Preferences about Future Alzheimer's Disease Treatments Elicited through an Online Survey Using the Threshold Technique.

BACKGROUND: Treatments aiming at slowing down the progression of Alzheimer's disease (AD) may soon become available. However, information about the risks that people are willing to accept in order to delay the progression of the disease is limited. OBJECTIVE: To determine the trade-offs that individuals are willing to make between the benefits and risks of hypothetical treatments for AD, and the extent to which these trade-offs depend on individuals' characteristics and beliefs about medicines. DESIGN: Online, cross-sectional survey study. SETTING: Population in the UK. Public link to the survey available at the websites of Alzheimer's Research UK and Join Dementia Research. PARTICIPANTS: Everyone self-reported ≥18 years old was eligible to participate. A total of 4384 people entered the survey and 3658 completed it. MEASUREMENTS: The maximum acceptable risks (MARs) of participants for moderate and severe adverse events in exchange for a 2-year delay in disease progression. The risks were expressed on ordinal scales, from <10% to ≥50%, above a pre-existing risk of 30% for moderate adverse events and 10% for severe adverse events. We obtained the population median MARs using log-normal survival models and quantified the effects of individuals' characteristics and beliefs about medicines in terms of acceleration factors. RESULTS: For the moderate adverse events, 26% of the participants had a MAR ≥50%, followed by 25% of the participants with a MAR of 10 to <20%, giving an estimated median MAR of 25.4% (95% confidence interval [CI] 24.5 to 26.3). For the severe adverse events, 43% of the participants had a MAR <10%, followed by 25% of the participants with a MAR of 10 to <20%, resulting in an estimated median MAR of 12.1% (95%CI 11.6 to 12.5). Factors that were associated with the individuals' MARs for one or both adverse events were age, gender, educational level, living alone, and beliefs about medicines. Whether or not individuals were living with memory problems or had experience as a caregiver had no effect on the MARs for any of the adverse events. CONCLUSION: Trade-offs between benefits and risks of AD treatments are heterogeneous and influenced by individuals' characteristics and beliefs about medicines. This heterogeneity should be acknowledged during the medicinal product decision-making in order to fulfil the needs of the various subpopulations.

Off-label despite high-level evidence: a clinical practice review of commonly used off-patent cancer medicines.

INTRODUCTION: Off-label use of medicines is generally discouraged. However, several off-patent, low-cost cancer medicines remain off-label for indications in which they are commonly used in daily practice, supported by high-level evidence based on results of phase III clinical trials. This discrepancy may generate prescription and reimbursement obstacles as well as impaired access to established therapies. METHODS: A list of cancer medicines that remain off-label in specific indications despite the presence of high-level evidence was generated and subjected to European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) expert peer review to assess for accountability of reasonableness. These medicines were then surveyed on approval procedures and workflow impact. The most illustrative examples of these medicines were reviewed by experts from the European Medicines Agency to ascertain the apparent robustness of the supporting phase III trial evidence from a regulatory perspective. RESULTS: A total of 47 ESMO experts reviewed 17 cancer medicines commonly used off-label in six disease groups. Overall, high levels of agreement were recorded on the off-label status and the high quality of data supporting the efficacy in the off-label indications, often achieving high ESMO-Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) scores. When prescribing these medicines, 51% of the reviewers had to implement a time-consuming process associated with additional workload, in the presence of litigation risks and patient anxiety. Finally, the informal regulatory expert review identified only 2 out of 18 (11%) studies with significant limitations that would be difficult to overcome in the context of a potential marketing authorisation application without additional studies. CONCLUSIONS: We highlight the common use of off-patent essential cancer medicines in indications that remain off-label despite solid supporting data as well as generate evidence on the adverse impact on patient access and clinic workflows. In the current regulatory framework, incentives to promote the extension of indications of off-patent cancer medicines are needed for all stakeholders.

The European Medicines Agency review of sacituzumab govitecan for the treatment of triple-negative breast cancer.

Sacituzumab govitecan (SG) is an antineoplastic agent which combines a humanized monoclonal antibody binding to trophoblast cell surface antigen-2 (Trop-2)-expressing cancer cells, linked with cytotoxic moiety SN-38 (govitecan) with topoisomerase I inhibitor action. On 22 November 2021, a marketing authorization valid through the European Union (EU) was issued under the European Medicines Agency (EMA)'s accelerated assessment program for SG as monotherapy for the treatment of adult patients with unresectable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC) who have received two or more prior systemic therapies, including at least one of them for advanced disease. The assessment was based on results from an open-label, randomized, phase III trial to evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and efficacy of SG versus treatment of physician's choice (TPC) in patients with mTNBC who received at least two prior treatments including at least one of them for advanced disease. The efficacy results in the overall population, based on mature data, showed a statistically significant improvement of SG over TPC in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). The median PFS was 4.8 months versus 1.7 months [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.43, n = 529; 95% CI 0.35-0.54; P < 0.0001] and the median OS was 11.8 months versus 6.9 months (HR = 0.51, n = 529; 95% CI 0.41-0.62; P < 0.0001). The most common (>30%) side effects of SG were diarrhea, neutropenia, nausea, fatigue, alopecia, anemia, constipation and vomiting. The aim of this manuscript is to summarize the scientific review of the application leading to regulatory approval in the EU.

The EMA assessment of pembrolizumab as monotherapy for the first-line treatment of adult patients with metastatic microsatellite instability-high or mismatch repair deficient colorectal cancer.

On 21 January 2021, the European Commission amended the marketing authorisation granted for pembrolizumab to include the first-line treatment of microsatellite instability-high (MSI-H) or mismatch repair-deficient (dMMR) metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) in adults. The recommended dose of pembrolizumab was either 200 mg every 3 weeks or 400 mg every 6 weeks by intravenous infusion. Pembrolizumab was evaluated in a phase III, open-label, multicentre, randomised trial versus standard of care (SOC: FOLFOX6/FOLFIRI alone or in combination with bevacizumab/cetuximab) as first-line treatment of locally confirmed mismatch repair-deficient or microsatellite instability-high stage IV CRC. Subjects randomised to the SOC arm had the option to crossover and receive pembrolizumab once disease progressed. Both progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival were primary endpoints. Pembrolizumab showed a statistically significant improvement in PFS compared with SOC, with a hazard ratio of 0.60 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.45-0.80], P = 0.0002. Median PFS was 16.5 (95% CI: 5.4-32.4) versus 8.2 (95% CI: 6.1-10.2) months for the pembrolizumab versus SOC arms, respectively. The most frequent adverse events in patients receiving pembrolizumab were diarrhoea, fatigue, pruritus, nausea, increased aspartate aminotransferase, rash, arthralgia, and hypothyroidism. Having reviewed the data submitted, the European Medicines Agency's (EMA's) Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) considered that the benefit-risk balance was positive. This is the first time the CHMP has issued an opinion for a target population defined by DNA repair deficiency biomarkers. The aim of this manuscript is to summarise the scientific review of the application leading to regulatory approval in the European Union.

The EMA assessment of avapritinib in the treatment of gastrointestinal stromal tumours harbouring the PDGFRA D842V mutation.

Avapritinib is a protein kinase inhibitor designed to selectively inhibit oncogenic KIT and platelet-derived growth factor receptor alpha (PDGFRA) mutants by targeting the active conformation of the kinase. On 24 September 2020, a marketing authorisation valid through the European Union was issued for avapritinib as treatment of adult patients with unresectable or metastatic gastrointestinal stromal tumours (GIST) harbouring the PDGFRA D842V mutation. The drug was evaluated in an open-label, phase I, first-in-human, dose-escalation, open-label study to evaluate the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and efficacy of avapritinib in adults with unresectable or metastatic GIST. The benefit of avapritinib was observed in patients with GIST harbouring the PDGFRA D842V mutation. The overall response rate was 95% (95% confidence interval 82.3%-99.4%), with a median duration of response of 22.1 months (95% confidence interval 14.1-not estimable months). The most common adverse events were nausea, fatigue, anaemia, periorbital and face oedema, hyperbilirubinaemia, diarrhoea, vomiting, increased lacrimation, and decreased appetite. Most of the reported cognitive effects were mild memory impairment. Rarer events were cases of severe encephalopathy and intracranial or gastrointestinal bleeding. The aim of this manuscript is to summarise the scientific review of the application leading to regulatory approval in the European Union.

The European Medicines Agency review of entrectinib for the treatment of adult or paediatric patients with solid tumours who have a neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinase gene fusions and adult patients with non-small-cell lung cancer harbouring ROS1 rearrangements.

Entrectinib is an inhibitor of the tyrosine kinases TRKA, TRKB, TRKC [all together known as neurotrophic tyrosine receptor kinases (NTRKs)], ROS1 and anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK). On 31 July 2020, a conditional marketing authorisation valid through the European Union (EU) was issued for entrectinib for the treatment of adult and paediatric patients 12 years of age and older with NTRK fusion-positive solid tumours that are locally advanced, metastatic or where surgical resection is likely to result in severe morbidity, and who have not received a prior NTRK inhibitor and have no satisfactory therapy; and also for adult patients with ROS1-positive non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) not previously treated with ROS1 inhibitors. The submission was based on three open-label, multicentre, phase I studies (ALKA, STARTRK-1 and STARTRK-NG) and one phase II study (STARTRK-2). In patients with NTRK-positive solid tumours, the objective response rate (ORR) was 63.5% [95% confidence interval (CI) 51.5% to 74.4%] and the median duration of response (DOR) was 12.9 months (95% CI 9.3-not estimable). In patients with ROS1-positive NSCLC, the ORR was 67.1% (95% CI 59.25% to 74.27%) and the median DOR was 15.7 months (95% CI 13.9-28.6 months). The most frequent adverse events were dysgeusia, fatigue, dizziness, constipation, diarrhoea, nausea, increased weight, paraesthesia, increased creatinine, myalgia, peripheral oedema, vomiting, arthralgia, anaemia and increased AST. The aim of this manuscript is to summarise the scientific review of the application leading to regulatory approval of entrectinib in the EU.

The EMA review of trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) for the adjuvant treatment of adult patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer.

Trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) is an antibody-drug conjugate of trastuzumab [a monoclonal antibody against human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)] and DM1 (an inhibitor of tubulin polymerisation). It was initially approved in the European Union for the treatment of adult patients with HER2-positive unresectable locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (BC) who had previously received trastuzumab and taxanes. On 18 December 2019, a variation of the marketing authorisation was approved extending this use to the adjuvant therapy of adult patients with HER2-positive early BC who have residual invasive disease in the breast and/or lymph nodes after neoadjuvant taxane-based and HER2-targeted therapy. A phase III randomised, multicentre, open-label trial compared T-DM1 with trastuzumab as adjuvant therapy in patients with HER2-positive early BC who had received preoperative chemotherapy and HER2-targeted therapy followed by surgery, with a finding of invasive residual disease in the breast and/or axillary lymph nodes. The study met its primary endpoint by showing an increased 3-year invasive disease-free survival rate in the T-DM1 arm (88.3%) compared with the trastuzumab arm (77.0%), with an unstratified hazard ratio of 0.50 (95% confidence interval: 0.39-0.64). There was a higher incidence of hepatotoxicity (37.3% versus 10.6%), thrombocytopenia (28.5% versus 2.4%), peripheral neuropathy (32.3% versus 16.9%), haemorrhage (29.2% versus 9.6%) and pulmonary toxicity (2.8% versus 0.8%) in the T-DM1 arm compared with the control arm. The aim of this manuscript was to summarise the scientific review of the application leading to regulatory approval of this additional indication in the European Union.

The EMA assessment of encorafenib in combination with cetuximab for the treatment of adult patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma harbouring the BRAFV600E mutation who have received prior therapy.

On 2 June 2020, a marketing authorisation valid through the European Union (EU) was issued for encorafenib in combination with cetuximab in adult patients with metastatic colorectal carcinoma (mCRC) with the BRAFV600E mutation who had received prior systemic therapy. Encorafenib plus cetuximab was evaluated in a randomised phase III trial of encorafenib plus binimetinib plus cetuximab versus encorafenib plus cetuximab versus cetuximab plus irinotecan or FOLFIRI (control arm) to adult patients with BRAFV600E mCRC who had received prior therapy for metastatic disease. The median overall survival was 9.3 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 8.05-11.30] versus 5.88 months (95% CI: 5.09-7.10) for encorafenib plus cetuximab (doublet) versus the control arm, respectively [hazard ratio (HR) 0.61, 95% CI: 0.48-0.77]. Progression-free survival (PFS) was 4.27 months (95% CI: 4.07-5.45) versus 1.54 months (95% CI: 1.48-1.91) (HR 0.44; 95% CI: 0.35-0.55). The most frequent adverse events in patients receiving encorafenib plus cetuximab were fatigue, nausea, diarrhoea, acneiform dermatitis, abdominal pain, arthralgia, decreased appetite, vomiting and rash. The aim of this manuscript is to summarise the scientific review of the application leading to regulatory approval in the EU.

The European Medicines Agency review of the initial application of atezolizumab and the role of PD-L1 expression as biomarker for checkpoint inhibitors.

Immune checkpoint inhibitors have revolutionised cancer therapeutics. Translational research evaluating the role of biomarkers is essential to identify the ideal target population for these drugs. From a regulatory perspective, the identification of biomarkers and diagnostic assays is strongly encouraged by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The aim of this article is to analyse the role of programmed death-ligand 1 (PD-L1) expression as a predictive biomarker in relation to the data submitted for the initial assessment of atezolizumab, a monoclonal antibody targeting human PD-L1. On 20 July 2017, atezolizumab was granted a marketing authorisation valid throughout the European Union (EU) for adult patients with (i) locally advanced or metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) after chemotherapy and (ii) locally advanced or metastatic urothelial carcinoma (UC) after chemotherapy or cisplatin-ineligibility. Initially, these indications were not restricted by the level of PD-L1 expression, but preliminary data from an ongoing phase III trial in patients with UC led to a restriction in the UC indication to cisplatin-ineligible patients whose tumours have ≥5% PD-L1 expression. Still, the role of PD-L1 expression as predictive biomarker for atezolizumab therapy remains inconclusive and further research is needed. Data in this paper came from the scientific review leading to the initial regulatory approval of atezolizumab in the EU and its complementary application for indication (EMEA/H/C/004143/II/0010). The full scientific assessment report and product information are available on the EMA website (www.ema.europa.eu).

European Medicines Agency Perspective on Oncology Study Design for Marketing Authorization and Beyond.

In the development of highly active anticancer drugs, the European situation may be viewed as paradoxical. Limited data may support marketing authorization, but may be insufficient for the health economic appraisal needed for reimbursement and market uptake. To achieve this, conventional confirmatory studies may be needed. For products of special interest, studies aimed at optimizing cost-effectiveness may be warranted. Efficient designs of studies to meet these objectives constitute challenges to all stakeholders.

"Threshold-crossing": A Useful Way to Establish the Counterfactual in Clinical Trials?

A central question in the assessment of benefit/harm of new treatments is: how does the average outcome on the new treatment (the factual) compare to the average outcome had patients received no treatment or a different treatment known to be effective (the counterfactual)? Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the standard for comparing the factual with the counterfactual. Recent developments necessitate and enable a new way of determining the counterfactual for some new medicines. For select situations, we propose a new framework for evidence generation, which we call "threshold-crossing." This framework leverages the wealth of information that is becoming available from completed RCTs and from real world data sources. Relying on formalized procedures, information gleaned from these data is used to estimate the counterfactual, enabling efficacy assessment of new drugs. We propose future (research) activities to enable "threshold-crossing" for carefully selected products and indications in which RCTs are not feasible.

Early market access of cancer drugs in the EU.

Patient access to new cancer drugs in the EU involves centralised licensing decisions by regulators as well as reimbursement recommendations in the context of national healthcare systems. Differences in assessment criteria and evidence requirements may result in divergent decisions at central and national levels, ultimately compromising effective access to patients. Early access decisions are particularly challenging due to the limited clinical evidence available to conclude on the benefit-risk and relative (cost-) effectiveness of new high-priced cancer drugs. We describe mechanisms to accelerate approval of promising anticancer drugs that fulfil an unmet medical need, review the experience from the European Medicines Agency, compare timelines and outcomes of reimbursement decisions in major EU markets, and discuss shortcomings of the current system, ongoing initiatives, and future steps to facilitate effective early access.

Incorporating patient preferences into drug development and regulatory decision making: Results from a quantitative pilot study with cancer patients, carers, and regulators.

Currently, patient preference studies are not required to be included in marketing authorization applications to regulatory authorities, and the role and methodology for such studies have not been agreed upon. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) conducted a pilot study to gain experience on how the collection of individual preferences can inform the regulatory review. Using a short online questionnaire, ordinal statements regarding the desirability of different outcomes in the treatment of advanced cancer were elicited from 139 participants (98 regulators, 29 patient or carers, and 12 healthcare professionals). This was followed by face-to-face meetings to gather feedback and validate the individual responses. In this article we summarize the EMA pilot study and discuss the role of patient preference studies within the regulatory review. Based on the results, we conclude that our preference elicitation instrument was easy to implement and sufficiently precise to learn about the distribution of the participants' individual preferences.

Structured Frameworks to Increase the Transparency of the Assessment of Benefits and Risks of Medicines: Current Status and Possible Future Directions.

Structured frameworks for benefit-risk analysis in drug licensing decisions are being implemented across a number of regulatory agencies worldwide. The aim of these frameworks is to aid the analysis and communication of the benefit-risk assessment throughout the development, evaluation, and supervision of medicines. In this review, authors from regulatory agencies, pharmaceutical companies, and academia share their views on the different frameworks and discuss future directions.

From adaptive licensing to adaptive pathways: delivering a flexible life-span approach to bring new drugs to patients.

The concept of adaptive licensing (AL) has met with considerable interest. Yet some remain skeptical about its feasibility. Others argue that the focus and name of AL should be broadened. Against this background of ongoing debate, we examine the environmental changes that will likely make adaptive pathways the preferred approach in the future. The key drivers include: growing patient demand for timely access to promising therapies, emerging science leading to fragmentation of treatment populations, rising payer influence on product accessibility, and pressure on pharma/investors to ensure sustainability of drug development. We also discuss a number of environmental changes that will enable an adaptive paradigm. A life-span approach to bringing innovation to patients is expected to help address the perceived access vs. evidence trade-off, help de-risk drug development, and lead to better outcomes for patients.

Clinical determinants of survival in patients with 5-fluorouracil-based treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer: results of a multivariate analysis of 3825 patients.

BACKGROUND: Patients with metastatic colorectal cancer are usually offered systemic chemotherapy as palliative treatment. A multivariate analysis was performed in order to identify predictors and their constellation that allow a valid prediction of the outcome in patients treated with 5-fluorouracil (5-FU)-based therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 3825 patients treated with 5-FU within 19 prospective randomised and three phase II trials were separated into learning (n = 2549) and validation (n = 1276) samples. Data were analysed by tree analysis using the recursive partition and amalgamation method (RECPAM). A predictor could only enter the RECPAM analysis if the number of patients with missing values was < 33.3% within a node, and the minimal node size was set to 50 patients. Twenty-three potential predictors were grouped into subsets of laboratory variables (11 parameters), tumour-related variables (seven parameters) and clinical variables (five parameters). In the first step, tree analysis was performed separately for each predictor subset. The selected prognostic parameters of the resulting partial models (the 'winners') were entered into the general model. The classification rule from the data of the learning set was applied to the independent validation set. RESULTS: Winners of the subgroup analysis for laboratory variables were: platelets > or = 400 x 10(9)/l, alkaline phosphatase > or = 300 U/l, white blood cell (WBC) count > or = 10 x 10(9)/l and haemoglobin < 11 x 10(9)/l, and all predicted a worse outcome. Negative predictors within the subgroup of tumour parameters were: number of tumour sites more than one or more than two, presence of liver metastases or peritoneal carcinomatosis, which predicted a worse outcome. Furthermore, presence of lung metastases, a primary rectal cancer and presence of lymph node metastases all predicted a better outcome in the multivariate setting. Among the clinical parameters only performance status of ECOG 0 or 1 predicted better outcome. In the final regression tree, three risk groups could be identified: low risk group (n = 1111) with a median survival of 15 months for patients with ECOG 0/1 and only one tumour site; intermediate risk group (n = 904) with a median survival of 10.7 months for patients with ECOG 0/1 and more than one tumour site and alkaline phosphatase < 300 U/l or patients with ECOG > 1, WBC count < 10 x 10(9)/l and only one tumour site; high risk group (n = 534) with a median survival of 6.1 months for patients with ECOG 0/1 and more than one tumour site and alkaline phosphatase of > or = 300 U/l or patients with ECOG > 1 and more than one tumour site or WBC count > 10 x 10(9)/l. The median survival times for the good, intermediate and high risk groups in the validation sample were 14.7, 10.5 and 6.4 months, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Patients can be divided into at least three risk groups depending on the four baseline clinical parameters: performance status, WBC count, alkaline phosphatase and number of metastatic sites. Any molecular or biological marker should be validated against these clinical parameters and decisions for more or less intensive treatments may be studied separately in these three risk groups. Also, clinical trials should be stratified according to the three risk groups.

Candidate gene polymorphisms in cardiovascular disease: a comparative study of frequencies between a French and an Italian population.

A multilocus assay was used to genotype up to 27 variable sites in 15 genes in French and Italian, presumed to be healthy populations (n=1480, n=162, respectively). These genes are involved in lipid metabolism (APOE, APOB, APOC3, CETP, LPL, PON), homocysteine metabolism (CBS, MTHFR), blood viscosity (Fibrinogen, FV), platelet aggregation (GpIIIa), leukocyte adhesion (SELE), and renin-angiotensin system (AT1R, ACE, AGT). Allele frequencies for all the markers were compared between the two populations. Five allele frequencies differed between the two European countries: APOB 71Ile (p < 0.001), SELE 98T (p < 0.001), SELE 128Arg (p < or = 0.01), APOE E4 (p < or = 0.01) and MTHFR 677T (p < or = 0.01), suggesting the existence of a north-south gradient in European allele frequencies. The other allele frequencies : APOC3 -482T, -455C, 1100T, 3175G, 3206G; LPL -93G, 9Asn, 291Ser; CETP 405Val; PON 192Arg; ACE Del; AGT 235Thr; AT1R 1166C; CBS 278Thr, GpIIIa P1A2; Fibrinogen -455A, FV 506Gln and SELE 554Phe, were similar between the two populations. They were also similar to those observed in other European countries.

Vinorelbine and mitomycin C in anthracycline-pretreated patients with advanced breast cancer.

At present, there is no satisfactory treatment for advanced breast cancer patients who have become refractory to anthracyclines. Vinca alkaloids and mitomycin C (MMC) are among the drugs most frequently used in this setting. Recently, vinorelbine (VNR) has been reported to be highly active in advanced breast cancer. Sixty advanced breast cancer patients previously treated with anthracyclines have been exposed to VNR 25 mg/m2 i.v. on days 1 and 8, and MMC 10 mg/m2 i.v. on day 1, with cycles repeated every 4 weeks. There were 3 complete and 21 partial responses for an overall response rate of 40% (CI 95%: 28-52%). Median duration of response and median survival were 7 and 10 months, respectively. Myelosuppression was the dose-limiting toxicity, but it was generally mild to moderate. Although this combination appears to be effective and well tolerated, every effort should be made to further improve treatment results in anthracycline-pretreated advanced breast cancer.