Search

Background: Expedited market access for novel and efficacious drugs is warranted for patients. Since 2020, Swissmedic (The Swiss Agency for Therapeutic Products) has been participating in Project Orbis, a collaborative parallel-review programme launched by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2019 to expedite patient access to cancer drugs. This programme allows regulatory agencies to remain independent in their decisions. We aimed to evaluate the effect of the first 2 years of Project Orbis from the Swissmedic perspective., Methods: In this comparative analysis, we compared submission gap (time between submission at the FDA and Swissmedic), review time, approval and consensus decision rate, and the approved indications between Swissmedic and the FDA for marketing authorisation applications (MAAs) in oncology submitted to Swissmedic through Project Orbis (Orbis MAAs) or outside of Project Orbis (non-Orbis MAAs) from Jan 1, 2020, to Dec 31, 2021. Swissmedic review time was evaluated with a decision until June 30, 2022. For the decision comparison analysis, non-Orbis oncology MAAs submitted and evaluated from Jan 1, 2009, to Dec 31, 2018 (referred to as the pre-Orbis era) were also considered. Inferential statistics were done using Wilcoxon rank-sum test and the 95% CI for the median was based on binomial distribution. For each hypothesis testing, the significance level was set to 5%. No correction for multiple testing was performed., Findings: We analysed the submission gap, review time, and regulatory decision for 31 Orbis MAAs and 41 non-Orbis MAAs during the Orbis era. The median submission gap was 33·0 days (95% CI 19·0-57·0) for Orbis MAAs versus 168·0 days (56·0-351·0) for non-Orbis MAAs (p<0·0001). The median review time at Swissmedic was 235·5 days (198·0-264·0) for Orbis MAAs versus 314·0 days (279·0-354·0) for non-Orbis MAAs (p=0·0002). Approval rates at Swissmedic were consistent between Orbis MAAs (20 [77%] of 26) and non-Orbis MAAs (31 [76%] of 41). The rate of consensus decisions between Swissmedic and the FDA was 21 (81%) of 26 for Orbis MAAs and 31 (76%) of 41 for non-Orbis MAAs. Swissmedic approval rates were lower for indication extensions than for new active substances for Orbis MAAs (13 [72%] of 18 vs seven [88%] of eight) and non-Orbis MAAs (17 [71%] of 24 vs 14 [82%] of 17). Divergent decisions between agencies were predominantly observed for indication extensions (11 [73%] of 15 divergent decisions). During the pre-Orbis era, Swissmedic approved 61 (88%) of 69 MAAs for new active substances., Interpretation: Submission gap and review time for oncology applications at Swissmedic were significantly reduced by participation in Project Orbis, and approval consensus decisions were increased between agencies. These findings suggests that participating in Project Orbis could lead to faster patient access to drugs., Funding: None., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests We declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved, including those for text and data mining, AI training, and similar technologies.)

Introduction: Additional considerations are required for the benefit-risk assessment of new drugs or indications in the setting of (neo)adjuvant cancer treatment as compared to the metastatic/advanced setting, possibly leading to different decision patterns for the (neo)adjuvant versus the metastatic and advanced setting within a health authority but also among different health authorities., Methods: We analyzed regulatory decisions at the Swiss Agency for Therapeutic Products Swissmedic (SMC) for all oncology indications (mostly metastatic indications) and indications in the (neo)adjuvant setting and compared these to decisions taken by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)., Results: Comparing the positive and negative decisions within SMC between July 2017 and December 2021, the approval rates were with 66.7% lower for (neo)adjuvant indications versus 88.4% in the metastatic and advanced indications. While the approval rates for metastatic and advanced new active substances (NAS) applications were similar at SMC as compared to the EMA and the FDA, they were lower for (neo)adjuvant applications at SMC as compared to the EMA and the FDA. The underlying reason in all cases with divergent decisions at SMC as compared to EMA and FDA was that no overall survival benefit as compared to control arm has been observed in the submitted data package., Conclusion: Approval and consensus decision rates at SMC in comparison to EMA and FDA were lower for (neo)adjuvant indications but not for advanced and metastastic NAS oncology indications., (© 2024 The Author(s). Published by S. Karger AG, Basel.)