Second Paediatric Strategy Forum for anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibition in paediatric malignancies: ACCELERATE in collaboration with the European Medicines Agency with the participation of the Food and Drug Administration.

The first (2017) and sixth (2021) multistakeholder Paediatric Strategy Forums focused on anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) inhibition in paediatric malignancies. ALK is an important oncogene and target in several paediatric tumours (anaplastic large cell lymphoma [ALCL], inflammatory myofibroblastic tumour [IMT], neuroblastoma and hemispheric gliomas in infants and young children) with unmet therapeutic needs. ALK tyrosine kinase inhibitors have been demonstrated to be active both in ALK fusion-kinase positive ALCL and IMT. ALK alterations differ, with fusions occurring in ALCL, IMT and gliomas, and activating mutations and amplification in neuroblastoma. While there are many ALK inhibitors in development, the number of children diagnosed with ALK driven malignancies is very small. The objectives of this ALK Forum were to (i) Describe current knowledge of ALK biology in childhood cancers; (ii) Provide an overview of the development of ALK inhibitors for children; (iii) Identify the unmet needs taking into account planned or current ongoing trials; (iv) Conclude how second/third-generation inhibitors could be evaluated and prioritised; (v) Identify lessons learnt from the experience with ALK inhibitors to accelerate the paediatric development of other anti-cancer targeted agents in the new regulatory environments. There has been progress over the last four years, with more trials of ALK inhibitors opened in paediatrics and more regulatory submissions. In January 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration approved crizotinib for the treatment of paediatric and young adult patients with relapsed or refractory ALCL and there are paediatric investigation plans (PIPs) for brigatinib and for crizotinib in ALCL and IMT. In ALCL, the current goal is to investigate the inclusion of ALK inhibitors in front-line therapy with the aim of decreasing toxicity with higher/similar efficacy compared to present first-line therapies. For IMT, the focus is to develop a joint prospective trial with one product in children, adolescents and adults, taking advantage of the common biology across the age spectrum. As approximately 50% of IMTs are ALK-positive, molecular analysis is required to identify patients to be treated with an ALK inhibitor. For neuroblastoma, crizotinib has not shown robust anti-tumour activity. A focused and sequential development of ALK inhibitors with very good central nervous system (CNS) penetration in CNS tumours with ALK fusions should be undertaken. The Forum reinforced the strong need for global academic collaboration, very early involvement of regulators with studies seeking possible registration and early academia-multicompany engagement. Innovations in study design and conduct and the use of 'real-world data' supporting development in these rare sub-groups of patients for whom randomised clinical trials are not feasible are important initiatives. A focused and sequenced development strategy, where one product is evaluated first with other products being assessed sequentially, is applicable for ALK inhibitors and other medicinal products in children.

Clinical Trial Evidence Supporting US Food and Drug Administration Approval of Novel Cancer Therapies Between 2000 and 2016.

Importance: Clinical trial evidence used to support drug approval is typically the only information on benefits and harms that patients and clinicians can use for decision-making when novel cancer therapies become available. Various evaluations have raised concern about the uncertainty surrounding these data, and a systematic investigation of the available information on treatment outcomes for cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is warranted. Objective: To describe the clinical trial data available on treatment outcomes at the time of FDA approval of all novel cancer drugs approved for the first time between 2000 and 2016. Design, Setting, and Participants: This comparative effectiveness study analyzed randomized clinical trials and single-arm clinical trials of novel drugs approved for the first time to treat any type of cancer. Approval packages were obtained from drugs@FDA, a publicly available database containing information on drug and biologic products approved for human use in the US. Data from January 2000 to December 2016 were included in this study. Main Outcomes and Measures: Regulatory and clinical trial characteristics were described. For randomized clinical trials, summary treatment outcomes for overall survival, progression-free survival, and tumor response across all therapies were calculated, and median absolute survival increases were estimated. Tumor types and regulatory characteristics were assessed separately. Results: Between 2000 and 2016, 92 novel cancer drugs were approved by the FDA for 100 indications based on data from 127 clinical trials. The 127 clinical trials included a median of 191 participants (interquartile range [IQR], 106-448 participants). Overall, 65 clinical trials (51.2%) were randomized, and 95 clinical trials (74.8%) were open label. Of 100 indications, 44 indications underwent accelerated approval, 42 indications were for hematological cancers, and 58 indications were for solid tumors. Novel drugs had mean hazard ratios of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.73-0.81; I2 = 46%) for overall survival and 0.52 (95% CI, 0.47-0.57; I2 = 88%) for progression-free survival. The median tumor response, expressed as relative risk, was 2.37 (95% CI, 2.00-2.80; I2 = 91%). The median absolute survival benefit was 2.40 months (IQR, 1.25-3.89 months). Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, data available at the time of FDA drug approval indicated that novel cancer therapies were associated with substantial tumor responses but with prolonging median overall survival by only 2.40 months. Approval data from 17 years of clinical trials suggested that patients and clinicians typically had limited information available regarding the benefits of novel cancer treatments at market entry.

Paediatric Strategy Forum for medicinal product development for acute myeloid leukaemia in children and adolescents: ACCELERATE in collaboration with the European Medicines Agency with participation of the Food and Drug Administration.

PURPOSE: The current standard-of-care for front-line therapy for acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) results in short-term and long-term toxicity, but still approximately 40% of children relapse. Therefore, there is a major need to accelerate the evaluation of innovative medicines, yet drug development continues to be adult-focused. Furthermore, the large number of competing agents in rare patient populations requires coordinated prioritisation, within the global regulatory framework and cooperative group initiatives. METHODS: The fourth multi-stakeholder Paediatric Strategy Forum focused on AML in children and adolescents. RESULTS: CD123 is a high priority target and the paediatric development should be accelerated as a proof-of-concept. Efforts must be coordinated, however, as there are a limited number of studies that can be delivered. Studies of FLT3 inhibitors in agreed paediatric investigation plans present challenges to be completed because they require enrolment of a larger number of patients than actually exist. A consensus was developed by industry and academia of optimised clinical trials. For AML with rare mutations that are more frequent in adolescents than in children, adult trials should enrol adolescents and when scientifically justified, efficacy data could be extrapolated. Methodologies and definitions of minimal residual disease need to be standardised internationally and validated as a new response criterion. Industry supported, academic sponsored platform trials could identify products to be further developed. The Leukaemia and Lymphoma Society PedAL/EUpAL initiative has the potential to be a major advance in the field. CONCLUSION: These initiatives continue to accelerate drug development for children with AML and ultimately improve clinical outcomes.

Metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer: Academic insights and perspectives through bibliometric analysis.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (MCRPC) and studies related to MCRPC have drawn global attention. The main objective of this bibliometric study was to provide an overview of MCRPC, explore clusters and trends in research and investigate the future direction of MCRPC research. METHODS: A total of 4089 publications published between 1979 and 2018 were retrieved from the Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection database. Different aspects of MCRPC research, including the countries/territories, institutions, journals, authors, research areas, funding agencies and author keywords, were analyzed. RESULTS: The number of annual MCRPC publications increased rapidly after 2010. American researchers played a vital role in this increase, as they published the most publications. The most productive institution was Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center. De Bono, JS (the United Kingdom [UK]) and Scher, HI (the United States of America [USA]) were the two most productive authors. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) funded the largest number of published papers. Analyses of keywords suggested that therapies (abiraterone, enzalutamide, etc.) would attract global attention after US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. CONCLUSIONS: Developed countries, especially the USA, were the leading nations for MCRPC research because of their abundant funding and frequent international collaborations. Therapy was one of the most vital aspects of MCRPC research. Therapies targeting DNA repair or the androgen receptor (AR) signing pathway and new therapies especially prostate-specific membrane antigen (PSMA)-based radioligand therapy (RLT) would be the next focus of MCRPC research.

Public-private partnerships in transplant drug development.

The Transplant Therapeutics Consortium (TTC), a public-private partnership (PPP) led by the Critical Path Institute (C-Path), recently published a whitepaper titled "The Importance of Drug Safety and Tolerability in the Development of New Immunosuppressive Therapy for Transplant Recipients" by Stegall et al in the American Journal of Transplantation. As staff members of the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA), Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER), Office of New Drugs and Office of Translational Science, and the Oncology Center of Excellence, we would like to provide our perspective on the TTCs efforts and the whitepaper.

Update on Therapeutic Protein-Drug Interaction: Information in Labeling.

This review evaluated the significance of therapeutic protein (TP)-drug interactions and the current practices for assessing the interaction potential. We reviewed US FDA labels of approved TPs with drug-drug interaction (DDI) assessment. TP-drug interactions have been evaluated from in vitro studies, animal studies, and/or clinical settings. Of the 150 FDA-approved TPs as of May 2019, 49 TP labels contained pharmacokinetic (PK)-related DDI information derived from at least one study method. Our review found that more than half of the clinical PK DDI evaluations showed no interaction, and no dose adjustment has been recommended for any of the rest TPs. The results and trends observed in this review may further enhance and inform risk-based approaches to evaluating the potential for TP-drug interactions.

Teaching non-FDA approved nonprescription products: Educating students about potential risks and liability.

INTRODUCTION: University professors who teach self-care and nonprescription products must decide which products and ingredients to recommend to students. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved many nonprescription ingredients as both safe and effective through the evidence-based FDA Over-the-Counter (OTC) Product Review or New Drug Application (NDA) processes. However, thousands of nonprescription products sold in community pharmacies are of unproven safety and/or efficacy. These include herbs, dietary supplements, homeopathic products, and essential oils. Selling products of unproven safety and/or efficacy can have serious consequences, exposing pharmacists to legal liability due to violations of the principles of implied and/or express warranties, as found in the Uniform Commercial Code. Further, the FDA defines products lacking proven safety and efficacy as health fraud, a crime aggressively pursued by both the FDA and the Federal Trade Commission. COMMENTARY: Faculty members who limit their nonprescription ingredient recommendations to those with FDA approval can justify those recommendations by weight of evidence. If the faculty member recommends ingredients that the FDA has not approved (e.g., kava), students should be taught that those ingredients pose unknown risks and lack proven benefit, and also that their labels virtually always lack doses proven to be safe, precautions, contraindications, and drug interactions. IMPLICATIONS: Selling unproven products can lower trust in pharmacy, cause patient harm, and expose the pharmacist to legal action. These issues should be explained to students whenever unproven products are discussed or recommended.

Using a Benefit-Risk Analysis Approach to Capture Regulatory Decision Making: Melanoma.

Drug regulators seek to make decisions regarding drug approvals based on analysis of the relevant benefits and risks. In this work, 25 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) decisions on melanoma drugs were identified and analyzed based on clinical trial results published between 1999 and 2017. In each case, the benefits and risks of the new drug in each clinical trial relative to a comparator (typically the control arm of the same clinical trial) were quantified. The benefits and risks were analyzed using a common scale to allow for direct comparison. A sensitivity analysis was conducted using vemurafenib to explore the magnitude of uncertainty in the quantitative assessments. The associated FDA decision outcomes of the new drugs were consistent with the benefits and risks quantified in this work.

Anatomy of Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS).

This Chapter provides an introduction and overview of the U.S. FDA REMS program and applicable regulatory aspects. Topics covered include the 2015 Draft Guidance, organization structure and functions, a discussion on pharmacovigilance and adverse event reports, and a discussion of the applicability of REMS in oncology.

New Cancer Drug Approvals From the Perspective of a Universal Healthcare System: Analyses of the Pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review Recommendations.

Background: FDA approvals do not consider cost, but they set the tone for regulatory approvals worldwide, including in countries with universal healthcare where cost-effectiveness, utility, and adoption feasibility are considered rigorously. Methods: Data from the pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR), a national drug review system that makes evidence-based funding recommendations to Canada's provinces and territories, were collected. Our objectives were to assess (1) temporal trends in cost and efficacy of drugs reviewed, (2) correlations among magnitude of benefits, cost, and pCODR decisions, and (3) predictors of approvals. Results: A total of 60 drugs for 91 indications were reviewed by pCODR from January 2012 to January 2018. Of the 91 reviews (approved previously by FDA), 18 received negative recommendations on the grounds of inadequate clinical benefits; 87% (64/73) of those approved were conditional on improvement in cost. Surrogate outcomes were used to support approvals in 83% of the reviews, which were not correlated with overall survival (rSpearman = +0.16; P=.24). Median cost/quality-adjusted life years (QALY) increased by 36% per annum (quantile regression, P=.0029), although benefits in overall and progression-free survival were stable (P=.21 and .65, respectively). Median-based incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of new drugs was $186,403 CAD (range, $7,200 to $2.1 million). Higher ICER was a strong predictor of a negative pCODR recommendation (P<.01). Conclusions: A substantial number of cancer drugs that are FDA approved for public use do not meet Canadian standards for efficacy. Cost of cancer drugs increases by a third annually in Canada, but the benefits-measured mostly with surrogates that did not correlate with survival-are stable. With finite resources to share among multiple societal priorities, such as education and preventive health, cancer drug cost may be unsustainable despite price regulation.