Characteristics of Clinical Studies Used for US Food and Drug Administration Supplemental Indication Approvals of Drugs and Biologics, 2017 to 2019.

Importance: After US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of a new drug, sponsors can submit additional clinical data to obtain supplemental approval for use for new indications. Objective: To characterize pivotal trials supporting recent supplemental new indication approvals of drugs and biologics by the FDA and to compare them with pivotal trials that supported these therapeutics' original indication approvals. Design, Setting, and Participants: This is a cross-sectional study characterizing pivotal trials supporting supplemental indication approvals by the FDA between 2017 and 2019 and pivotal trials that supported these therapeutics' original indication approvals. Data analysis was performed from August to October 2020. Main Outcomes and Measures: Number and design of pivotal trials supporting both supplemental and original indication approvals. Results: From 2017 to 2019, the FDA approved 146 supplemental indications for 107 therapeutics on the basis of 181 pivotal efficacy trials. The median (interquartile range) number of trials per supplemental indication was 1 (1-1). Most trials used either placebo (77 trials [42.5%; 95% CI, 35.6%-49.8%]) or active comparators (65 trials [35.9%; 95% CI, 29.3%-43.1%]), and most of these multigroup trials were randomized (141 trials [99.3%; 95% CI, 96.0%-100.0%]) and double-blinded (106 trials [74.5%; 95% CI, 66.6%-81.0%]); 80 trials (44.2%; 95 CI, 37.2%-51.5%) used clinical outcomes as the primary efficacy end point. There was no difference between oncology therapies and those approved for other therapeutic areas to have supplemental indication approvals be based on at least 2 pivotal trials (11.5% vs 20.6%; difference, 9.1%; 95% CI, 2.9%-21.0%; P = .10). Similarly, there was no difference in use of randomization (98.3% vs 100.0%; difference, 1.7%; 95% CI, 1.6%-5.0%; P = .43) among multigroup trials, although these trials were less likely to be double-blinded (50.8% vs 92.3%; difference, 41.5%; 95% CI, 27.4%-55.5%; P < .001); overall, these trials were less likely to use either placebo or active comparators (64.9% vs 86.7%; difference, 21.8% 95% CI, 9.8%-33.9%; P < .001) or to use clinical outcomes as their primary efficacy end point (27.5% vs 61.1%; difference, 33.6%; 95% CI, 14.1%-40.9%; P < .001) and were longer (median [interquartile range], 17 [6-48] weeks vs 95 [39-146] weeks). Original approvals were more likely than supplemental indication approvals to be based on at least 2 pivotal trials (44.0% [95% CI, 33.7%-42.6%] vs 15.8% [95% CI, 10.7%-22.5%]; difference, 28.2%; 95% CI, 17.6%-39.6%; P < .001) and less likely to be supported by at least 1 trial of 12 months' duration (27.6% [95% CI, 17.9%-35.0%] vs 54.8% [95% CI, 46.7%-62.6%]; difference, 27.2%; 95% CI, 14.5%-37.8%; P < .001). Pivotal trial designs were otherwise not significantly different. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that the number and design of the pivotal trials supporting supplemental indication approvals by the FDA varied across therapeutic areas, with the strength of evidence for cancer indications weaker than that for other indications. There was little difference in the design characteristics of the pivotal trials supporting supplemental indication and original approvals.

Assessment of Clinical Trials Supporting US Food and Drug Administration Approval of Novel Therapeutic Agents, 1995-2017.

Importance: Since the introduction of the Fast Track designation in 1988, the number of special regulatory programs available for the approval of new drugs and biologics by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has increased, offering the agency flexibility with respect to evidentiary requirements. Objective: To characterize pivotal efficacy trials supporting the approval of new drugs and biologics during the past 3 decades. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study included 273 new drugs and biologics approved by the FDA for 339 indications from 1995 to 1997, from 2005 to 2007, and from 2015 to 2017. Main Outcomes and Measures: Therapeutics were classified by product type and therapeutic area as well as orphan designation and use of special regulatory programs, such as Priority Review and Accelerated Approval. Pivotal trials were characterized by use of randomization, blinding, types of comparators, primary end points, number of treated patients, and trial duration, both individually and aggregated by each indication approval. Results: A total of 273 new drugs and biologics were approved by the FDA in these 3 periods (107 [39.2%] in 1995-1997; 57 [20.9%] in 2005-2007; and 109 [39.9%] in 2015-2017), representing 339 indications (157 [46.3%], 64 [18.9%], and 118 [34.8%], respectively). The proportion of therapeutic approvals using at least 1 special regulatory program increased (37 [34.6%] in 1995-1997; 33 [57.9%] in 2005-2007; and 70 [64.2%] in 2015-2017), as did indication approvals receiving an orphan designation (20 [12.7%] in 1995-1997; 17 [26.6%] in 2005-2007, and 45 [38.1%] in 2015-2017). The most common therapeutic areas differed over time (infectious disease, 53 [33.8%] in 1995-1997 vs cancer, 32 [27.1%] in 2015-2017). When considering the aggregate pivotal trials supporting each indication approval, the proportion of indications supported by at least 2 pivotal trials decreased (80.6% [95% CI, 72.6%-87.2%] in 1995-1997; 60.3% [95% CI, 47.2%-72.4%] in 2005-2007; and 52.8% [95% CI, 42.9%-62.6%] in 2015-2017; P < .001). The proportion of indications supported by only single-group pivotal trials increased (4.0% [95% CI, 1.3%-9.2%] in 1995-1997; 12.7% [95% CI, 5.6%-23.5%] in 2005-2007; and 17.0% [95% CI, 10.4%-25.5%] in 2015-2017; P = .001), whereas the proportion supported by at least 1 pivotal trial of 6 months' duration increased (25.8% [95% CI, 18.4%-34.4%] in 1995-1997; 34.9% [95% CI, 23.3%-48.0%] in 2005-2007; and 46.2% [95% CI, 36.5%-56.2%] in 2015-2017; P = .001). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, more recent FDA approvals of new drugs and biologics were based on fewer pivotal trials, which, when aggregated by indication, had less rigorous designs but longer trial durations, suggesting an ongoing need for continued evaluation of therapeutic safety and efficacy after approval.

Availability of Investigational Medicines Through the US Food and Drug Administration's Expanded Access and Compassionate Use Programs.

Importance: The Right to Try Act of 2017 allows patients with life-threatening conditions to access investigational medicines outside clinical trials without oversight from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). A better understanding of existing expanded access programs can inform the consideration and implementation of both the federal Right to Try Act and state right-to-try laws. Objective: To determine the timing and duration of expanded access programs for investigational medicines initiated prior to FDA approval. Design and Setting: This cross-sectional study examined expanded access and compassionate use programs registered through August 1, 2017, identified from ClinicalTrials.gov and publicly available FDA documents. Main Outcomes and Measures: Start date of each program and 3 key regulatory dates (investigational new drug application activation, initial new drug application submission, and FDA approval), and timing and duration of expanded access availability in relation to new drug application submission and FDA approval. Results: Through ClinicalTrials.gov, 92 FDA-approved drugs and biologics with associated expanded access programs initiated prior to FDA approval were identified. These programs were initiated between September 1996 and June 2017 for medicines that were most commonly used to treat cancer (n = 46 [50.0%]); metabolic, endocrine, and genetic diseases (n = 16 [17.4%]); and infectious diseases (n = 14 [15.2%]). The median (interquartile range) premarket expanded access availability was 10.0 (6.0-19.5) months, constituting a median (interquartile range) of 14% (7%-25%) of the premarket clinical development period (investigational new drug application activation to FDA approval). Of 92 expanded access programs, 64 (69.6%) were initiated just before or after new drug application submission: 24 (26.1%) were initiated during the 6-month period before, and 40 (43.5%) in the 6 months after. Conclusions and Relevance: Over the past 2 decades, expanded access programs have provided access to investigational medicines for which evidence of safety and effectiveness was established. For medicines that ultimately receive FDA approval, these findings suggest that the FDA and pharmaceutical industry have established a balance between investigational new drug access and protection of patients from therapies without established safety. This balance may be compromised by policy makers seeking to speed access to investigational medicines through the Right to Try Act.

Relationship of Kidney Injury Biomarkers with Long-Term Cardiovascular Outcomes after Cardiac Surgery.

Clinical AKI, measured by serum creatinine elevation, is associated with long-term risks of adverse cardiovascular (CV) events and mortality in patients after cardiac surgery. To evaluate the relative contributions of urine kidney injury biomarkers and plasma cardiac injury biomarkers in adverse events, we conducted a multicenter prospective cohort study of 968 adults undergoing cardiac surgery. On postoperative days 1-3, we measured five urine biomarkers of kidney injury (IL-18, NGAL, KIM-1, L-FABP, and albumin) and five plasma biomarkers of cardiac injury (NT-proBNP, H-FABP, hs-cTnT, cTnI, and CK-MB). The primary outcome was a composite of long-term CV events or death, which was assessed via national health care databases. During a median 3.8 years of follow-up, 219 (22.6%) patients experienced the primary outcome (136 CV events and 83 additional deaths). Compared with patients without postsurgical AKI, patients who experienced AKI Network stage 2 or 3 had an adjusted hazard ratio for the primary composite outcome of 3.52 (95% confidence interval, 2.17 to 5.71). However, none of the five urinary kidney injury biomarkers were significantly associated with the primary outcome. In contrast, four out of five postoperative cardiac injury biomarkers (NT-proBNP, H-FABP, hs-cTnT, and cTnI) strongly associated with the primary outcome. Mediation analyses demonstrated that cardiac biomarkers explained 49% (95% confidence interval, 1% to 97%) of the association between AKI and the primary outcome. These results suggest that clinical AKI at the time of cardiac surgery is indicative of concurrent CV stress rather than an independent renal pathway for long-term adverse CV outcomes.

Biomarkers for the detection of renal fibrosis and prediction of renal outcomes: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Fibrosis is the unifying pathway leading to chronic kidney disease. Identifying biomarkers of fibrosis may help predict disease progression. METHODS: We performed a systematic review to evaluate the reliability of blood and urine biomarkers in identifying fibrosis on biopsy as well as predicting renal outcomes. Using MEDLINE and EMBASE, a two-stage search strategy was implemented. Stage I identified a library of biomarkers correlating with fibrosis on biopsy. Stage II evaluated the association between biomarkers identified in stage I, and renal outcomes. Only biomarkers with moderate positive correlation with fibrosis (r > 0.40) or acceptable area under the curve (AUC >0.65) advanced to stage II. RESULTS: Stage I identified 17 studies and 14 biomarkers. Five biomarkers met criteria to advance to stage II, but only three were independently associated with renal outcomes. Transforming growth factor ß (TGF-ß) correlated with fibrosis (r = 0.60), and was associated with 1.7-3.9 times the risk of worsening renal function in 426 patients. Monocyte chemoattractant protein-1 (MCP-1) diagnosed fibrosis with AUC of 0.66 and was associated with 2.3-11.0 times the risk of worsening renal function in 596 patients. Matrix metalloproteinase-2 (MMP-2) correlated with fibrosis (r = 0.41), and was associated with 2.5 times the risk of worsening renal function. CONCLUSIONS: Given the heterogeneity of the data due to diverse patient populations along with differing renal outcomes, a meta-analysis could not be conducted. Nonetheless we can conclude from the published data that TGF-ß, MCP-1 and MMP-2 may identify patients at risk for renal fibrosis and hence worse renal outcomes.

Phosphorylation by PKC and PKA regulate the kinase activity and downstream signaling of WNK4.

With-no-lysine kinase 4 (WNK4) regulates electrolyte homeostasis and blood pressure. WNK4 phosphorylates the kinases SPAK (Ste20-related proline alanine-rich kinase) and OSR1 (oxidative stress responsive kinase), which then phosphorylate and activate the renal Na-Cl cotransporter (NCC). WNK4 levels are regulated by binding to Kelch-like 3, targeting WNK4 for ubiquitylation and degradation. Phosphorylation of Kelch-like 3 by PKC or PKA downstream of AngII or vasopressin signaling, respectively, abrogates binding. We tested whether these pathways also affect WNK4 phosphorylation and activity. By tandem mass spectrometry and use of phosphosite-specific antibodies, we identified five WNK4 sites (S47, S64, S1169, S1180, S1196) that are phosphorylated downstream of AngII signaling in cultured cells and in vitro by PKC and PKA. Phosphorylation at S64 and S1196 promoted phosphorylation of the WNK4 kinase T-loop at S332, which is required for kinase activation, and increased phosphorylation of SPAK. Volume depletion induced phosphorylation of these sites in vivo, predominantly in the distal convoluted tubule. Thus, AngII, in addition to increasing WNK4 levels, also modulates WNK4 kinase activity via phosphorylation of sites outside the kinase domain.

Urine Interleukin 18 and Lipocalin 2 Are Biomarkers of Acute Tubular Necrosis in Patients With Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common complication in patients with cirrhosis that increases mortality. The most common causes of AKI in these patients are prerenal azotemia, acute tubular necrosis (ATN), and hepatorenal syndrome; it is important to determine the etiology of AKI to select the proper treatment and predict patient outcome. Urine biomarkers could be used to differentiate between patients with ATN and functional causes of AKI. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of published studies to determine whether urine levels of interleukin (IL)18 and lipocalin 2 or neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL) are associated with the development of ATN in patients with cirrhosis. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Scopus, ISI Web of Knowledge, and conference abstracts through December 31, 2015, for studies that assessed urine biomarkers for detection of acute kidney injury in patients with cirrhosis or reported an association between urine biomarkers and all-cause mortality in these patients. We included only biomarkers assessed in 3 or more independent studies, searching for terms that included urine biomarkers, cirrhosis, NGAL, and IL18. We calculated the pooled sensitivities and specificities for detection and calculated the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) values using a bivariate logistic mixed-effects model. We used the χ2 test to assess heterogeneity among studies. RESULTS: We analyzed data from 8 prospective studies, comprising 1129 patients with cirrhosis. We found urine levels of the markers discriminated between patients with ATN and other types of kidney impairments, with AUC values of 0.88 for IL18 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79-0.97) and 0.89 for NGAL (95% CI, 0.84-0.94). Urine levels of IL18 identified patients who would die in the hospital or within 90 days (short-term mortality) with an AUC value of 0.76 (95% CI, 0.68-0.85); NGAL identified these patients with the same AUC (0.76; 95% CI, 0.71-0.82). CONCLUSIONS: In a systematic review and meta-analysis, we found that urine levels of IL18 and NGAL from patients with cirrhosis discriminate between those with ATN and other types of kidney impairments, with AUC values of 0.88 and 0.89, respectively. Urine levels of IL18 and NGAL identified patients with short-term mortality with an AUC value of 0.76. These biomarkers might be used to determine prognosis and select treatments for patients with cirrhosis.