29
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Cancer Therapy Approval Timings, Review Speed, and Publication of Pivotal Registration Trials in the US and Europe, 2010-2019

      research-article
      , MBBS 1 , , , MBBS 2 , , MD, PhD 3 , , MD 4 , , PhD 1 , , MD, MS 5 , , MD, MS 6 ,
      JAMA Network Open
      American Medical Association

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Key Points

          Question

          When a new cancer therapy is approved by both the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA), are there notable differences in approval timings and review speed?

          Findings

          This cross-sectional study found that of 89 new oncology therapies approved by both the FDA and EMA from 2010 to 2019, the FDA approved 95% of therapies first, with a median delay to market authorization in Europe of 241 days.

          Meaning

          The findings of this study suggest that patients in the US have access to new oncology therapies earlier than in Europe.

          Abstract

          This cross-sectional study compares market authorization dates for new oncology therapies approved in the US and Europe from 2010 to 2019 and examines and contrasts the regulatory activities in the approval of new cancer medicines.

          Abstract

          Importance

          Ensuring patients have access to safe and efficacious medicines in a timely manner is an essential goal for regulatory agencies, one which has particular importance in oncology because of the substantial unmet need for new therapies. The 2 largest regulatory agencies, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA), have pivotal global roles, and their recommendations and approvals are frequently followed by other national regulators.

          Objective

          To compare market authorization dates for new oncology therapies approved in the US and Europe over the past decade and to examine and contrast the regulatory activities of the FDA and EMA in the approval of new cancer medicines.

          Design, Setting, and Participants

          This cross-sectional study reviewed the FDA and EMA regulatory databases to identify new oncology therapies approved in both the US and Europe from 2010 to 2019, and characterization of the timings of regulatory activities. Statistical analysis was performed from January to April 2022.

          Main Outcomes and Measures

          Regulatory approval date, review time, submission of market authorization application, accelerated approval or conditional marketing authorization status and proportion of approvals prior to peer-reviewed publication of pivotal trial results.

          Results

          In total, 89 new concomitant oncology therapies were approved in the US and Europe from 2010 to 2019. The FDA approved 85 oncology therapies (95%) before European authorization and 4 therapies (5%) after. The median (IQR) delay in market authorization for new oncology therapies in Europe was 241 (150-370) days compared with the US. The median (IQR) review time was 200 (155-277) days for the FDA and 426 (358-480) days for the EMA. Sixty-four new licensing applications (72%) were submitted to the FDA first, compared with 21 (23%) to the EMA. Thirty-five oncology therapies (39%) were approved by the FDA prior to pivotal study publication, whereas only 8 (9%) by the EMA.

          Conclusion and Relevance

          In this cross-sectional study, new oncology therapies were approved earlier in the US than Europe. The FDA received licensing applications sooner and had shorter review times. However, more therapies were approved prior to licensing study publication, leaving uncertainty for practitioners regarding clinical utility and safety of newly approved therapies.

          Related collections

          Most cited references25

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Medical Care Costs Associated with Cancer Survivorship in the United States

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Assessment of the Clinical Benefit of Cancer Drugs Receiving Accelerated Approval

            When a cancer drug that has received accelerated approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is claimed to have verified clinical benefit in a confirmatory trial, what constitutes the verification of benefit? In this updated review of 93 cancer drug indications granted accelerated approval by the FDA from December 11, 1992, through May 31, 2017, confirmatory trials reported that 20% (n = 19) had improvement in overall survival, 21% (n = 20) had improvement in a different surrogate measure, and 20% (n = 19) had improvement in the same surrogate measure used in confirmatory trials and preapproval trials. Few cancer drugs approved via the accelerated FDA approval pathway were judged to have verified benefits based on improvement in survival reported in confirmatory trials. This study assesses the end points used to verify benefit in confirmatory trials of cancer drugs approved via the FDA’s accelerated approval pathway and updates the status of indications for which confirmatory trials were ongoing during the initial analysis of accelerated approval. The US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) accelerated approval pathway allows investigational cancer drugs to be approved by demonstrating a beneficial effect on a surrogate measure (eg, progression-free survival) that is expected to predict a real clinical benefit (eg, overall survival). However, these drugs must undergo postapproval confirmatory studies to evaluate their actual clinical benefits. In an assessment of the accelerated approval pathway published in 2018, the FDA concluded that this pathway was successful because only 5 (5%) of 93 accelerated drug approvals had been withdrawn or revoked over the last 25 years. To compare the end points used in preapproval trials leading to accelerated approval with the end points used in the required confirmatory trials that verified clinical benefit and to update the outcomes of accelerated approvals with confirmatory trials that were ongoing at the time of FDA’s review. A review of the literature on end points used in preapproval and confirmatory trials of cancer drugs that received accelerated approval and a review of the FDA’s database of postmarketing requirements and commitments focused on the outcomes of confirmatory trials that were ongoing at the time of FDA’s review of cancer drug approvals published in 2018. End points used as confirmation of clinical benefit in cancer drugs that received accelerated approval, updated status of the confirmatory trials, and regulatory outcomes for cancer drugs that did not meet expectations in the confirmatory trials. The FDA published a review of 93 cancer drug indications for which accelerated approval was granted from December 11, 1992, through May 31, 2017. Of these approvals, the FDA reported that clinical benefit was adequately confirmed in 51 and confirmatory trials for 15 of these indications (16% of the main sample) accelerated approvals reported improvement in overall survival. For 19 approvals (37%), the confirmatory trials used surrogate measures that were the same as those used in the preapproval trials. In this updated review, confirmatory trials for 19 of 93 (20%) cancer drug approvals reported an improvement in overall survival, 19 (20%) reported improvement in the same surrogate used in the preapproval trial, and 20 (21%) reported improvement in a different surrogate. Five confirmatory trials were delayed, 10 were pending, and 9 were ongoing. For 3 recent approvals, the primary end points were not met in the confirmatory trials; however, 1 cancer drug indication still received full approval. Confirmatory trials for one-fifth (n = 19 of 93) of cancer drug indications approved via the FDA’s accelerated approval pathway demonstrated improvements in overall patient survival. Reassessment of the requirements for confirmatory trials may be necessary to obtain more clinically meaningful information.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A 25-Year Experience of US Food and Drug Administration Accelerated Approval of Malignant Hematology and Oncology Drugs and Biologics

              Accelerated approval (AA) is a US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) expedited program intended to speed the approval of drugs and biologics that may demonstrate a meaningful advantage over available therapies for diseases that are serious or life-threatening.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Netw Open
                JAMA Network Open
                American Medical Association
                2574-3805
                10 June 2022
                June 2022
                10 June 2022
                : 5
                : 6
                : e2216183
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
                [2 ]Division of Medical Oncology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota
                [3 ]Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology, Departments of Oncology and Public Health Sciences, Queen’s University Cancer Research Institute, Kingston, Canada
                [4 ]Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, Brighton, United Kingdom
                [5 ]Division of Hematology and Oncology, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee
                [6 ]Division of Oncology, Department of Medicine, Stanford University School of Medicine, Palo Alto, California
                Author notes
                Article Information
                Accepted for Publication: April 19, 2022.
                Published: June 10, 2022. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.16183
                Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2022 Lythgoe MP et al. JAMA Network Open.
                Corresponding Authors: Mark P. Lythgoe, MBBS, Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, Hammersmith Hospital Campus, Du Cane Road, London, W12 0HS, United Kingdom, ( m.lythgoe@ 123456imperial.ac.uk ); Ali Raza Khaki, MD, Stanford University School of Medicine, 875 Blake Wilbur Dr, Stanford, CA 94305 ( alikhaki@ 123456stanford.edu ).
                Author Contributions: Drs Lythgoe and Khaki had full access to all of the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.
                Concept and design: Lythgoe, Gyawali, Krell, Warner, Khaki.
                Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: All authors.
                Drafting of the manuscript: Lythgoe, Desai, Khaki.
                Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.
                Statistical analysis: Lythgoe, Desai, Warner, Khaki.
                Obtained funding: Warner.
                Administrative, technical, or material support: Lythgoe, Khaki.
                Supervision: Lythgoe, Savage, Krell, Warner, Khaki.
                Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Lythgoe reported receiving personal fees from Clovis Oncology and Bayer Pharmaceuticals outside the submitted work. Dr Gyawali reported receiving consulting fees from Vivio Health outside the submitted work. Dr Warner reported ownership of HemOnc.org LLC during the conduct of the study; grants from the National Institutes of Health, National Library of Medicine, grants from the American Association of Cancer Research, personal fees from Roche, personal fees from Melax Tech, personal fees from Flatiron Health, personal fees from Westat; and nonfinancial support from IBM Watson Health outside the submitted work. Dr Khaki reported receiving stock ownership from Merck and stock ownership from Sanofi outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.
                Funding/Support: This study was supported by National Cancer Institute grant U01 CA231840.
                Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.
                Article
                zoi220470
                10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.16183
                9187952
                35687337
                008fa1cb-af1b-400a-8bb1-f00f1e8b67bd
                Copyright 2022 Lythgoe MP et al. JAMA Network Open.

                This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License.

                History
                : 21 January 2022
                : 19 April 2022
                Categories
                Research
                Original Investigation
                Online Only
                Oncology

                Comments

                Comment on this article