Clinical Benefit and Regulatory Outcomes of Cancer Drugs Receiving Accelerated Approval.

Importance: The US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) accelerated approval pathway allows approval of investigational drugs treating unmet medical needs based on changes to surrogate measures considered "reasonably likely" to predict clinical benefit. Postapproval clinical trials are then required to confirm whether these drugs offer clinical benefit. Objective: To determine whether cancer drugs granted accelerated approval ultimately demonstrate clinical benefit and to evaluate the basis of conversion to regular approval. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study, publicly available FDA data were used to identify cancer drugs granted accelerated approval from 2013 to 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Demonstrated improvement in quality of life or overall survival in accelerated approvals with more than 5 years of follow-up, as well as confirmatory trial end points and time to conversion for drug-indication pairs converted to regular approval. Results: A total of 129 cancer drug-indication pairs were granted accelerated approval from 2013 to 2023. Among 46 indications with more than 5 years of follow-up (approved 2013-2017), approximately two-thirds (29, 63%) were converted to regular approval, 10 (22%) were withdrawn, and 7 (15%) remained ongoing after a median of 6.3 years. Fewer than half (20/46, 43%) demonstrated a clinical benefit in confirmatory trials. Time to withdrawal decreased from 9.9 years to 3.6 years, and time to regular approval increased from 1.6 years to 3.6 years. Among 48 drug-indication pairs converted to regular approval, 19 (40%) were converted based on overall survival, 21 (44%) on progression-free survival, 5 (10%) on response rate plus duration of response, 2 (4%) on response rate, and 1 (2%) despite a negative confirmatory trial. Comparing accelerated and regular approval indications, 18 of 48 (38%) were unchanged, while 30 of 48 (63%) had different indications (eg, earlier line of therapy). Conclusions and Relevance: Most cancer drugs granted accelerated approval did not demonstrate benefit in overall survival or quality of life within 5 years of accelerated approval. Patients should be clearly informed about the cancer drugs that use the accelerated approval pathway and do not end up showing benefits in patient-centered clinical outcomes.

Magnitude of effect and sample size justification in trials supporting anti-cancer drug approval by the US Food and Drug Administration.

Approval of drugs is based on randomized trials observing statistically significant superiority of an experimental agent over a standard. Statistical significance results from a combination of effect size and sampling, with larger effect size more likely to translate to population effectiveness. We assess sample size justification in trials supporting cancer drug approvals. We identified US FDA anti-cancer drug approvals for solid tumors from 2015 to 2019. We extracted data on study characteristics, statistical plan, accrual, and outcomes. Observed power (Pobs) was calculated based on completed study characteristics and observed hazard ratio (HRobs). Studies were considered over-sampled if Pobs > expected with HRobs similar or worse than expected or if Pobs was similar to expected with HRobs worse than expected. We explored associations with over-sampling using logistic regression. Of 75 drug approvals (reporting 94 endpoints), 21% (20/94) were over-sampled. Over-sampling was associated with immunotherapy (OR: 5.5; p = 0.04) and associated quantitatively but not statistically with targeted therapy (OR: 3.0), open-label trials (OR: 2.5), and melanoma (OR: 4.6) and lung cancer (OR: 2.17) relative to breast cancer. Most cancer drug approvals are supported by trials with justified sample sizes. Approximately 1 in 5 endpoints are over-sampled; benefit observed may not translate to clinically meaningful real-world outcomes.

US FDA's Dose Optimization Postmarketing Requirements and Commitments of Oncology Approvals and the Impact on Product Labels from 2010 to 2022: An Emerging Landscape from Traditional to Novel Therapies.

BACKGROUND: Dose optimization is a focal point of many US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug approvals. We sought to understand the impact of the FDA's Postmarketing Commitments/Postmarketing Requirements (PMCs/PMRs) on dose optimization and prescriber labeling for oncology drugs. METHODS: Publicly available information was aggregated for all FDA oncology drug approvals between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2022. Study completion dates were compared to product labeling before and after PMC/PMR fulfillment dates to evaluate labeling changes associated with dose-related PMCs/PMRs. Data were analyzed individually (2010-2015 and 2016-2022) due to differences in available information. RESULTS: From 2010 to 2015, 14 of 42 (33.3%) new molecular entities (NMEs) had dose-related PMCs/PMRs, with 6 of 14 (42.9%) resulting in a relevant label change. From 2016 to 2022, of the 314 new or supplemental applications approved, 21 had dose-related PMCs/PMRs (6.7%), which trended upward over time; 71.4% of dose-related PMCs/PMRs were NMEs. Kinase inhibitors (KIs) and antibody/peptide drug conjugates (ADCs/PDCs) were the most affected drug classes. Ten of the 21 approvals with dose-related PMCs/PMRs fulfilled their dosing PMCs/PMRs, and 3 of the 10 (30%) had relevant label changes. CONCLUSION: Most dose-related PMRs/PMCs were issued for NMEs. Of these, KIs and ADCs/PDCs were highly represented, reflecting their novelty and greater uncertainty around their safety profile. PMC/PMR issuance broadly increased over time. With the implementation of the FDA's Project Optimus in 2021, it remains to be seen whether fewer dose-related PMCs/PMRs emerge in future due to enhanced dose optimization in the premarketing setting.

Cautionary note on regional consistency evaluation in multiregional clinical trials with binary outcomes.

Multiregional clinical trials (MRCTs) have become increasingly common during the development of new drugs to obtain simultaneous drug approvals worldwide. When planning MRCTs, a major statistical challenge is determination of the regional sample size. In general, the regional sample size must be determined as the sample size such that the regional consistency probability, defined as the probability of meeting the regional consistency criterion, is greater than a prespecified value. The Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare proposed two criteria for regional consistency. Moreover, many researchers have proposed corresponding closed-form formulas for calculating regional consistency probabilities when the primary outcome is continuous. Although some researchers have argued that those formulas are also applicable to cases with binary outcomes, it remains questionable whether such an argument can be true. Based on simulation results, we demonstrate that the existing formulas are inappropriate for binary cases, even when the regional sample size is sufficiently large. To address this issue, we develop alternative formulas and use simulation to show that they provide accurate regional consistency probabilities. Furthermore, we present an application of our proposed formulas for an MRCT of advanced or metastatic clear-cell renal cell carcinoma.

Progress and Challenges of the New Conditional Approval Process in China: A Pooled Analysis From 2018 to 2021.

PURPOSE: To speed the review and approval of drugs and address pressing medical needs, China began to advocate for the implementation of the conditional approval process in 2017. We aimed to assess the implementation of the conditional approval process in China and further analyze its potential problems and future challenges. METHODS: This study examined the new drug approval with conditions in China between 2018 and 2021, based on an analysis of drug technical review documents from the Center for Drug Evaluation (CDE). Using publicly available information, we further analyzed the characteristics and results of pivotal clinical trials of conditionally approved drugs, postmarketing study requirements and progress. FINDINGS: Between 2018 and 2021, China conditionally approved 50 drugs, with 80% (40/50) being antineoplastic agents. Premarketing pivotal trials predominantly used single-arm clinical trials (83.7%, 41/49), while postmarketing trials mainly employed randomized controlled clinical trials (81.0%, 34/42). In oncology drugs, conditionally approved drugs with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) as primary endpoints achieved significant clinical value in terms of efficacy. However, there were also pivotal clinical trials with response rate (RR) as the primary endpoint that demonstrated lower clinical benefits (8.9% of drugs with RR below 20%). Safety analysis revealed substantial variations in the proportions of grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs) across pivotal trials (Grade ≥ 3 AEs: 9.0%-99.0%; SAEs: 8.0%-83.0%). For nononcology drugs, pivotal trials also demonstrated an acceptable risk-benefit ratio but exhibited methodological issues. Meanwhile, Most postmarketing studies lacked completion date restrictions (43.2%, 17/47), and no requirements were specified for the transition to full approval. Furthermore, surrogate endpoints were primarily utilized both pre- and postmarketing, but the rational selection of surrogate endpoints remains to be investigated. IMPLICATIONS: The conditional approval process expedites patient access to drugs for serious diseases. However, challenges pertaining to evidence assessment during approval and design flaws in postmarketing studies exist in China's conditional approval system, necessitating future improvements.

Oncology drug lag in Japan: has it improved over the last decade?

BACKGROUND: Existing studies and statistics on the drug lag between Japan and the United States (US) for anti-cancer drugs indicate that it has decreased, whereas more drugs are left unapproved in Japan. This study aimed to quantify the impact of unapproved drugs on the drug lag. METHODS: Information on 136 anti-cancer drugs approved in the US between 2011 and 2022 was collected. The approval lag, defined as the number of days from the date of approval in the US to the date of approval in Japan, was calculated for all selected drugs, and the median was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The approval lag for drugs not approved in Japan was treated as censored data. Factors potentially associated with the approval lag were explored using Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: The median approval lags for the first half-period (2011-2016) and the last half-period (2017-2022) were 961 days (2.6 years) and 1547 days (4.2 years), respectively (Log-rank test: p = 0.0687). The participation of Japan in the global pivotal trial was associated with a shorter approval lag, and new drug applications by non-Japanese companies that did not rank in the global sales top 20 were associated with a longer approval lag. CONCLUSIONS: Drug lag has not decreased over the last decade. The percentage of pivotal trials for US approval that included Japan has increased but should be further increased in the future. Japan may require a scheme to encourage smaller non-Japanese companies to include Japan in their global clinical development plan.

Trends in the approval of cancer therapies by the FDA in the twenty-first century.

The cancer treatment landscape has changed dramatically since the turn of the century, resulting in substantial improvements in outcomes for patients. This Review summarizes trends in the approval of oncology therapeutic products by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from January 2000 to October 2022, based on a categorization of these products by their mechanism of action and primary target. Notably, the rate of oncology indication approvals has increased in this time, driven by approvals for targeted therapies, as has the rate of introduction of new therapeutic approaches. Kinase inhibitors are the dominant product class by number of approved products and indications, yet immune checkpoint inhibitors have the second most approvals despite not entering the market until 2011. Other trends include a slight increase in the share of approvals for biomarker-defined populations and the emergence of tumour-site-agnostic approvals. Finally, we consider the implications of the trends for the future of oncology therapeutic product development, including the impact of novel therapeutic approaches and technologies.

Biosimilars in the Treatment of Retinal Disease in the United States.

Biosimilars have recently emerged into the vitreoretinal pharmaceutical market. This review defines biosimilars, discusses the approval process, and reviews the benefits, risks, and controversies regarding biosimilars. This review also discusses ranibizumab biosimilars that have recently received United States Food and Drug Administration approval in the United States and discusses anti-vascular endothelial growth factor biosimilars that are in development. [Ophthalmic Surg Lasers Imaging Retina 2023;54:362-366.].

Current perspectives for external control arms in oncology clinical trials: Analysis of EMA approvals 2016-2021.

Leveraging external control data, especially real-world data (RWD), has drawn particular attention in recent years for facilitating oncology clinical development and regulatory decision-making. Medical regulators have published guidance on accelerating the use of RWD and external controls. However, few systematic discussions have been conducted on external controls in cancer drug submissions and regulatory feedback. This study aimed to identify European oncology drug approvals using external control data to demonstrate clinical efficacy. We included 18 eligible submissions employing 24 external controls and then discussed the use of external control, data sources, analysis methods, and regulators' feedback. The external controls have been actively submitted to the European Medical Agency (EMA) recently. We found that 17 % of the EMA-approved cancer drugs in 2016-2021 used external controls, among which 37 % of the cases leveraged RWD. However, nearly one-third of the external controls were not considered supportive evidence by EMA due to limitations regarding heterogeneous patient populations, missing outcome assessment in RWD, and inappropriate statistical analysis. This study highlighted that proper use of external controls requires a careful assessment of clinical settings, data availability, and statistical methodology. For better use of external controls in oncology clinical trials, we recommend: prospective study designs to avoid selection bias, sufficient baseline data to ensure the comparability of study populations, consistent endpoint measurements to enable outcome comparison, robust statistical methodology for comparative analysis, and collaborative efforts of sponsors and regulators to establish regulatory frameworks.

Information about confirmatory studies required for new drugs conditionally approved by Health Canada: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Health Canada conditionally approves new drugs using its Notice of Compliance with conditions (NOC/c) policy. Under this policy Qualifying Notices (QNs) list confirmatory studies that need to be conducted to confirm the drug's efficacy. This study examines the depth of information about methodology and patient demographics in the confirmatory studies. It also compares the outcomes (surrogate or clinical) used to approve the drugs with the outcomes proposed in the confirmatory studies. METHODS: A list of drugs approved under the NOC/c policy and their QNs were sourced from two previous publications as well as Health Canada's NOC/c website. Patient demographics and study methodology in the confirmatory studies listed in the QNs was recorded and counted. The primary outcome used to approve new drugs was recorded from Health Canada's Summary Basis of Decision website and compared to the type of outcome for studies mentioned in the QNs. RESULTS: Seventy-eight drugs were approved using a NOC/c from the time the first drug was approved under the program in July 1998 until May 18, 2022. QNs were missing or all information was redacted for 3 drugs, the remaining 75 QNs listed 154 studies (median of 2 studies per QN, interquartile range 1,3). The outcome, randomization and blinding could not be determined for any study in 43 (57.3%), 36 (48.0%) and 42 (56.0%) QNs, respectively. No study gave the distribution of men and women and the number of patients was given in 23 (14.9%) studies. The expected time of completion of the studies was available for 36 (23.4%) out of 154 and information to identify studies was present for 77 (50.0%), absent for 23 (14.9%) and unclear for 26 (16.9%). Surrogate outcomes were used to approve 54 (84.4%) of 64 drugs. Eight (14.8%) confirmatory studies for these 54 drugs used clinical outcomes, 15 (27.8%) used surrogate outcomes and outcomes were unknown for 31 (57.4%). Specifically for oncology drugs, 44 were approved with surrogate outcomes and one with a clinical outcome. Eight (18.2%) of the 44 oncology drugs approved with surrogate outcomes had confirmatory studies that used clinical outcomes, 14 (31.8%) used surrogate outcomes and the outcome could not be determined for 22 (50.0%). The sole oncology drug approved with a clinical outcome had a confirmatory study with a surrogate outcome. DISCUSSION: QNs contain little information about the methodology or patient demographics of confirmatory studies. Confirmatory studies with surrogate outcomes were used almost one-third of the time to validate efficacy in drugs initially approved using surrogate outcomes. Health Canada needs to develop a template about what information regarding confirmatory studies should be contained in a QN and rethink its use of confirmatory studies using surrogate outcomes. All the data were gathered by a single individual possibly introducing unintended biases.

US Food and Drug Administration Accelerated Approval Program for Nononcology Drug Indications Between 1992 and 2018.

Importance: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants accelerated approval according to surrogate measures of numerous drug indications for serious or life-threatening illnesses such as infectious diseases and cancer. Investigators, including the FDA, have evaluated the program's regulatory and clinical consequences in oncology, but evaluation of nononcology drugs is lacking. Objective: To evaluate the accelerated approval program for nononcology drug indications over a period of 26 years. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study used publicly available data on FDA nononcology drug indications granted accelerated approval from June 1992 through May 2018, with preapproval and confirmatory trials for approved drugs. Data were analyzed from February to April 2022. Main Outcomes and Measures: The study estimated the median time from accelerated approval to occurrence of regulatory outcomes such as regular approval conversion, postapproval boxed warning label changes, confirmatory trial completion, and confirmatory trial results publication. Results: The FDA granted accelerated approval of 48 drugs for 57 nononcology indications, including 23 (40%) HIV treatments, supported by 93 preapproval trials. Forty-three indications (75%) were converted to regular approval at a median time of 53.1 (95% CI, 38.7 to 70.2) months from accelerated approval. There were postapproval label modifications on boxed warnings in 27 indications (47%) with a median time of 248.6 (95% CI, 51.8 to not estimable) months from accelerated approval. Of the 86 required confirmatory trials, 17 (20%) had not fulfilled the postapproval requirements. The median time to confirmatory trial completion was 39.4 (95% CI, 30.7 to 47.9) months. Nine trials (10%) failed to verify clinical efficacy, but only 1 of 8 indications assessed (2%) was withdrawn owing to the failed confirmatory trial, which was 136 months after approval. Results were published in 56 completed confirmatory trials (65%), with the median time being 52.5 (95% CI, 35.6 to 82.2) months from accelerated approval to publication. Conclusions and Relevance: Although the program expedited the approval of nononcology drug indications by a median (IQR) of 53.1 (26.8-133.2) months, safety-related label modifications were often added in boxed warnings after approval, and clinical efficacy was sometimes not confirmed. The study findings and long follow-up period suggest that comprehensive evaluation of such drugs may take more than a decade.

Medication Adherence Measurement Methods in Registration Trials Supporting the Approval of New Medicines: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of Centralized Procedures in the European Union 2010-2020.

Medication adherence is a key factor impacting efficacy and safety of medicines, yet how it is dealt with in European registration trials is unknown. A cross-sectional analysis of European Medicines Agency (EMA) marketing authorization dossiers for new medicines approved through centralized procedures in the European Union between 2010 and 2020 was performed. Data were extracted from European Public Assessment Reports and Clinical Study Reports. Clinical trials covering five therapeutic areas were included: diabetes, respiratory conditions, cardiovascular diseases, infectious diseases, and oncology. Outcomes included adherence assessment, measurement methods, and rates. Overall, 102 medicines studied in 253 clinical trials were reviewed. All but one study reported measuring adherence. Two hundred twenty trials (87%) measured adherence using quantitative methods, while 32 (13%) trials monitored adherence but did not further quantify. Reported adherence rates were high (> 90%) across trials yet marked disparities in measurement methods and definitions were found. The most frequently used adherence measurement method was pill/dose count (single method: 52.7%; in combination: 37.7%; with patient diary/report: 17.3%; electronic methods: 1.4%; bioanalytical methods: 4.1%). Patient diary/report (6.4%) and electronic methods (2.7%) were also used as single methods. Electronic methods were more often used in respiratory and anti-infective trials, while bioanalytical methods were more frequently used in diabetes. Overall, adherence is measured in EMA registration trials, yet the methods used and the way in which adherence rates are presented vary widely between trials and therapeutic areas. To better understand and compare efficacy of medicines, standardization of adherence definitions and measurement methods is needed.

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

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.

Analysis of Supportive Evidence for US Food and Drug Administration Approvals of Novel Drugs in 2020.

Importance: In recent years, drug approvals have been based on fewer, smaller, and less rigorous pivotal trials. Less robust preapproval testing raises questions about the efficacy and clinical value of these drugs. Objective: To assess the regulatory context, pivotal design characteristics, and postmarket requirements (PMRs) and postmarket commitments (PMCs) of novel 2020 drug approvals to characterize the state of evidence at the time of approval. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study identified novel drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Center for Drug Evaluation and Research in 2020. The Drugs@FDA database was used to extract key characteristics of each drug's pivotal trials. Drug approval packages provided regulatory information. The prevalence of key trial design features was compared between oncology and nononcology drugs. Exposures: Drug names, date of approval, indication on labeling, and clinical and regulatory details. Main Outcomes and Measures: Number of pivotal trials, pivotal trial design (randomization, masking, groups), trial comparator, trial hypothesis, trial end points, results, number and type of expedited pathway designations, and number and type of PMRs and PMCs. Results: The 49 novel therapeutics approved in 2020 were supported by 75 pivotal trials. More than half of drugs (28 [57.1%]) were supported by a single pivotal trial. Trial sizes ranged from 19 to 2230 participants. More than three-fourths of trials (57 [76.0%]) had a randomization component, and nearly two-thirds (46 [61.3%]) were double-masked. Most used a superiority approach. Roughly half (39 [52.0%]) compared the novel therapeutic with a placebo or vehicle control; 13 (17.3%), an active control; 2 (2.7%), both a placebo and active control; and 21 (28.0%), a historical, external, or other control. Nearly half of pivotal trials (34 [45.3%]) used a surrogate measure as a primary end point. Pivotal trials supporting oncology approvals were much more likely to have historical controls than nononcology approvals (13 of 18 [72.2%] vs 8 of 57 [14.0%]; P < .001) and to use at least 1 surrogate measure as a primary end point (17 [94.4%] vs 17 [29.8%]; P < .001). Forty drugs had at least 1 PMR or PMC, accounting for 178 PMRs and PMCs across the cohort. Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that the increased flexibility in the characteristics of acceptable preapproval evidence can be partially explained by the increase in trials of drugs for rare and other serious conditions that require flexible testing strategies as well as the associated regulatory changes that have accumulated over time. The FDA and consumers may benefit from a revised approach that better balances time to market with ensuring that approved drugs show evidence of efficacy.

An appraisal of FDA approvals for adult solid tumours in 2017-2021: has the eagle landed?

In 2016, the then US President Barack Obama announced the Cancer Moonshot with a view to making 10 years' worth of progress in cancer prevention, diagnosis and treatment in only 5 years. This Perspective evaluates the FDA approvals of therapeutic agents for use in solid tumour oncology for the period 2017-2021 against the aspirations of the Cancer Moonshot. In the past 5 years, the FDA issued an unprecedented 161 new approvals of therapeutic agents for various indications in adult patients with solid tumours. However, less than a third (27%) of the newly approved medicines are supported by unequivocal evidence of an overall survival benefit; most are supported by positive signals from surrogate end points. Herein, the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 was used to evaluate the clinical value of the therapies granted FDA approval during the period 2017-2021. The results of this appraisal indicate a low level of clinical benefit for a substantial proportion (~20%) of the new indications, with most (~44%) providing intermediate benefit. The data suggest that, beyond increases in the sheer quantity of approvals, considerable improvement in the quality of the approved treatments is required to more confidently ensure that the clinical benefits are real and substantial enough to clearly justify the risks to patients.

Premarket assessment of molecular alterations in drug targets: a case study of 2020 drug approvals.

Aim: Molecular alterations in drug targets may result in differential drug activity. Therefore, the authors aimed to characterize how molecular alterations in drug targets were assessed during drug development. Materials & methods: The authors analyzed nonclinical and clinical study reports submitted to the US FDA for novel drugs approved in 2020 to determine if in vitro studies, animal models or clinical studies assessed molecular alterations in the drug target. Results & conclusion: Assessment of the impact of molecular alterations in drug targets on drug activity varies considerably depending on the type of assessment and therapeutic area. Premarket assessment of drug target molecular alterations is common in the oncology setting, less frequent in the genetic disease setting and rare for other diseases.

Radiotherapy and newly approved cancer drugs - A quantitative analysis of registered protocols for drugs approved for the treatment of solid tumors.

BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: To evaluate the usage of RT in trial protocols for anti-cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). METHODS: Drugs which had been granted an FDA approval between 2010 and 2017 for the treatment of solid tumors in adults were identified. Use of RT in relation to each drug's approval date was reviewed on ClinicalTrials.gov. RESULTS: Out of 42 drugs, none was initially approved for an indication which mandates RT. One drug (2.4%) has a post-approval label extension for sequential usage after RT. 5846 records were screened, exclusion of non-cancer trials and duplicates resulted in 4254 protocols out of which 2919 were industry-sponsored (68.6%). RT was tested in 350 (8.2%) studies. Out of 75 drug/RT trials which were initiated prior to approval, fourteen had not yet started recruitment, 45 were recruiting, one was completed, one prematurely terminated and fourteen fully-recruited but ongoing at approval time. Out of the fully-recruited or completed studies, results from four studies on three drugs were already published. In 52.4% of drugs, no patient had been treated with a drug/RT combination at the approval date. Drug/RT studies were less likely industry-sponsored (p < 0.001) and more likely initiated post-approval (p < 0.001) compared to drug-only trials. Despite this imbalance, pre-approval drug/RT trials were still mostly industry-sponsored (65.3%). CONCLUSION: No drug/RT data were publicly available in over 90% of newly approved anti-cancer drugs. These results indicate that clinicians must rely on postmarketing surveillance to identify drug/RT interactions as data from trials are unavailable at approval.

Understanding Use of Real-World Data and Real-World Evidence to Support Regulatory Decisions on Medical Product Effectiveness.

RWE has potential to provide efficient and relevant information on the effectiveness of medical products, complementing the data generated in clinical trials; however, how RWE can support regulatory decision-making is unclear, potentially limiting its use. The objective of this study was to identify and characterize instances where RWE was included in the evidence package to support the effectiveness of a medical product regulated by U.S. Food and Drug Administration. A retrospective landscape analysis was conducted to identify instances where RWE was submitted to support effectiveness through targeted review of white and gray literature and publicly available FDA reviews of medical products. Trained evaluators examined FDA reviews to determine if and how RWE contributed to regulatory decision-making regarding effectiveness. Evaluators identified 34 instances of RWE submitted between 1954 and 2020, where 26% of instances were for oncology, 18% for hematology, and 12% for neurology. Over 50% of the products were indicated for use in rare disease or pediatric populations. 82% of products where RWE was submitted received an orphan designation. RWE was included in the product label in 59% of instances. Stated reasons indicating why submitted RWE did not significantly contribute to regulatory decision-making included lack of pre-specification of study design and analysis as well as data reliability and relevancy concerns. While there is historical use of RWE to support medical product effectiveness for oncology and rare diseases, potential exists to leverage the strengths of RWE to support other therapeutic areas and capture outcomes that are most relevant to patients.