Guidance for securing approvals for new biomarkers: from discovery to clinical implementation.

The journey of translating a molecular discovery into the clinic involves multiple steps and requires planning, time, effort, and money. In this review, we provide a quick guide on the technical and clinical validation parameters that are necessary for successful commercialization of molecular and other markers. We also briefly address the different options for regulatory approvals. Successful clinical implantation depends on rigorous technical and clinical validation, and the ability to develop clear guidelines for the indications for testing (i.e. which patients are eligible to have this test), the frequency of testing, and also a clear interpretation of test results. Successful implementation requires providing evidence that the results of this test can be used to improve patient care. There are currently multiple routes for implementation of clinical molecular tests, which include regulatory agency- approved companion diagnostics, laboratory developed tests, or direct-to-consumer testing. Regulatory approval is considered the gold-standard, but it requires time and resources. There is an ongoing debate about the need for regulatory approval of laboratory developed testing. Ongoing oversight is maintained through lab accreditation and proficiency testing programs, which provide a common approach to ensuring high standards and consistent performance in clinical molecular labs. Before moving into the clinic, confirmation of both the clinical and analytic validity of a new molecular test is essential.

Eventual success rate and predictors of success for oncology drugs tested in phase I trials.

Previous estimates of the likelihood of a drug tested in phase I trials obtaining FDA clearance are out of date.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 We found 51 drug approvals; four were withdrawn.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.

Commentaries: Lecanemab: pioneering the way as the first approved drug for Alzheimer's disease treatment.

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder marked by cognitive decline and neuronal abnormalities. Current therapies address symptoms without altering disease progression. Lecanemab, an anti-amyloid antibody, binds to amyloid-beta (Aß) protofibrils. Phase II trials revealed dose-dependent amyloid clearance and reduced clinical decline. Phase III trials demonstrated cognitive benefits with potential adverse events. Full FDA approval was granted for lecanemab due to its ability to eliminate toxic brain amyloids. However, longer trials are needed to assess its efficacy and safety. While lecanemab marks a significant advancement, further breakthroughs are essential for effective AD treatment.

Abrocitinib: A New FDA-Approved Drug for Moderate-to-Severe Atopic Dermatitis.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this article is to review abrocitinib, an oral Janus kinase (JAK) 1 inhibitor, for the treatment of patients with moderate-to-severe atopic dermatitis (AD). DATA SOURCES: A literature search of MEDLINE (PubMed) was performed for articles from inception through end-March 2022 using the following search terms: atopic dermatitis, abrocitinib, PF-04965842, methotrexate, cyclosporine, dupilumab, ruxolitinib, and JAK-STAT pathway. STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION: English articles relating to pharmacology, pharmacokinetics, efficacy, and safety of abrocitinib, and other conventional systemic medications for AD, were included. DATA SYNTHESIS: Across phase IIb and phase III clinical trials, abrocitinib was efficacious with an average of 47.5% patients on 200 mg abrocitinib and 32.0% on 100 mg abrocitinib achieving an Investigator's Global Assessment (IGA) of 0 or 1 at 12 weeks. In comparison with dupilumab 300 mg subcutaneously every other week, patients on abrocitinib 200 mg once daily had improved disease severity and itch response. The majority of adverse events were not severe and self-limited. RELEVANCE TO PATIENT CARE AND CLINICAL PRACTICE: Prior to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of abrocitinib, prednisone was the only FDA-approved oral medication for AD. Although biologics such as dupilumab have revolutionized care, some patients prefer oral medications. Compared with clinical trials of conventional AD treatments, abrocitinib appears more effective. CONCLUSIONS: Abrocitinib is an efficacious oral JAK 1 inhibitor recently FDA-approved for patients ≥ 18 years old with moderate-to-severe AD who have not responded to systemic medications or when contraindicated otherwise.

A cross-sectional study of the FDA approved indications and supporting pivotal trials of small-molecular kinase inhibitors in cancer therapies with the biomarker of cancer driver gene.

Cancer precision medicine with biomarker of cancer driver gene (CDG) has been achieved by many small-molecular kinase inhibitors (SMKIs) approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Publicly available FDA documents were collected for all SMKI cancer drugs approved between January 2001 and December 2021. Characteristics of indication and pivotal trial were compared. We identified 62 SMKI cancer drugs with 150 indications approved by the FDA between 2001 and 2021. Of these, 55 indications (36.7%) were CDG biomarker-directed. There was a significant increase of 20.5% per year in the number of approved CDG biomarker-directed indications. CDG biomarker-directed indications were associated with significantly higher odds in receiving accelerated approval (odds ratio [OR] = 2.728; 95% CI, 1.246-5.973; P = .012), designating orphan drug (OR = 3.952; 95% CI, 1.758-8.883; P < .001), initial submission of the application (OR = 2.246; 95% CI, 1.063-4.746; P = .034) and in solid cancer (OR = 7.613; 95% CI, 2.958-19.590; P < .001), and were associated with significantly lower odds in using randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (OR = 0.103; 95% CI, 0.032-0.338; P < .001) with less number of entered patients (OR = 0.998; 95% CI, 0.997-1.000; P = .048). The number of CDG biomarker-directed indications in approved SMKIs increased significantly in past two decades, with higher proportion of approvals using special expedited development and approval pathways at the FDA. Further RCTs should be conducted to prove long-term effectiveness and safety.

FDA Approval Summary: Revised Indication and Dosing Regimen for Ponatinib Based on the Results of the OPTIC Trial.

On December 18, 2020, US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved a supplemental application for ponatinib extending the indication in patients with chronic-phase chronic myeloid leukemia (CP-CML) to patients with resistance or intolerance of at least 2 prior kinase inhibitors. Ponatinib was initially approved in December 2012 but was briefly voluntarily withdrawn due to serious safety concerns including the risk of arterial occlusive events (AOE). It returned to the market in December 2013 with an indication limited to patients with T315I mutation or for whom no other tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) therapy was indicated with revised warnings and precautions. A post-marketing requirement was issued to identify the optimal safe and effective dose for CP-CML. Thus, the OPTIC trial was performed, which randomized patients to 1 of 3 doses, 45 mg, 30 mg, or 15 mg, with a dose reduction to 15 mg on achievement of MR2 (BCR-ABLIS ≤1%). Patients enrolled were treated with at least 2 prior TKIs or had a T315I mutation. Patients with a history of clinically significant, uncontrolled, or active cardiovascular disease were excluded. Efficacy was established on an interim analysis based on the rate of MR2 at 12 months in the modified intent-to-treat population of 261 patients, with 88, 86, and 87 patients in the 45, 30, and 15 mg cohorts, respectively. With a median follow-up of 28 months, the rate of achievement of MR2 at 12 months was 42%, 28%, and 24% in the respective cohorts. The safety profile was consistent with that observed in prior evaluations of ponatinib with notable adverse reactions including pancreatitis, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, liver dysfunction, and AOE. Of patients treated at the 45/15 mg dose, AOEs were seen in 13%, with a higher rate being observed in patients age 65 or older compared to younger patients. A readjudication of AOEs seen on the prior pivotal phase 2 study resulted in a rate of 26%. Overall, the results supported a modification of the recommended dose for patients with CP-CML to 45 mg until the achievement of MR2 followed by a reduction to 15 mg. The expansion of the indication to patients with exposure to 2 prior TKIs was approved given data showing that ponatinib could be successfully used for the treatment of this population with appropriate monitoring and screening for risk factors.

Recent FDA Approvals in the Treatment of Graft-Versus-Host Disease.

Graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) is a common complication of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) and is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. For many years, there have been few effective treatment options for patients with GVHD. First-line systemic treatment remains corticosteroids, but up to 50% of patients will develop steroid-refractory GVHD and the prognosis for these patients is poor. Elucidation of the pathophysiological mechanisms of acute and chronic GVHD has laid a foundation for novel therapeutic approaches. Since 2017, there have now been 4 approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for GVHD. Ruxolitinib, an oral selective JAK1/2 inhibitor, received FDA approval for the treatment of steroid-refractory acute GVHD in 2019 and remains the only agent approved for acute GVHD. There are currently 3 FDA approvals for the treatment of chronic GVHD: (1) ibrutinib, a BTK inhibitor traditionally used for B-cell malignancies, was the first agent approved for chronic GVHD after failure of one or more lines of systemic therapy, (2) belumosudil, an oral selective inhibitor of ROCK2, for patients with chronic GVHD who received at least 2 prior lines of treatment, and (3) ruxolitinib for chronic GVHD after failure of one or two lines of systemic therapy. In this review, we highlight the clinical data which support these FDA approvals in acute and chronic GVHD with a focus on mechanism of actions, clinical efficacy, and toxicities associated with these agents.

Healthcare provider awareness of the recent FDA approval on first diagnostic tests for extragenital testing for chlamydia and gonorrhea.

To assess healthcare provider awareness of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 2019 approval of nucleic acid amplification tests (NAAT) using extragenital specimens for chlamydia and gonorrhea, several questions were included in fall 2020 Porter Novelli's DocStyles survey, a US nationally representative semi-annual web-based survey of healthcare providers. There were 1502 respondents included in this study, 1000 family practitioners/internists as primary care physicians (PCPs), 251 obstetricians/gynecologists (OBs/GYNs), and 251 nurse practitioners/physician assistants (NP/PA). Awareness of this FDA approval was 34.3% overall and significantly varied by provider specialty: 45.0% for OB/GYN versus 23.5% for NP/PA, p < 0.01. OB/GYN had the lowest rate of ordering any extragenital gonorrhea and chlamydia tests in the past 12 months (31.6%) versus the other providers (ranging from 46.2% for NP/PA to 60.7% for PCP). The respondents were more likely to be aware of the FDA approval if they had ordered extragenital chlamydia or gonorrhea testing for men who have sex with men (MSM) than those who did not order the tests for MSM (72.3% versus 43.7%, p < 0.01). Of 1502 respondents, lack of reimbursement as a barrier to ordering extragenital tests for chlamydia and gonorrhea was most mentioned (16.6%) overall and did not significantly vary by provider's specialty. Further outreach is needed to educate healthcare providers on the changes in the FDA approval for extragenital gonorrhea and chlamydia testing so that they can provide comprehensive care to their patients and to reduce the potential for antimicrobial resistance.

Assessment of Data Supporting the Efficacy of New Antibiotics for Treating Infections Caused by Multidrug-resistant Bacteria.

BACKGROUND: Infections caused by multidrug-resistant (MDR) bacteria are a major public health threat. We aimed to assess the data supporting US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of new agents aimed to treat MDR bacterial infections and the data provided by postmarketing studies. METHODS: We identified all drugs with in vitro activity against MDR bacteria initially approved by the FDA between January 2010 and December 2018. Characteristics of trials supporting approval and regulatory pathways were collected from Drugs@FDA. Characteristics of postmarketing studies were extracted from drug labels and ClinicalTrials.gov entries effective 1 June 2019. RESULTS: Initial approval of 11 newly approved antibiotics with anti-MDR activity was supported by 20 trials, all with noninferiority design. All initially approved indications were for common infections, mostly acute bacterial skin and skin-structure infections, regardless of causative microorganism. The proportion of MDR bacteria in most trials was low (<10% for gram-negative infections, <1% for gram-positive pneumonia). Most trials (90%) excluded immunocompromised and critically ill patients. Of 16 additional postmarketing randomized controlled trials identified through ClinicalTrials.gov, only 2 exclusively included infections caused by MDR bacteria, comprising 116 patients. No drug was granted accelerated approval, which would mandate postmarketing efficacy studies. CONCLUSIONS: The approval of new drugs with potential clinical activity against MDR bacteria is supported by trials evaluating infections caused by non-MDR organisms, using noninferiority design and excluding the patients most likely to require these agents. Subsequent postmarketing efficacy data against these organisms are scarce. Healthcare professionals and regulators should demand more robust data to support clinical decision making.

FDA Approval Summary: Atezolizumab and Durvalumab in Combination with Platinum-Based Chemotherapy in Extensive Stage Small Cell Lung Cancer.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted approval to atezolizumab and durvalumab in March of 2019 and 2020, respectively, for use in combination with chemotherapy for first-line treatment of patients with extensive stage small cell lung cancer. These approvals were based on data from two randomized controlled trials, IMpower133 (atezolizumab) and CASPIAN (durvalumab). Both trials demonstrated an improvement in overall survival (OS) with anti-programmed death ligand 1 antibodies when added to platinum-based chemotherapy as compared with chemotherapy alone. In IMpower133, patients receiving atezolizumab with etoposide and carboplatin demonstrated improved OS (hazard ratio [HR], 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.54-0.91; p = .0069), with median OS of 12.3 months compared with 10.3 months in patients receiving etoposide and carboplatin. In CASPIAN, patients receiving durvalumab with etoposide and either cisplatin or carboplatin also demonstrated improved OS (HR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.59-0.91; p = .0047) with median OS of 13.0 months compared with 10.3 months in patients receiving etoposide and either cisplatin or carboplatin. The safety profiles of both drugs were generally consistent with known toxicities of immune-checkpoint inhibitor therapies. This review summarizes the FDA perspective and data supporting the approval of these two agents. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Effective therapeutic options for small cell lung cancer (SCLC) are limited, and there has been modest improvement in the overall survival (OS) of patients with SCLC over the past 3 decades. The approvals of atezolizumab and of durvalumab in combination with chemotherapy for first-line treatment of patients with extensive stage SCLC represent the first approved therapies with OS benefit for this patient population since the approval of etoposide in combination with other approved chemotherapeutic agents. Additionally, the efficacy results from IMpower133 and CASPIAN lay the groundwork for possible further evaluation in other treatment settings in this disease.

US Food and Drug Administration approvals for Bruton tyrosine kinase inhibitors in patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia: Potential inefficiencies in trial design and evidence generation.

The US Food and Drug Administration granted acalabrutinib approval as the second Bruton tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor to treat patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia and small lymphocytic lymphoma as monotherapy or in combination with obinutuzumab. This approval was based on 2 phase 3 trials: ELEVATE-TN and ASCEND. There are several concerns with the design of these trials, including suboptimal treatment of patients in the control arm, expansion of the trial population, and lack of data regarding efficacy or tolerability compared with ibrutinib, a first-in-class drug. The Food and Drug Administration approval of acalabrutinib for patients with chronic lymphocytic leukemia and small lymphocytic lymphoma represents concerning drug approval patterns in the United States and a weakness in evidence generation.

Evaluation of Serious Postmarket Safety Signals Within 2 Years of FDA Approval for New Cancer Drugs.

BACKGROUND: We examined how often new serious safety signals were identified by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration within the first 2 years after approval for new molecular entities (NMEs) for treatment of cancer that required specific regulatory actions described here. METHODS: We identified, for all NMEs approved for treatment of cancer or malignant hematology indications between 2010 and 2016, substantial safety-related changes within the first 2 years after approval, which included a new Boxed Warning or Warning and Precaution; requirement for (or modification of existing) Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS); and withdrawal from the market because of safety concerns. RESULTS: Fifty-five NMEs were approved between 2010 and 2016: 32 (58%) under regular approval (RA) and 23 (42%) under accelerated approval (AA). Of these 55 NMEs, 9 (16%) had substantial safety-related changes after approval. Across all 55 NMEs, one was temporarily withdrawn from the market for safety reasons (1.8%); one (1.8%) required a new REMS; nine required labeling revisions-new Boxed Warnings were required for two NMEs (3.6%), and new Warnings and Precautions subsections were required for eight (14.6%). One drug (ponatinib) was responsible for several of the substantial safety-related changes (withdrawal, REMS, Boxed Warnings). One of 32 NMEs approved under RA required a new Warning and Precaution, whereas 7 of 23 NMEs approved under AA had substantial safety-related changes in the first 2 years after approval. CONCLUSION: Based on our analysis we conclude that although there was a greater incidence of substantial safety-related changes to AA drugs versus RA drugs, the majority of these were changes to the Warnings and Precautions and did not substantially alter the benefit-risk profile of the drug. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The majority of new cancer drugs (84%) approved in the U.S. do not have new substantial safety information being added to the label within the first 2 years of approval. Unprecedented efficacy seen in contemporary cancer drug development has led to early availability of effective cancer therapies based on large effects in smaller populations. More limited premarket safety data require diligent postmarketing safety surveillance as we continue to learn and update drug labeling throughout the product lifecycle.

Randomized trials and endpoints in advanced HCC: Role of PFS as a surrogate of survival.

Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) is a major cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. Around half of patients with HCC will receive systemic therapies during their life span. The pivotal positive sorafenib trial and regulatory approval in 2007 was followed by a decade of negative studies with drugs leading to marginal antitumoral efficacy, toxicity, or trials with a lack of enrichment strategies. This trend has changed over the last 2 years with several compounds, such as lenvatinib (in first-line) and regorafenib, cabozantinib, ramucirumab and nivolumab (in second-line), showing clinical benefit. These successes came at a cost of increasing the complexity of decision-making, and ultimately, impacting the design of future clinical trials. Nowadays, life expectancy with single active agents has surpassed the threshold of 1 year and sequential strategies have provided encouraging outcomes. Overall survival (OS) remains the main endpoint in phase III investigations, but as in other solid tumours, there is a clear need to define surrogate endpoints that both reliably recapitulate survival benefits and can be assessed before additional efficacious drugs are administered. A thorough analysis of 21 phase III trials published in advanced HCC demonstrated a moderate correlation between progression-free survival (PFS) or time to progression (TTP) and OS (R = 0.84 and R = 0.83, respectively). Nonetheless, the significant differences in PFS identified in 7 phase III studies only correlated with differences in OS in 3 cases. In these cases, the hazard ratio (HR) for PFS was ≤0.6. Thus, this threshold is herein proposed as a potential surrogate endpoint of OS in advanced HCC. Conversely, PFS with an HR between 0.6-0.7, despite significance, was not associated with better survival, and thus these magnitudes are considered uncertain surrogates. In the current review, we discuss the reasons for positive or negative phase III trials in advanced HCC, and the strengths and limitations of surrogate endpoints (PFS, TTP and objective response rate [ORR]) to predict survival.

Successful Treatment of Human Plague with Oral Ciprofloxacin.

The US Food and Drug Administration recently approved ciprofloxacin for treatment of plague (Yersina pestis infection) based on animal studies. Published evidence of efficacy in humans is sparse. We report 5 cases of culture-confirmed human plague treated successfully with oral ciprofloxacin, including 1 case of pneumonic plague.

Monoclonal antibodies: formulations of marketed products and recent advances in novel delivery system.

Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) are extensively employed for disease diagnosis and treatment because of their high homogeneity and antigen specificity. In recent years, important outcomes have been achieved with mAbs due to their admirable therapeutic efficacy and relatively rare side effects. In clinical practice, several mAb products have been approved by regulatory entities, but their formulations have been highly specific given the complex structure and proteinaceous nature of mAbs. Thus, more attention has been given on formulations. An increasing number of novel delivery systems have been exploited to optimize the application of mAbs. In this article, the formulations, dosages, origins and administration routes of available mAbs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) are summarized and categorized. Key issues involved in formulation, processing and storage are addressed as well as other challenges in achieving effective mAb delivery. Finally, recent advances in delivering mAbs in their most bioavailable forms are also briefly reviewed.

Some Non-FDA Approved Uses for Neuromodulation: A Review of the Evidence.

INTRODUCTION: Neuromodulation, including spinal cord stimulation and peripheral nerve field stimulation, has been used with success in treating several painful conditions. The FDA approved the use of neuromodulation for a few indications. We review evidence for neuromodulation in treating some important painful conditions that are not currently FDA approved. METHODS: This review included an online web search for only clinical trials testing the efficacy of neuromodulation in treating coronary artery disease, peripheral vascular disease (PVD), headache, and peripheral field stimulation. RESULTS: Our systematic literature search found 10, 6, and 3 controlled studies relating to coronary artery disease, PVD, and headache, respectively. Our review also included 5 noncontrolled studies relating to peripheral field stimulation, as no controlled studies had been completed. CONCLUSION: This review article shows compelling evidence based on clinical trials that neuromodulation can be of benefit for patients with serious painful conditions that are not currently approved by the FDA.

Molecular pharming's foot in the FDA's door: Protalix's trailblazing story.

OBJECTIVES: This short commentary examines the factors that led to Food and Drug Administration's approval of the first plant-derived biologic. RESULTS: In 2012, the first plant-derived protein pharmaceutical (biologic) was approved for commercial use in humans. The product, a recombinant form of human ß-glucocerebrosidase marketed as ELELYSO, was developed by Protalix Biotherapeutics (Carmiel, Israel). The foresight to select this particular therapeutic product for development, flawless production pipeline, and serendipity seem to provide the key in explaining how ELELYSO became the first plant-derived biologic to achieve approval by Food and Drug Administration. CONCLUSIONS: While the circumstances that enabled Protalix and its scientists to become the first to arrive at this historic milestone are perhaps unique, it is anticipated that more biologics will follow suit in winning regulatory endorsement.