst, Health Partners, Johnson & Johnson (Janssen), Kaiser Permanente, LEO Pharma, Mallinckrodt, Merck, Novartis, National Pharmaceutical Council, Pfizer, Premera, Prime Therapeutics, Regeneron, Sanofi, Spark Therapeutics, and United Healthcare. Seidner, Rind, and Pearson are employed by ICER. Tice reports contracts to his institution, University of California, San Francisco, from ICER during the conduct of this study. Wherry has nothing to disclose.

221 p., ill., SCIENTIFIC REPORT 13 -- 1 INTRODUCTION, AIMS AND SCOPE OF THIS REPORT 13 -- 1.1 BACKGROUND 13 -- 1.2 THE REGULATORY SYSTEM OF MEDICINAL PRODUCTS AND MEDICAL DEVICES 17 -- 1.3 HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT AND COVERAGE OF HEALTHCARE 17 -- 1.4 NEW EU REGULATIONS FOR MEDICAL DEVICES AND PHARMACEUTICALS 19 -- 1.5 AIMS AND SCOPE OF THIS PROJECT 20 -- 2 METHODS 22 -- 3 LEGAL AND ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS 23 -- 3.1 INTRODUCTION: THE LEGAL AND ETHICAL FRAMEWORKS ON EVIDENCE REQUIREMENTS 23 -- 3.2 METHODOLOGY 24 -- 3.3 APPLICABLE RULES 25 -- 3.4 EVIDENTIARY REQUIREMENTS FOR MEDICINAL PRODUCTS AND MEDICAL DEVICES 28 -- 3.4.1 Ethical rules for the conduct of clinical trials 28 -- 3.4.2 Research and human rights 32 -- 3.4.3 Evidentiary requirements in the marketing authorisation process for medicines 33 -- 3.4.4 Evidentiary requirements in the CE-marking process for high-risk medical devices 47 -- 3.4.5 The role of ethics committees in reviewing the evidence and the Belgian situation 61 -- 3.5 TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENTS FOR CLINICAL DATA 64 -- 3.5.1 Ethical rules regarding the transparency on clinical trials data 64 -- 3.5.2 Transparency requirements in the regulatory framework for medicines 65 -- 3.5.3 Transparency requirements for Medical devices 69 -- 3.5.4 Transparency of national reimbursement decisions 73 -- 3.5.5 Enforcement and penalties 73 -- 3.6 CONCLUSION / DISCUSSION REGARDING LEGAL FRAMEWORK 75 -- 4 ANALYSIS OF RIZIV-INAMI DOSSIERS 76 -- 4.1 METHODS 76 -- 4.2 FINDINGS 77 -- 4.2.1 Applications for reimbursement of 18 medicinal products 77 -- 4.2.2 Applications for reimbursement of 18 medical devices 81 -- 5 LITERATURE REVIEW 85 -- 5.1 METHODS 85 -- 5.1.1 Search strategy 85 -- 5.1.2 Selection procedure 86 -- 5.1.3 Selection criteria 87 -- 5.2 OVERVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ON MEDICINAL PRODUCTS 87 -- 5.2.1 Introduction 87 -- 5.2.2 Evidence gaps at market entry (and in the post-market period) 93 -- 5.2.3 Evidence gaps and reimbursement decisions 97 -- 5.2.4 Need for more colla