Overall survival benefits of cancer drugs initially approved by the US Food and Drug Administration on the basis of immature survival data: a retrospective analysis.

BACKGROUND: New cancer drugs can be approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) on the basis of surrogate endpoints while data on overall survival are still incomplete or immature, with too few deaths for meaningful analysis. We aimed to evaluate whether clinical trials with immature survival data generated evidence of overall survival benefit during the period after marketing authorisation, and where that evidence was reported. METHODS: In this retrospective analysis, we searched Drugs@FDA to identify cancer drug indications approved between Jan 1, 2001, and Dec 31, 2018, on the basis of immature survival data. We systematically collected publicly available data on postapproval overall survival results in labelling (Drugs@FDA), journal publications (MEDLINE via PubMed), and clinical trial registries (ClinicalTrials.gov). The primary outcome was availability of statistically significant overall survival benefits during the period after marketing authorisation (until March 31, 2023). Additionally, we evaluated the availability and timing of overall survival findings in labelling, journal publications, and ClinicalTrials.gov records. FINDINGS: During the study period, the FDA granted marketing authorisation to 223 cancer drug indications, 95 of which had overall survival as an endpoint. 39 (41%) of these 95 indications had immature survival data. After a minimum of 4·3 years of follow-up during the period after marketing authorisation (and median 8·2 years [IQR 5·3-12·0] since FDA approval), additional survival data from the pivotal trials became available in either revised labelling or publications, or both, for 38 (97%) of 39 indications. Additional data on overall survival showed a statistically significant benefit in 12 (32%) of 38 indications, whereas mature data yielded statistically non-significant overall survival findings for 24 (63%) indications. Statistically significant evidence of overall survival benefit was reported in either labelling or publications a median of 1·5 years (IQR 0·8-2·3) after initial approval. The median time to availability of statistically non-significant overall survival results was 3·3 years (2·2-4·5). The availability of overall survival results on ClinicalTrials.gov varied considerably. INTERPRETATION: Fewer than a third of indications approved with immature survival data showed a statistically significant overall survival benefit after approval. Notable inconsistencies in timing and availability of information after approval across different sources emphasise the need for better reporting standards. FUNDING: None.

Treatment methods for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia in England: A cost-effectiveness analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the cost-effectiveness of different treatments for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN). DESIGN: A cost-effectiveness analysis based on data available in the literature and expert opinion. SETTING: England. POPULATION: Women treated for CIN. METHODS: We developed a decision-analytic model to simulate the clinical course of 1000 women who received local treatment for CIN and were followed up for 10 years after treatment. In the model we considered surgical complications as well as oncological and reproductive outcomes over the 10-year period. The costs calculated were those incurred by the National Health Service (NHS) of England. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Cost per one CIN2+ recurrence averted (oncological outcome); cost per one preterm birth averted (reproductive outcome); overall cost per one adverse oncological or reproductive outcome averted. RESULTS: For young women of reproductive age, large loop excision of the transformation zone (LLETZ) was the most cost-effective treatment overall at all willingness-to-pay thresholds. For postmenopausal women, LLETZ remained the most cost-effective treatment up to a threshold of £31,500, but laser conisation became the most cost-effective treatment above that threshold. CONCLUSIONS: LLETZ is the most cost-effective treatment for both younger and older women. However, for older women, more radical excision with laser conisation could also be considered if the NHS is willing to spend more than £31,500 to avert one CIN2+ recurrence.

Prevalence, diagnostic delay and economic burden of endometriosis and its impact on quality of life: results from an Eastern Mediterranean population.

BACKGROUND: There are limited data on endometriosis from the Eastern Mediterranean region. This study for the first time estimates the prevalence and impact of endometriosis on women in Northern Cyprus, an under-represented region in Europe. METHODS: Cyprus Women's Health Research Initiative, a cross-sectional study recruited 7646 women aged 18-55 in Northern Cyprus between January 2018 and February 2020. Cases were identified using self-reported and ultrasound data and two control groups were defined, with (n = 2922) and without (n = 4314) pain. Standardized tools, including the 11-point Numerical Rating Scale and the Short Form 36 Health Survey version 2, were used to assess pain and quality of life, respectively. RESULTS: Prevalence and median diagnostic delay of endometriosis were 5.4% [95% confidence interval (CI): 4.9-5.9%, n = 410] and 7 (interquartile range 15.5) years. Endometriosis cases experienced a higher prevalence of bladder pain compared with asymptomatic pain controls (6.3% vs. 1.0%, P < 0.001) and irritable bowel syndrome relating to pelvic pain compared with symptomatic (4.6% vs. 2.6%, P = 0.027) and asymptomatic (0.3%, P < 0.001) controls. The odds of endometriosis cases reporting an anxiety diagnosis was 1.56 (95% CI: 1.03-2.38) higher than the symptomatic and 1.95 (95% CI: 1.30-2.92) times higher than the asymptomatic controls. The physical component score of the health-related quality-of-life instrument suggested a significant difference between the endometriosis cases and the symptomatic controls (46.8 vs. 48.5, P = 0.034). Average annual economic cost of endometriosis cases was Int$9864 (95% CI: $8811-$10 917) including healthcare, costs relating to absence and loss of productivity at work. CONCLUSION: Prevalence was lower than the global 10% estimate, and substantial proportion of women without endometriosis reported moderate/severe pelvic pain hinting at many undiagnosed cases within this population. Coupled with lower quality of life, significant economic burden and underutilized pain management options, the study highlights multiple opportunities to improve care for endometriosis patients and women with pelvic pain.

Research evaluating the effectiveness of dementia interventions in low- and middle-income countries: A systematic mapping of 340 randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVES: More people with dementia live in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) than in high-income countries, but best-practice care recommendations are often based on studies from high-income countries. We aimed to map the available evidence on dementia interventions in LMICs. METHODS: We systematically mapped available evidence on interventions that aimed to improve the lives of people with dementia or mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and/or their carers in LMICs (registered on PROSPERO: CRD42018106206). We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published between 2008 and 2018. We searched 11 electronic academic and grey literature databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL Plus, Global Health, World Health Organization Global Index Medicus, Virtual Health Library, Cochrane CENTRAL, Social Care Online, BASE, MODEM Toolkit) and examined the number and characteristics of RCTs according to intervention type. We used the Cochrane risk of bias 2.0 tool to assess the risk of bias. RESULTS: We included 340 RCTs with 29,882 (median, 68) participants, published 2008-2018. Over two-thirds of the studies were conducted in China (n = 237, 69.7%). Ten LMICs accounted for 95.9% of included RCTs. The largest category of interventions was Traditional Chinese Medicine (n = 149, 43.8%), followed by Western medicine pharmaceuticals (n = 109, 32.1%), supplements (n = 43, 12.6%), and structured therapeutic psychosocial interventions (n = 37, 10.9%). Overall risk of bias was judged to be high for 201 RCTs (59.1%), moderate for 136 (40.0%), and low for 3 (0.9%). CONCLUSIONS: Evidence-generation on interventions for people with dementia or MCI and/or their carers in LMICs is concentrated in just a few countries, with no RCTs reported in the vast majority of LMICs. The body of evidence is skewed towards selected interventions and overall subject to high risk of bias. There is a need for a more coordinated approach to robust evidence-generation for LMICs.

Price changes and within-class competition of cancer drugs in the USA and Europe: a comparative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cancer drugs are a major component of pharmaceutical spending in the USA and Europe. The number of approved cancer drugs continues to increase. More new drugs with overlapping mechanisms of action and similar approved indications might be expected to decrease prices within drug classes. We compared patterns of price changes for cancer drugs within the same class in the USA and in two European countries (Germany and Switzerland) with national mechanisms for drug price negotiation. METHODS: For this comparative analysis, we identified cancer drugs approved for the treatment of solid cancers in the USA and Europe (Germany and Switzerland) between Jan 1, 2009, and Dec 31, 2020, using the US Food and Drug Administration's Drugs@FDA database and the European Medicines Agency's publicly available database. We considered cancer drugs as within-class competitors if they were approved for the same indication and had the same biological mechanism. We calculated monthly treatment prices for each drug, median price changes at launch and over time, and differences within and across drug classes. European price data were converted to US dollars by applying the exchange rates on Dec 1, 2020, and prices were adjusted for inflation. Median changes in the drugs' monthly treatment prices at 2 and 4 years after market entry across and within drug classes were also assessed. For the USA, correlations in relative price changes between all pairs of drugs within and across drug classes were calculated with Spearman's rank correlation. FINDINGS: Our study cohort comprised 12 drug classes covering nine indications. With the exception of one drug, increasing prices were observed within and across all drug classes in the USA (median 6·07% [range -3·60 to 33·83] 2 years after market entry, and 15·31% [-4·15 to 54·64] 4 years after market entry). By contrast, in Europe, prices generally decreased over time or did not increase more than inflation (2 years after market entry: -21·01% [range -50·72 to 12·71] in Germany and -1·48% [-26·81 to 1·69] in Switzerland; 4 years after market entry: -25·54% [-51·81 to 11·63] in Germany and -13·02% [-43·83 to 18·31] in Switzerland). In the USA, most prices changes within and across drug classes occurred at the end and beginning of the year (ie, from Dec 1 to Jan 31). In the USA, correlation for price changes was r=0·29 (SD 0·36) for within-class drugs and r=0·28 (0·36) for drugs across drug classes. INTERPRETATION: Competition within classes of cancer drugs generally did not constrain rising prices in the USA. Price negotiations, as practised in Germany or Switzerland, could help address the high prices of cancer drugs in the USA. FUNDING: Swiss Cancer Research Foundation (Krebsforschung Schweiz), Swiss National Science Foundation, and Arnold Ventures.

Comparative effectiveness and risk of preterm birth of local treatments for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and stage IA1 cervical cancer: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The trade-off between comparative effectiveness and reproductive morbidity of different treatment methods for cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) remains unclear. We aimed to determine the risks of treatment failure and preterm birth associated with various treatment techniques. METHODS: In this systematic review and network meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials database for randomised and non-randomised studies reporting on oncological or reproductive outcomes after CIN treatments from database inception until March 9, 2022, without language restrictions. We included studies of women with CIN, glandular intraepithelial neoplasia, or stage IA1 cervical cancer treated with excision (cold knife conisation [CKC], laser conisation, and large loop excision of the transformation zone [LLETZ]) or ablation (radical diathermy, laser ablation, cold coagulation, and cryotherapy). We excluded women treated with hysterectomy. The primary outcomes were any treatment failure (defined as any abnormal histology or cytology) and preterm birth (<37 weeks of gestation). The network for preterm birth also included women with untreated CIN (untreated colposcopy group). The main reference group was LLETZ for treatment failure and the untreated colposcopy group for preterm birth. For randomised controlled trials, we extracted group-level summary data, and for observational studies, we extracted relative treatment effect estimates adjusted for potential confounders, when available, and we did random-effects network meta-analyses to obtain odds ratios (ORs) with 95% CIs. We assessed within-study and across-study risk of bias using Cochrane tools. This systematic review is registered with PROSPERO, CRD42018115495 and CRD42018115508. FINDINGS: 7880 potential citations were identified for the outcome of treatment failure and 4107 for the outcome of preterm birth. After screening and removal of duplicates, the network for treatment failure included 19 240 participants across 71 studies (25 randomised) and the network for preterm birth included 68 817 participants across 29 studies (two randomised). Compared with LLETZ, risk of treatment failure was reduced for other excisional methods (laser conisation: OR 0·59 [95% CI 0·44-0·79] and CKC: 0·63 [0·50-0·81]) and increased for laser ablation (1·69 [1·27-2·24]) and cryotherapy (1·84 [1·33-2·56]). No differences were found for the comparison of cold coagulation versus LLETZ (1·09 [0·68-1·74]) but direct data were based on two small studies only. Compared with the untreated colposcopy group, risk of preterm birth was increased for all excisional techniques (CKC: 2·27 [1·70-3·02]; laser conisation: 1·77 [1·29-2·43]; and LLETZ: 1·37 [1·16-1·62]), whereas no differences were found for ablative methods (laser ablation: 1·05 [0·78-1·41]; cryotherapy: 1·01 [0·35-2·92]; and cold coagulation: 0·67 [0·02-29·15]). The evidence was based mostly on observational studies with their inherent risks of bias, and the credibility of many comparisons was low. INTERPRETATION: More radical excisional techniques reduce the risk of treatment failure but increase the risk of subsequent preterm birth. Although there is uncertainty, ablative treatments probably do not increase risk of preterm birth, but are associated with higher failure rates than excisional techniques. Although we found LLETZ to have balanced effectiveness and reproductive morbidity, treatment choice should rely on a woman's age, size and location of lesion, and future family planning. FUNDING: National Institute for Health and Care Research: Research for Patient Benefit.

Coverage of New Drugs in Medicare Part D.

Policy Points Only a small minority of new drugs in "nonprotected" classes are widely covered by Part D plans nationwide in the year after US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. Part D plans frequently apply utilization management restrictions such as prior authorizations to newly approved drugs in both protected and nonprotected classes. Drug price influences both formulary inclusion (in nonprotected classes) and coverage restrictions (in both protected and nonprotected classes), while other drug characteristics such as therapeutic benefits are not consistently associated with formulary design. Plans do not seem to favor the minority of drugs that are determined to offer added therapeutic benefit over existing alternatives. CONTEXT: Medicare Part D is an outpatient prescription drug benefit for older Americans covering more than 46 million beneficiaries. Except for mandatory coverage for essentially all drugs in six protected classes, plans have substantial flexibility in how they design their formularies: which drugs are covered, which drugs are subject to restrictions, and what factors determine formulary placement. Our objective in this paper was to document the extent to which Part D plans limit coverage of newly approved drugs. METHODS: We examined the formulary design of 4,582 Part D plans from 2014 through 2018 and measured (1) the decision to cover newly approved drugs in nonprotected classes, (2) use of utilization management tools in protected and nonprotected classes, and (3) the association between plan design and drug-level characteristics such as 30-day cost, therapeutic benefit, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) expedited regulatory pathway. FINDINGS: The FDA approved 109 new drugs predominantly used in outpatient settings between 2013 and 2017. Of these, 75 fell outside of the six protected drug classes. One-fifth of drugs in nonprotected classes (15 out of 75) were covered by more than half of plans during the first year after approval. Coverage was often conditional on utilization management strategies in both protected and nonprotected classes: only seven drugs (6%) were covered without prior authorization requirements in more than half of plans. Higher 30-day drug costs were associated with more widespread coverage in nonprotected classes: drugs that cost less than $150 for a 30-day course were covered by fewer than 20% of plans while those that cost more than $30,000 per 30 days were covered by more than 50% of plans. Plans were also more likely to implement utilization management tools on high-cost drugs in both protected and nonprotected classes. A higher proportion of plans implemented utilization management strategies on covered drugs with first-in-class status than drugs that were not first in class. Other drug characteristics, including availability of added therapeutic benefit and inclusion in FDA expedited regulatory approval, were not consistently associated with plan coverage or formulary restrictions. CONCLUSIONS: Newly approved drugs are frequently subject to formulary exclusions and restrictions in Medicare Part D. Ensuring that formulary design in Part D is linked closely to the therapeutic value of newly approved drugs would improve patients' welfare.

Generating comparative evidence on new drugs and devices after approval.

Certain limitations of evidence available on drugs and devices at the time of market approval often persist in the post-marketing period. Often, post-marketing research landscape is fragmented. When regulatory agencies require pharmaceutical and device manufacturers to conduct studies in the post-marketing period, these studies might remain incomplete many years after approval. Even when completed, many post-marketing studies lack meaningful active comparators, have observational designs, and might not collect patient-relevant outcomes. Regulators, in collaboration with the industry and patients, ought to ensure that the key questions unanswered at the time of drug and device approval are resolved in a timely fashion during the post-marketing phase. We propose a set of seven key guiding principles that we believe will provide the necessary incentives for pharmaceutical and device manufacturers to generate comparative data in the post-marketing period. First, regulators (for drugs and devices), notified bodies (for devices in Europe), health technology assessment organisations, and payers should develop customised evidence generation plans, ensuring that future post-approval studies address any limitations of the data available at the time of market entry impacting the benefit-risk profiles of drugs and devices. Second, post-marketing studies should be designed hierarchically: priority should be given to efforts aimed at evaluating a product's net clinical benefit in randomised trials compared with current known effective therapy, whenever possible, to address common decisional dilemmas. Third, post-marketing studies should incorporate active comparators as appropriate. Fourth, use of non-randomised studies for the evaluation of clinical benefit in the post-marketing period should be limited to instances when the magnitude of effect is deemed to be large or when it is possible to reasonably infer the comparative benefits or risks in settings, in which doing a randomised trial is not feasible. Fifth, efficiency of randomised trials should be improved by streamlining patient recruitment and data collection through innovative design elements. Sixth, governments should directly support and facilitate the production of comparative post-marketing data by investing in the development of collaborative research networks and data systems that reduce the complexity, cost, and waste of rigorous post-marketing research efforts. Last, financial incentives and penalties should be developed or more actively reinforced.

Generating comparative evidence on new drugs and devices before approval.

Fewer than half of new drugs have data on their comparative benefits and harms against existing treatment options at the time of regulatory approval in Europe and the USA. Even when active-comparator trials exist, they might not produce meaningful data to inform decisions in clinical practice and health policy. The uncertainty associated with the paucity of well designed active-comparator trials has been compounded by legal and regulatory changes in Europe and the USA that have created a complex mix of expedited programmes aimed at facilitating faster access to new drugs. Comparative evidence generation is even sparser for medical devices. Some have argued that the current process for regulatory approval needs to generate more evidence that is useful for patients, clinicians, and payers in health-care systems. We propose a set of five key principles relevant to the European Medicines Agency, European medical device regulatory agencies, US Food and Drug Administration, as well as payers, that we believe will provide the necessary incentives for pharmaceutical and device companies to generate comparative data on drugs and devices and assure timely availability of evidence that is useful for decision making. First, labelling should routinely inform patients and clinicians whether comparative data exist on new products. Second, regulators should be more selective in their use of programmes that facilitate drug and device approvals on the basis of incomplete benefit and harm data. Third, regulators should encourage the conduct of randomised trials with active comparators. Fourth, regulators should use prospectively designed network meta-analyses based on existing and future randomised trials. Last, payers should use their policy levers and negotiating power to incentivise the generation of comparative evidence on new and existing drugs and devices, for example, by explicitly considering proven added benefit in pricing and payment decisions.

Relative Efficacy of Spironolactone, Eplerenone, and cAnRenone in patients with Chronic Heart failure (RESEARCH): a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

This study aims to assess the comparative benefit and risk profile of treatment with mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists (MRAs) with regard to all-cause mortality (primary endpoint), cardiovascular mortality, or heart failure (HF)-related hospitalization (secondary endpoints) and the safety endpoints hyperkalemia, acute renal failure, and gynecomastia in patients with chronic HF. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis following PRISMA-P and PRISMA-NMA guidelines. From 16 different sources, 14 randomized controlled trials totaling 12,213 patients testing an active treatment of either spironolactone, eplerenone, or canrenone/potassium-canreonate in adults with symptomatic HF due to systolic dysfunction reporting any of the above endpoints were retained. Efficacy in comparison to placebo/standard medical care with respect to all-cause mortality was confirmed for spironolactone and eplerenone while no conclusion could be drawn for canrenone (HR 0.69 (0.62; 0.77), 0.82 (0.75; 0.91), and 0.50 (0.17; 1.45), respectively). Indirect comparisons hint a potential (non-significant) preference of spironolactone over eplerenone (HR 0.84 (0.68; 1.03)). The overall risk of bias was low to intermediate. Results for secondary endpoints as well as sensitivity analyses essentially mirrored these findings. The beta-blocker adjusted meta-analysis for the primary endpoint showed the same tendency as the unadjusted one (HR 0.39 (0.07; 2.03)). Results need to be interpreted with caution, though, as the resultant mix of patient- and study-level covariates produced unstable statistical modeling. We found no significant and systematic superiority of either MRA regarding efficacy toward all endpoints considered in both direct and indirect comparisons.

Approval of Cancer Drugs With Uncertain Therapeutic Value: A Comparison of Regulatory Decisions in Europe and the United States.

Policy Points Regulatory agencies may have limited evidence on the clinical benefits and harms of new drugs when deciding whether new therapeutic agents are allowed to enter the market and under which conditions, including whether approval is granted under special regulatory pathways and obligations to address knowledge gaps through postmarketing studies are imposed. In a matched comparison of marketing applications for cancer drugs of uncertain therapeutic value reviewed by both the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA), we found frequent discordance between the two agencies on regulatory outcomes and the use of special regulatory pathways. Both agencies often granted regular approval, even when the other agency judged there to be substantial uncertainty about drug benefits and risks that needed to be resolved through additional studies in the postmarketing period. Postmarketing studies imposed by regulators under special approval pathways to address remaining questions of efficacy and safety may not be suited to deliver timely, confirmatory evidence due to shortcomings in study design and delays, raising questions over the suitability of the FDA's Accelerated Approval and the EMA's Conditional Marketing Authorization as tools for allowing early market access for cancer drugs while maintaining rigorous regulatory standards. CONTEXT: Regulatory agencies are increasingly required to make market approval decisions for new drugs on the basis of limited clinical evidence, a situation commonly encountered in cancer. We aimed to investigate how regulators manage uncertainty in the benefit-risk profiles of new cancer drugs by comparing decisions for the world's two largest regulatory bodies-the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA)-over a 5-year period. METHODS: We systematically identified a set of cancer drug-indication pairs for which data on efficacy and safety was less complete than that required for regular approval at time of market entry from 2009 to 2013, as determined by the FDA's use of Accelerated Approval (AA) or the EMA's use of Conditional Marketing Authorization (CMA) pathways, and matched these across the two agencies. Using publicly available information, we compared regulatory pathways and outcomes, final approved indications, and postmarketing obligations imposed by the agencies. FINDINGS: We identified 21 cancer drug-indication pairs that received FDA AA, EMA CMA, or both. Although most applications relied on identical pivotal trials across the FDA and the EMA, regulatory pathways often differed; 57% of indications received either FDA AA or EMA CMA, and regular approval by the other agency. After approval, the EMA more often accepted single-arm studies to confirm clinical benefit compared to the FDA (75% vs. 29% of indications), and the FDA more commonly requested randomized controlled trials (85% vs. 50%). Forty-one percent of confirmatory trials after FDA AA were conducted in different populations than the approved indication, compared to 13% after EMA CMA. Both agencies relied primarily on surrogate measures of patient benefit for postmarketing obligations. After a median follow-up of 7.25 years, 40% of FDA and 61% of EMA postmarketing obligations after AA and CMA, respectively, were delayed. CONCLUSIONS: US and European regulators often deemed early and less complete evidence on benefit-risk profiles of cancer drugs sufficient to grant regular approval, raising questions over regulatory standards for the approval of new medicines. Even when imposing confirmatory studies in the postmarketing period through special approval pathways, meaningful evidence may not materialize due to shortcomings in study design and delays in conducting required studies with due diligence.

Association Between the Use of Surrogate Measures in Pivotal Trials and Health Technology Assessment Decisions: A Retrospective Analysis of NICE and CADTH Reviews of Cancer Drugs.

OBJECTIVE: To assess whether using surrogate versus patient-relevant endpoints in pivotal trials of cancer drugs was associated with health technology assessment recommendations in England (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE]) and Canada (Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health [CADTH]). METHODS: Cancer drug approvals from 2012 to 2016 were categorized by demonstrating benefit on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival, disease response, or having no comparator. Approvals were analyzed by benefit category and health technology assessment recommendation. The association between benefit (surrogate vs OS) and recommending a drug was examined using descriptive statistics and linear probability models controlling for unmet need, orphan designation, and cost-effectiveness. RESULTS: Of 42 cancer indications that NICE recommended, 15 (36%) demonstrated OS benefit. Cancer indications with OS benefit were less likely to receive a recommendation from NICE than those without (P = .04). In linear probability models, availability of OS benefit was no longer associated with a recommendation from NICE (P = .32). Cost-effective cancer drugs had a 55.6% (95% CI: 38.9%-72.3%) higher probability of receiving a recommendation from NICE than those that were not. In Canada, 15 of 37 (41%) cancer indications that were recommended showed OS benefit. There was no detectable association between surrogate measures and CADTH recommendations based on descriptive statistics (P = .62) or in linear probability models (P = .73). CONCLUSION: When cost-effectiveness was considered, pivotal trial endpoints were not associated with NICE recommendations. Pivotal trial endpoints, unmet need, orphan status, and cost-effectiveness did not explain CADTH recommendations.

NICE's evaluations of medicines authorized by EMA with conditional marketing authorization or under exceptional circumstances.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the impact of the uncertainty stemming from products with European conditional marketing authorization (CMA) or authorization in exceptional circumstances (AEC) on the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's (NICE) recommendations. METHODS: Products which received CMA/AEC by European Medicines Agency (EMA) up to 1 December 2016 were identified and matched with corresponding NICE decisions issued by August 2017, the status of which was then traced to August 2019. We assessed whether the conversion of CMA to full marketing authorization triggered a review of a NICE decision. The odds of a recommendation carrying a commercial arrangement for products with and without CMA/AEC were calculated. RESULTS: Fifty-four products were granted CMA/AEC by EMA. NICE conducted thirty evaluations of products with CMA/AEC. Twelve products were recommended by NICE by August 2017 and fourteen by August 2019. All recommendations had an associated commercial arrangement. The odds of carrying a commercial arrangement were higher for products with CMA/AEC compared to those with full authorization. Conversions from conditional to full authorization among products not recommended by NICE did not trigger an appraisal review. CONCLUSIONS: Uncertainty, stemming from the lack of robust clinical data of products authorized with CMA/AEC, has a substantial impact on HTA recommendations, frequently requiring risk mitigation mechanisms such as commercial and data collection arrangements. Further analyses should be conducted to assess whether the benefits of early access strategies outweigh the risks for patients and the healthcare system.

Assessment of technical errors and validation processes in economic models submitted by the company for NICE technology appraisals.

BACKGROUND: Economic models play a central role in the decision-making process of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Inadequate validation methods allow for errors to be included in economic models. These errors may alter the final recommendations and have a significant impact on outcomes for stakeholders. OBJECTIVE: To describe the patterns of technical errors found in NICE submissions and to provide an insight into the validation exercises carried out by the companies prior to submission. METHODS: All forty-one single technology appraisals (STAs) completed in 2017 by NICE were reviewed and all were on medicines. The frequency of errors and information on their type, magnitude, and impact was extracted from publicly available NICE documentation along with the details of model validation methods used. RESULTS: Two STAs (5 percent) had no reported errors, nineteen (46 percent) had between one and four errors, sixteen (39 percent) had between five and nine errors, and four (10 percent) had more than ten errors. The most common errors were transcription errors (29 percent), logic errors (29 percent), and computational errors (25 percent). All STAs went through at least one type of validation. Moreover, errors that were notable enough were reported in the final appraisal document (FAD) in eight (20 percent) of the STAs assessed but each of these eight STAs received positive recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Technical errors are common in the economic models submitted to NICE. Some errors were considered important enough to be reported in the FAD. Improvements are needed in the model development process to ensure technical errors are kept to a minimum.

How does exercise treatment compare with antihypertensive medications? A network meta-analysis of 391 randomised controlled trials assessing exercise and medication effects on systolic blood pressure.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the effect of exercise regimens and medications on systolic blood pressure (SBP). DATA SOURCES: Medline (via PubMed) and the Cochrane Library. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACE-I), angiotensin-2 receptor blockers (ARBs), ß-blockers, calcium channel blockers (CCBs) and diuretics were identified from existing Cochrane reviews. A previously published meta-analysis of exercise interventions was updated to identify recent RCTs that tested the SBP-lowering effects of endurance, dynamic resistance, isometric resistance, and combined endurance and resistance exercise interventions (up to September 2018). DESIGN: Random-effects network meta-analysis. OUTCOME: Difference in mean change from baseline SBP between comparator treatments (change from baseline in one group minus that in the other group) and its 95% credible interval (95% CrI), measured in mmHg. RESULTS: We included a total of 391 RCTs, 197 of which evaluated exercise interventions (10 461 participants) and 194 evaluated antihypertensive medications (29 281 participants). No RCTs compared directly exercise against medications. While all medication trials included hypertensive populations, only 56 exercise trials included hypertensive participants (≥140 mmHg), corresponding to 3508 individuals. In a 10% random sample, risk of bias was higher in exercise RCTs, primarily due to lack of blinding and incomplete outcome data. In analyses that combined all populations, antihypertensive medications achieved higher reductions in baseline SBP compared with exercise interventions (mean difference -3.96 mmHg, 95% CrI -5.02 to -2.91). Compared with control, all types of exercise (including combination of endurance and resistance) and all classes of antihypertensive medications were effective in lowering baseline SBP. Among hypertensive populations, there were no detectable differences in the SBP-lowering effects of ACE-I, ARB, ß-blocker and diuretic medications when compared with endurance or dynamic resistance exercise. There was no detectable inconsistency between direct and indirect comparisons. Although there was evidence of small-study effects, this affected both medication and exercise trials. CONCLUSIONS: The effect of exercise interventions on SBP remains under-studied, especially among hypertensive populations. Our findings confirm modest but consistent reductions in SBP in many studied exercise interventions across all populations but individuals receiving medications generally achieved greater reductions than those following structured exercise regimens. Assuming equally reliable estimates, the SBP-lowering effect of exercise among hypertensive populations appears similar to that of commonly used antihypertensive medications. Generalisability of these findings to real-world clinical settings should be further evaluated.

How good is "evidence" from clinical studies of drug effects and why might such evidence fail in the prediction of the clinical utility of drugs?

Promising evidence from clinical studies of drug effects does not always translate to improvements in patient outcomes. In this review, we discuss why early evidence is often ill suited to the task of predicting the clinical utility of drugs. The current gap between initially described drug effects and their subsequent clinical utility results from deficits in the design, conduct, analysis, reporting, and synthesis of clinical studies-often creating conditions that generate favorable, but ultimately incorrect, conclusions regarding drug effects. There are potential solutions that could improve the relevance of clinical evidence in predicting the real-world effectiveness of drugs. What is needed is a new emphasis on clinical utility, with nonconflicted entities playing a greater role in the generation, synthesis, and interpretation of clinical evidence. Clinical studies should adopt strong design features, reflect clinical practice, and evaluate outcomes and comparisons that are meaningful to patients. Transformative changes to the research agenda may generate more meaningful and accurate evidence on drug effects to guide clinical decision making.

The US Food and Drug Administration's expedited approval programs: Evidentiary standards, regulatory trade-offs, and potential improvements.

The US Food and Drug Administration has several regulatory programs and pathways to expedite the development and approval of therapeutic agents aimed at treating serious or life-debilitating conditions. A common feature of these programs is the regulatory flexibility, which allows for a customized approval approach that enables market authorization on the basis of less rigorous evidence, in exchange for requiring postmarket evidence generation. An increasing share of therapeutic agents approved by the Food and Drug Administration in recent years are associated with expedited programs. In this article, we provide an overview of the evidentiary standards required by the Food and Drug Administration's expedited development and review programs, summarize the findings of the recent academic literature demonstrating some of the limitations of these programs, and outline potential opportunities to address these limitations. Recent evidence suggests that therapeutic agents in the Food and Drug Administration's expedited programs are approved on the basis of fewer and smaller studies that may lack comparator groups and random allocation, and rather than focusing on clinical outcomes for study endpoints, rely instead on surrogate markers of disease. Once on the market, agents receiving expedited approvals are often quickly incorporated into clinical practice, and evidence generated in the postmarket period may not necessarily address the evidentiary limitations at the time of market entry. Furthermore, not all pathways require additional postmarket studies. Evidence suggests that drugs in expedited approval programs are associated with a greater likelihood that the Food and Drug Administration will take a safety action following market entry. There are several opportunities to improve the timeliness, information value, and validity of the pre- and postmarket studies of therapeutic agents receiving expedited approvals. When use of nonrandomized and uncontrolled studies cannot be avoided prior to market entry, randomized trials should be mandatory in the postmarket period, unless there are strong justifications for not carrying out such studies. In the premarket period, validity of the surrogate markers can be improved by more rigorously evaluating their correlation with patient-relevant clinical outcomes. Opportunities to reduce the duration, complexity, and cost of postmarket randomized trials should not compromise their validity and instead incorporate pragmatic "real-world" design elements. Despite recent enthusiasm for widely using real-world evidence, adaptive designs, and pragmatic trials in the regulatory setting, caution is warranted until large-scale empirical evaluations demonstrate their validity compared to more traditional trial designs.

Association Between Preapproval Confirmatory Trial Initiation and Conversion to Traditional Approval or Withdrawal in the FDA Accelerated Approval Pathway.

This study examines the Food and Drug Administration's accelerated approval pathway and whether preapproval initiation was associated with faster conversion to traditional approval or withdrawal for drugs with nononcology indications.

Timing and Characteristics of Cumulative Evidence Available on Novel Therapeutic Agents Receiving Food and Drug Administration Accelerated Approval.

Policy Points: Randomized trials-the gold standard of evaluating effectiveness-constitute a small minority of existing evidence on agents given accelerated approval. One-third of randomized trials are in therapeutic areas outside of FDA approval and less than half evaluate the therapeutic benefits of these agents but use them instead as common backbone treatments. Agents receiving accelerated approval are often tested concurrently in several therapeutic areas. For most agents, no substantial time lag is apparent between the average start dates of randomized trials evaluating their effectiveness and those using them as part of background therapies. There appears to be a tendency for therapeutic agents receiving accelerated approval to quickly become an integral component of standard treatment, despite potential shortcomings in their evidence base. CONTEXT: Therapeutic agents treating serious conditions are eligible for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) accelerated approval. The clinical evidence accrued on agents receiving accelerated approval has not been systematically evaluated. Our objective was to assess the timing and characteristics of available studies. METHODS: We first identified clinical studies of novel therapeutic agents receiving accelerated approval. We then (1) categorized those studies as randomized or nonrandomized, (2) explored whether they evaluated the FDA-approved indications, and (3) documented the available treatment comparisons. We also meta-analyzed the difference in start times between randomized studies that (1) did or did not evaluate approved indications and (2) were or were not designed to evaluate the agent's effectiveness. FINDINGS: In total, 37 novel therapeutic agents received accelerated approval between 2000 and 2013. Our search of ClinicalTrials.gov identified 7,757 studies, which included 1,258,315 participants. Only one-third of identified studies were randomized controlled trials. Of 1,631 randomized trials with advanced recruitment status, 906 were conducted in therapeutic areas for which agents received initial accelerated approval, 202 were in supplemental indications, and 523 were outside approved indications. Only 411 out of 906 (45.4%) trials were designed to test the effectiveness of agents that received accelerated approval ("evaluation" trials); others used these agents as common background treatment in both arms ("background" trials). There was no detectable lag between average start times of trials conducted within and outside initially approved indications. Evaluation trials started on average 1.52 years (95% CI: 0.87 to 2.17) earlier than background trials. CONCLUSIONS: Cumulative evidence on agents with accelerated approvals has major limitations. Most clinical studies including these agents are small and nonrandomized, and about a third are conducted in unapproved areas, typically concurrently with those conducted in approved areas. Most randomized trials including these therapeutic agents are not designed to directly evaluate their clinical benefits but to incorporate them as standard treatment.