Decisions on Non-oncology Breakthrough Therapy Designation Requests in 2017-2019.

BACKGROUND: The US Food and Drug Administration's Breakthrough Therapy Designation (BTD) program is intended to facilitate and expedite development of investigational drugs to address unmet medical needs. The objective of this study is to provide an update on FDA's process for review of BTD requests. METHODS: We reviewed Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) decisions to grant or deny breakthrough therapy designation requests for non-oncology drugs or biological products ("drugs") from January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2019. Data collection included characteristics of the corresponding drug and condition, reasons for granting or denying breakthrough therapy status, reasons for rescinding or withdrawing breakthrough therapy status after a request was granted (if applicable), and subsequent marketing approval status through 2022. RESULTS: Among 240 requests, 93 (39%) requests were granted and 147 (61%) requests were denied. Granting of requests was more common for conditions where no therapy was available or for orphan diseases. Common reasons for denial included data-related issues, insufficient treatment effect, inadequate study design, endpoint attributes, safety issues, and reliance on post hoc analyses. Among 28 drugs receiving marketing approval as of the end of 2022 for the indication for which BTD was previously granted, 21 (75%) involved a first-in-class mechanism of action. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis describes CDER's decision-making process related to review of requests for breakthrough therapy designations and enhances public awareness regarding efforts to expedite drug development.

Regional Approaches to Expedited Drug Development and Review: Can Regulatory Harmonization Improve Outcomes?

Drug regulatory agencies around the world have implemented programs to expedite drug development and review for promising new products for serious diseases. These programs are all intended to minimize delays in patient access to innovative medicines, and have used broadly similar strategies to shorten drug development and review timelines. However, they differ in many key respects, and some stakeholders have suggested that these differences create unnecessary barriers in the development and approval process, possibly leading to delays in access. In collaboration with FDA, the Duke-Margolis Center for Health Policy convened an expert workshop to elicit feedback from a broad range of stakeholders as to whether a lack of harmonization across expedited programs is interfering with the efficient development of new products and, if so, to explore strategies for addressing these challenges. This report provides a summary of key themes and major findings from that discussion.

Breakthrough Therapy Designation: CDER Analysis of Requests 4 Years Into the Program.

BACKGROUND: A breakthrough therapy designation is intended to facilitate and expedite development and review of new drugs to address unmet medical need in the treatment of a serious condition. METHODS: The Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) at Food and Drug Administration (FDA) analyzed 364 breakthrough therapy designation requests received from program inception on July 9, 2012, through June 30, 2016. RESULTS: Of the 364 requests received during this time, CDER granted 133 (37%), denied 182 (50%), and the sponsor withdrew 49 (13%) before CDER made a decision. CONCLUSION: This analysis provides information on the distinguishing characteristics of the drugs seeking this designation and the decisional factors used by CDER to either grant or deny breakthrough therapy designation requests. This paper provides greater transparency into the CDER decision process, so the public can better understand how breakthrough therapy designations are determined.

Phase II trial of carboxyamidotriazole in patients with relapsed epithelial ovarian cancer.

PURPOSE: Carboxyamidotriazole (CAI) is a cytostatic inhibitor of nonvoltage-operated calcium channels and calcium channel-mediated signaling pathways. It inhibits angiogenesis, tumor growth, invasion, and metastasis. We hypothesized that CAI would promote disease stabilization lasting >/= 6 months in patients with relapsed ovarian cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with epithelial ovarian cancer, good end-organ function, measurable disease, and three or fewer prior regimens were eligible. Oral CAI was given daily using a pharmacokinetic-dosing approach to maintain plasma concentrations between 2 and 4 microg/mL. Radiographic imaging to assess response was performed every 8 weeks. Positive outcome included stabilization or improvement of disease lasting >/= 6 months. Plasma vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), interleukin (IL)-8, and matrix metalloproteinase (MMP)-2 were measured. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients were assessable for primary end point analysis, and 38 were assessable for toxicity. Forty-four percent of patients had three prior regimens, more than 50% had four or more disease sites, and 48% had liver metastases. Thirty-three patients reached the targeted concentration range during the first cycle. Eleven patients (31%) attained the >/= 6-month outcome end point, with one partial response (8 months) and three minor responses (8, 12+, and 13 months). Median time to progression was 3.6 months (range, 1.6 to 13.3 months). CAI was well tolerated, with mostly grade 1 to 2 toxicity. Grade 3 events included fatigue (5%), vomiting (2%), neutropenic fever (2%), and neutropenia (2%). There were no grade 4 adverse events. No associations between VEGF, IL-8, and MMP-2 with CAI concentration or clinical outcome were observed. CONCLUSION: CAI is a potential agent for additional study in the stabilization of relapsed ovarian cancer. Given a limited toxicity profile, it may have utility as a maintenance therapeutic agent for this disease.

A phase I study of paclitaxel and continuous daily CAI in patients with refractory solid tumors.

BACKGROUND: Carboxyamido-triazole (CAI) is a calcium influx inhibitor with anti-angiogenic and anti-invasive properties and stabilizes tumor progression in patients. We hypothesized daily oral micronized CAI with q3 week paclitaxel would be well-tolerated and active. RESULTS: Twenty-nine heavily pretreated patients [median 3 [0-7]] were enrolled on five dose levels. No additive or cumulative toxicity was observed, and grade III nonhematological toxicity was rare. Neutropenia was the most common hematologic toxicity, seen in 79% of patients, with a trend towards increasing grade with higher paclitaxel doses. The recommended phase II dose defined by the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) was CAI 250 mg daily and paclitaxel 200 mg/m(2) q3weeks. Pharmacokinetic analysis revealed paclitaxel increases CAI trough concentration at all dose levels by over 100% (p < 0.0001). A trend towards higher steady-state CAI trough concentrations was found in patients with a partial response (PR; p = 0.09). Six patients had confirmed PR (24%; 4-67 cycles, median 10); two patients had minor responses. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Eligible patients with solid tumors received micronized CAI daily (150-250 mg PO) and paclitaxel intravenously q3weeks (175-250 mg/m(2)), sequentially escalating each drug. CAI preceded paclitaxel by one week to permit pharmacokinetic analysis. Patients were assessed for toxicity, pharmacokinetics and disease outcome. CONCLUSIONS: The MTD of the combination of CAI and paclitaxel is 250 mg daily and 200 mg/m(2) q3weeks, respectively. The combination is tolerable and has potential antitumor activity.