Search

What Is Known and Objective: Concern about the drug lag, the delay in marketing approval between one country and another, for anticancer drugs has increased in Japan. Although a number of studies have investigated the drug lag, none has investigated it in relation to the transition of anticancer therapy from traditional cytotoxic drugs to molecularly targeted agents. Our aim was to investigate current trend in oncology drug lag between the US and Japan and identify oncology drugs approved in only one of the two countries., Methods: Publicly and commercially available data sources were used to identify drugs approved in the US and Japan as of 31 December 2010 and the data used to calculate the drug lag for individual drugs., Results and Discussion: Fifty-one drugs were approved in both the US and Japan, whereas 34 and 19 drugs were approved only in the US or Japan, respectively. Of the 19 drugs approved only in Japan, 12 had not been subject to development for a cancer indication in the US, and all were approved before 1996 in Japan. Of the 34 drugs approved only in the US, 20 had not been subject to development in Japan, and none was in the top 25 by annual US anticancer drug-class sales. For drugs approved in both countries, the mean approval lag of the molecularly targeted drugs (MTDs) was significantly shorter than that of the non-molecularly targeted drugs (non-MTDs) (3·3 vs. 5·4 years). Further, mean R&D time of the MTDs was significantly shorter than that of non-MTDs (10·0 vs. 13·7 years). The price of MTDs had increased on average by 6·6% annually in the US, whereas it had decreased on average by 4·3% biyearly in Japan., What Is New and Conclusion: The emergence of new molecularly targeted agents has contributed to reducing the approval lag, most likely due to improvements in R&D strategy., (© 2012 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.)

The trend of biomarker use in drug interventional clinical studies was analyzed using ClinicalTrials.gov to provide an overview of how biomarkers are used to streamline clinical studies and to examine regional differences. A total of 3,383 clinical study data was analyzed according to phase, region, sponsor, and therapeutic class. The number of clinical studies using biomarkers has been increasing constantly and is dependent on the number of Phase I and II studies. The majority of studies (58.5%) were sponsored by the United States, with the studies being conducted mainly in the sponsor's home region (80.3%). The use of biomarkers was prominent in the oncology area (37.1%). Although current data indicates some bias in the clinical use of biomarkers, it is expected that their use will increase in later phase studies or other therapeutic areas as biomarker development proceeds. In addition, limited regional use of biomarkers may lead to differences in biomarker use in drug development and in combination with political support may result in differences in competitiveness of drug development. Biomarkers would be a powerful tool against deteriorating research and development productivity when used more in appropriate clinical study conditions.