Akt Inhibitor Advancements: From Capivasertib Approval to Covalent-Allosteric Promises.

Akt kinase is vital in cell growth, survival, metabolism, and migration. Dysregulation of Akt signaling is implicated in cancer and metabolic disorders. In the context of cancer, overactive Akt promotes cell survival and proliferation. This has spurred extensive research into developing Akt inhibitors as potential therapeutic agents to disrupt aberrant Akt signaling. Akt inhibitors are classified into three main types: ATP-competitive, allosteric, and covalent-allosteric inhibitors (CAAIs). ATP-competitive inhibitors compete with ATP for binding to Akt, allosteric inhibitors interact with the Pleckstrin homology (PH) domain, and covalent-allosteric inhibitors form covalent bonds, making them more potent and selective. Notably, capivasertib (AZD5363), a potent ATP-competitive Akt inhibitor, received FDA approval in November 2023 for use in combination with the estrogen receptor degrader fulvestrant to treat breast cancer. Challenges remain, including improving selectivity, identifying biomarkers to tailor treatments, and enhancing therapeutic efficacy while minimizing adverse effects. Particularly covalent-allosteric inhibitors hold promise for future more effective and personalized treatments.

An empirical analysis of overall survival in drug approvals by the US FDA (2006-2023).

BACKGROUND: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has expanded the use of surrogate markers in drugs approved for oncology/hematology indications. This has likely resulted in a greater number of approvals and possibly drugs coming to market faster, but it is unknown whether these drugs also improve overall survival (OS) for patients taking them. METHODS: We sought to estimate the percentage of oncology drugs that have shown to improve OS in a cross-sectional analysis of US FDA oncology drug approvals (2006-2023). We searched for OS data in registration trials and the peer-reviewed literature. RESULTS: We found 392 oncology drug approvals. Eighty-seven (22%) drug approvals were based on OS, 147 drug approvals were later tested for OS benefit (38% of all approvals and 48% of drugs approved on a surrogate), and 130 (33%) have yet to be tested for OS benefit. Of the 147 drug approvals later tested for OS, 109 (28% of all approvals and 74% of drugs later tested for OS) have yet to show OS benefit, whereas 38 (10% of all approvals and 26% of drugs later tested for OS benefit) were later shown to have OS benefit. In total, 125 out of 392 (32%) drugs approved for any indication have been shown to improve OS benefit at some point, and 267 (68%) have yet to show approval. CONCLUSION: About 32% of all oncology drug approvals have evidence for an improvement in OS. Higher standards are needed in drug regulation to ensure that approved drugs are delivering better patient outcomes, specifically in regards to survival.

Factors associated with hematological adverse reactions of drugs authorized via the centralized procedure.

Serious hematological adverse drug reactions (HADRs) may lead to or prolong hospitalization and even cause death. The aim of this study was to determine the regulatory factors associated with HADRs caused by drugs that were authorized up to July 2023 by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and to evaluate the frequency of HADRs. Using a cross-sectional approach, the type and frequency of HADRs were collected from the Summaries of Product Characteristics of Drugs Authorized by the EMA and analyzed within proprietary, nonproprietary, and biosimilar/biological frameworks. Multivariate statistical analysis was used to investigate the associations of generic status, biosimilar status, conditional approval, exceptional circumstances, accelerated assessment, orphan drug status, years on the market, administration route, and inclusion on the Essential Medicines List (EML) with HADRs. In total, 54.78% of proprietary drugs were associated with HADRs at any frequency, while anemia, leucopenia, and thrombocytopenia were observed in approximately 36% of the patients. The predictors of any HADR, anemia, and thrombocytopenia of any frequency are generic status, biosimilar status, and inclusion on the EML, while the only protective factor is the administration route. Biosimilars and their originator biologicals have similar frequencies of HADRs; the only exception is somatropin. Knowledge of the regulatory factors associated with HADRs could help clinicians address monitoring issues when new drugs are introduced for the treatment of patients.

A Comprehensive Analysis of Biopharmaceutical Products Listed in the FDA's Purple Book.

Although biopharmaceuticals constitute around 10% of the drug landscape, eight of the ten top-selling products were biopharmaceuticals in 2023. This study did a comprehensive analysis of the FDA's Purple Book database. Firstly, our research uncovered market trends and provided insights into biologics distributions. According to the investigation, although biotechnology has advanced and legislative shifts have made the approval process faster, there are still challenges to overcome, such as molecular instability and formulation design. Moreover, our research comprehensively analyzed biological formulations, pointing out significant strategies regarding administration routes, dosage forms, product packaging, and excipients. In conjunction with biologics, the widespread integration of innovative delivery strategies will be implemented to confront the evolving challenges in healthcare and meet an expanding array of treatment needs.

How the Food and Drug Administration Drug Approval Process Relates to the Potential Approval of Intravenous Racemic Ketamine for Treatment-resistant Major Depression.

This column focuses on the status of intravenous racemic ketamine for the treatment of patients suffering from a form of major depressive disorder that does not respond to trials of currently available biogenic amine antidepressants. To provide context, the column reviews the 3 pivotal elements of the usual Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug approval process: (1) the unmet medical need (ie, the indication) for which the drug is being developed, (2) the efficacy of the drug for that condition, and (3) the safety/tolerability of the drug. This column is based on the author's 45-year history of drug development work and is not a statement of the FDA. There are typically 3 phases in the drug development process: (1) studies done in normal volunteers, (2) typically small-scale proof of concept studies, and (3) large-scale registration trials. This third phase is critical in determining the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the drug in a manner that most closely follows the clinical use of the drug. This column focuses specifically on whether generally small-scale studies done in academic centers are sufficient for drug approval, and it briefly reviews lithium and clozapine as examples of psychiatric medications that had such academic research in the literature, as well as clinical use in other countries. Those data supported the unique value of these medications in patients with bipolar disorder and treatment-resistant schizophrenia (ie, the unmet medical need), respectively, and the findings led American psychiatrists to advocate for FDA approval of these medications. Their efforts led to the needed registration trials for FDA approval of these medications. This column reviews the key features of registration trials and the reason that they are critical for FDA approval, and it discusses 2 special considerations related to the intravenous administration of racemic ketamine. First, racemic ketamine is not esketamine but, instead, it contains R-ketamine in addition to S-ketamine (ie, esketamine). The second consideration is that differences between intravenous and intranasal administration may affect the safety of the drug. While safety concerns were specifically addressed in the registration trials for esketamine, comparable research remains to be done for intravenous racemic ketamine. Understanding how the FDA's drug approval process works is important for prescribers, their patients, and the public.

Impact of Systemic Delays for Patient Access to Oncology Drugs on Clinical, Economic, and Quality of Life Outcomes in Canada: A Call to Action.

Canada has one of the most complex and rigorous drug approval and public reimbursement processes and is, unfortunately, one of the countries with the longest delays in drug access. To assess the overall impact of systemic delays in access to cancer therapy, a targeted literature review (TLR) was performed to identify studies associated with the clinical, economic, and quality of life impacts of delayed access to oncology drugs. Using MEDLINE/PubMed databases and snowballing, four unique records met the eligibility criteria. Results revealed that clinical outcomes were the most impacted by systemic delays in access to oncology drugs (e.g., life years lost, overall survival, and progression-free survival). The four articles retrieved by the TLR specifically illustrated that a substantial number of life years could potentially be saved by increasing systemic efficiency regarding the development, approval, and reimbursement processes of new drugs for advanced malignancies. It is imperative that initiatives are put in place to improve the performance and speed of Canadian drug regulatory and health technology assessment (HTA) processes, especially for new cancer therapeutics. The proposed solutions in this paper include better coordination between HTA and Canadian payers to harmonize coverage decisions, international collaborations, information sharing, and national standards for timeliness in oncology drug access.

Using real-world evidence in haematology.

Most new drug approvals are based on data from large randomized clinical trials (RCTs). However, there are sometimes contradictory conclusions from seemingly similar trials and generalizability of conclusions from these trials is limited. These considerations explain, in part, the gap between conclusions from data of RCTs and those from registries termed real world data (RWD). Recently, real-world evidence (RWE) from RWD processed by artificial intelligence has received increasing attention. We describe the potential of using RWD in haematology concluding RWE from RWD may complement data from RCTs to support regulatory decisions.