Different Development Strategies Affecting Japan's Drug lag between Japan-Based and Foreign-Based Companies.

We examined the development strategies of new molecular entities approved during a 10-year period (fiscal years of 2012-2021) in Japan to determine the differences in drug lag between Japan and foreign companies. The results demonstrated a clear difference in development strategies. For example, products were usually developed through a "only-Japan" strategy by Japan companies (51.1% of products), compared to a "MRCT (multi-regional clinical trials)" strategy by foreign companies (54.9% of products). Regarding types of licenses, for Japan companies, the percentage of original products was higher in the category of less drug lag, such as "no approval in the US and EU" (59.1%), whereas the percentage of "license-in" products was markedly higher in the "drug lag ≥ 5 years" category (52.5%). Such differences were not observed for products developed by foreign companies. Of 64 license-in products developed by Japan companies with a drug lag > 5 years, 51 (79.7%) had already been approved in the US or EU at initiation of clinical development in Japan. The origin of approximately half (34) of the products was from the emerging companies (non-member foreign companies of the Japan Pharmaceutical Manufacture Association). These results suggest that more global cooperation of Japan companies, particularly with emerging foreign companies, is necessary in terms of the earlier timing of license-in and development strategies of products to promote drug development without drug lag or drug loss in Japan.

[Translated article] Current situation and evolution of the availability of drugs in the pediatric population in Spain.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the characteristics of the new medicines approved in the pediatric population in the last 3 years, both those with studies only in the pediatric population and those that extend their indication in this population group, as well as the current situation in relation to their marketing and financing. METHODS: Descriptive observational study of all drugs that include an indication in the pediatric population in Spain (by extension of the indications of drugs already authorized or because they are new drugs that already include an indication in this population group), from January 2019 to March 2022. RESULTS: During the study period, 129 drugs included their indication in the pediatric population. 13.9% of them are not marketed, 46.5% are in a situation of non-financing, under study or without a request for financing, and 4.6% are financed for a specific pediatric subpopulation. 52.7% are original drugs, 4.7% are generic, 38.8% are biological, 3.8% are biosimilar, and 17.8% are orphan drugs. 57.36% of these medicines obtain the pediatric indication due to extension of the indication and 42.64% obtain it because they are new medicines that already include their studies in the pediatric population. CONCLUSIONS: Drugs with authorized indications are increasingly available in the pediatric population and the trend is to extend the indication of authorized drugs to the adult population. However, barriers in terms of financing and marketing need to be expedite and overcome to facilitate access to them.

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.

Cancer drug indication approvals in China and the United States: a comparison of approval times and clinical benefit, 2001-2020.

Background: Perceived delays in cancer drug approvals have been a major concern for policymakers in China. Policies have been implemented to accelerate the launch of new cancer drugs and indications. This study aimed to assess similarities and differences between China and the United States in the approvals, timing, and clinical benefit evidence of cancer drug indications between 2001 and 2020. Methods: This study retrospectively identified all cancer drugs and indications approved in both China and the United States from January 1st, 2001 to December 31, 2020, and described differences in approval times as well as in submission and review times. Information on the availability of overall survival benefit evidence by December 31, 2020, was collected. Univariate and multiple logistic regression analyses were used to assess whether evidence of benefit and other factors affected the propensity and timing of approvals of cancer drug indications in China. Findings: Between 2001 and 2020, 229 indications corresponding to 145 cancer drugs approved in the United States were identified. Of those, 80 indications (34.9%) were also approved in China by the end of 2020. Cancer drug indications were approved in China at a median of 1273.5 days after approval in the United States. The median submission and review time differences for cancer drug indications in China were 1198.0 days and 180.0 days respectively. Submission time differences accounted for most of the approval time differences (p < 0.001). Indications supported by overall survival benefit evidence had shorter median review time differences (145.0 days) than those without such evidence (235.0 days, p = 0.008). Indications with overall survival benefit evidence were 3.94 times more likely to be approved in China compared to those without such evidence (p = 0.001), controlling for approval year, cancer type, and the prevalence of cancer by site. Interpretation: FDA-approved cancer drug indications demonstrating a survival benefit were more likely to receive approvals in China with shorter regulatory review times compared to indications without such evidence. Given that manufacturer submission times were the main driver of cancer drug approval times in China, factors influencing submission timing should be explored. Funding: No funding.

Regulatory Considerations in the Approval of Rezafungin (REZZAYO) for the Treatment of Candidemia and Invasive Candidiasis in Adults.

On March 22, 2023, the FDA approved rezafungin (REZZAYO) for the treatment of candidemia and invasive candidiasis in adults with limited or no alternative treatment options. Rezafungin is an echinocandin that supports weekly dosing, enabling outpatient parenteral treatment that potentially avoids the need for a central venous catheter. Approval of rezafungin was based on a single adequate and well-controlled phase 3 study designed with a Day 30 all-cause mortality primary endpoint and 20% noninferiority margin, which demonstrated that rezafungin is noninferior to the comparator echinocandin. Nonclinical studies of rezafungin in non-human primates identified a neurotoxicity safety signal; however, rezafungin's safety profile in the completed clinical studies was similar to other FDA-approved echinocandins. Here we describe the rationale for this approval and important considerations during the review process for a flexible development program intended to expedite the availability of antimicrobial therapies to treat serious infections in patients with limited treatment options.

Toward Patient-Centered Drug Approval for Treatment of Rare Diseases.

OBJECTIVES: This commentary seeks to improve the design and analysis of trials undertaken to obtain approval of drugs for treatment of rare diseases. METHODS: Methodological analysis reveals that use of hypothesis testing in the Food and Drug Administration drug approval process is harmful. Conventional asymmetric error probabilities bias the approval process against approval of new drugs. Hypothesis testing is inattentive to the relative magnitudes of losses to patient welfare when types 1 and 2 errors occur. Requiring the sample size to be large enough to guarantee the specified statistical power particularly inhibits the development of new drugs for treating rare diseases. Rarity of a disease makes it difficult to enroll the number of trial subjects needed to meet the statistical power standards for drug approval. RESULTS: Use of statistical decision theory in drug approval would overcome these serious deficiencies of hypothesis testing. Sample size would remain relevant to drug approval, but the criterion used to evaluate sample size would change. Rather than judging sample size by statistical power, the Food and Drug Administration could require a sample to be large enough to provide a specified nearness to optimality of the approval decision. CONCLUSIONS: Using nearness to optimality to set sample size and making approval decisions to minimize distance from optimality would particularly benefit the evaluation of drugs for treatment of rare diseases. It would enable a dramatic reduction in sample size relative to current norms, without compromising the clinical informativeness of trials.

The role of real-world evidence for regulatory and public health decision-making for Accelerated Vaccine Deployment- a meeting report.

The COVID-19 pandemic underscored the need for rapid evidence generation to inform public health decisions beyond the limitations of conventional clinical trials. This report summarises presentations and discussions from a conference on the role of Real-World Evidence (RWE) in expediting vaccine deployment. Attended by regulatory bodies, public health entities, and industry experts, the gathering was a collaborative exchange of experiences and recommendations for leveraging RWE for vaccine deployment. RWE proved instrumental in refining decision-making processes to optimise dosing regimens, enhance guidance on target populations, and steer vaccination strategies against emerging variants. Participants felt that RWE was successfully integrated into lifecycle management, encompassing boosters and safety considerations. However, challenges emerged, prompting a call for improvements in data quality, standardisation, and availability, acknowledging the variability and potential inaccuracies in data across diverse healthcare systems. Regulatory transparency should also be prioritised to foster public trust, and improved collaborations with governments are needed to streamline data collection and navigate data privacy regulations. Moreover, building and sustaining resources, expertise, and infrastructure in LMICs emerged as imperative for RWE-generating capabilities. Continued stakeholder collaboration and securing adequate funding emerged as vital pillars for advancing the use of RWE in shaping responsive and effective public health strategies.

Financial conflicts of interest among presenters, panellists and moderators at haematology and oncology FDA workshops.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the characteristics and financial conflicts of interest of presenters, panellists and moderators at haematology and oncology workshops held jointly with or hosted by the US FDA. SETTING: We included information on all publicly available haematology or oncology FDA workshop agendas held between 1 January 2018 and 31 December 2022. EXPOSURE: General and research payments reported on Open Payments, industry funding to patient advocacy organizations reported on their webpages or 990 tax forms and employment in both pharmaceutical and regulatory settings. RESULTS: Among physicians eligible for payments, 78% received at least one payment from the industry between 2017 and 2021. The mean general payment amount was $82,170 for all years ($16,434 per year) and the median was $14,906 for all years ($2981 per year). Sixty-nine per cent of patient advocacy speakers were representing organizations that received financial support from the pharmaceutical industry. Among those representing regulatory agencies or pharmaceutical companies, 16% had worked in both settings during their careers. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Our findings in this cross-sectional study show a majority of US-based physician presenters at haematology and oncology workshops held jointly with members of the US FDA have some financial conflict of interest with the pharmaceutical industry. These findings support the need for clear disclosures and suggest that a more balanced selection of presenters with fewer conflicts may help to limit bias in discussions between multiple stakeholders.

Approval status of essential therapeutic drugs for systemic sclerosis versus that of drugs for rheumatoid arthritis.

Objective: Systemic sclerosis, a rare disease characterized by chronic multisystem fibrosis, requires lifelong management, necessitating enough insurance coverage for the patient. Official drug approval is the first step to ensuring that the drug is covered by insurance. In this study, we investigated the approval status of essential therapeutic drugs for systemic sclerosis across eight countries and compared it with that of drugs for rheumatoid arthritis. Methods: The essential therapeutic drug lists for systemic sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis were taken from the guidelines of the American College of Rheumatology and the European Alliance of Associations for Rheumatology. Official drug approval status for the selected drugs was confirmed by searching representative Internet databases from eight countries: the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Italy, Switzerland, Japan, and the Republic of Korea. Results: A total of 21 and 16 drugs were selected for systemic sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis, respectively. The drug approval rates of the 21 drugs for systemic sclerosis varied among countries. Most drugs used to treat pulmonary arterial hypertension, which were developed recently and are expensive, are approved by most countries; however, most older drugs-which are still essential for management of Raynaud's phenomenon, digital ulcers, interstitial lung disease, and skin fibrosis-are not approved by most countries. By contrast, almost all of the 16 drugs used to treat rheumatoid arthritis, whether old or new, are approved by most countries. Conclusion: Approval rates for drugs used to treat systemic sclerosis, a rare disease, are much lower than those for drugs used to treat rheumatoid arthritis. Thus, approval rates of essential therapeutic drugs for systemic sclerosis need to improve, which will benefit patients by increasing the number of drugs covered by insurance.

Recent and anticipated novel drug approvals for 2024.

DISCLAIMER: In an effort to expedite the publication of articles pandemic, AJHP is posting manuscripts online as soon as possible after acceptance. Accepted manuscripts have been peer-reviewed and copyedited, but are posted online before technical formatting and author proofing. These manuscripts are not the final version of record and will be replaced with the final article (formatted per AJHP style and proofed by the authors) at a later time. PURPOSE: Health-system pharmacists play a crucial role in monitoring the pharmaceutical pipeline to manage formularies, allocate resources, and optimize clinical programs for new therapies. This article aims to support pharmacists by providing periodic updates on new and anticipated novel drug approvals. SUMMARY: Selected drug approvals anticipated in the 12-month period covering the first quarter of 2024 through the fourth quarter of 2024 are reviewed. The analysis emphasizes drugs expected to have significant clinical and financial impact in hospitals and clinics, as selected from 59 novel drugs awaiting US Food and Drug Administration approval. This year's pipeline includes recently added drugs with various indications including oncology, infectious diseases, genetic disorders, and rare diseases. New cellular and gene therapies are rapidly evolving and being studied for several rare diseases and cancers. CONCLUSION: More oncology agents, including gene therapies, oral agents, and monoclonal antibodies, are in the pipeline this year. Additional diseases targeted by new novel drugs, including cellular and gene therapies, are hemophilia, nonalcoholic steatohepatitis, Alzheimer's disease, and rare diseases such as galactosemia and epidermolysis bullosa.

Clinically Important Benefits and Harms of Monoclonal Antibodies Targeting Amyloid for the Treatment of Alzheimer Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: We conducted a meta-analysis to evaluate clinically meaningful benefits and harms of monoclonal antibodies targeting amyloid in patients with Alzheimer dementia. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Cochrane CENTRAL, and 5 trial registries, as well as the reference lists of identified studies. We included randomized controlled trials comparing a monoclonal antibody with placebo at a dose consistent with that used in phase 3 trials or for Food and Drug Administration approval. Studies had to report at least 1 clinically relevant benefit or harm. Data were extracted independently by at least 2 researchers for random effects meta-analysis. Changes in cognitive and functional scales were compared between groups, and each difference was assessed to determine if it met the minimal clinically important difference (MCID). RESULTS: We identified 19 publications with 23,202 total participants that evaluated 8 anti-amyloid antibodies. There were small improvements over placebo in the Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale (ADAS)-Cog-11 to -14 score (standardized mean difference = -0.07; 95% CI, -0.10 to -0.04), Mini Mental State Examination score (0.32 points; 95% CI, 0.13 to 0.50), and Clinical Dementia Rating-Sum of Boxes scale score (mean difference =-0.18 points; 95% CI, -0.34 to -0.03), and the combined functional scores (standardized mean difference = 0.09; 95% CI, 0.05 to 0.13). None of the changes, including those for lecanemab, aducanumab, and donanemab, exceeded the MCID. Harms included significantly increased risks of amyloid-related imaging abnormalities (ARIA)-edema (relative risk [RR] = 10.29; number needed to harm [NNH] = 9), ARIA-hemorrhage (RR = 1.74; NNH = 13), and symptomatic ARIA-edema (RR = 24.3; NNH = 86). CONCLUSIONS: Although monoclonal antibodies targeting amyloid provide small benefits on cognitive and functional scales in patients with Alzheimer dementia, these improvements are far below the MCID for each outcome and are accompanied by clinically meaningful harms.

Lessons Learned from Approval of Aducanumab for Alzheimer's Disease.

When the US Food and Drug Administration used the accelerated approval process to authorize the use of the antiamyloid drug aducanumab to treat Alzheimer's disease (AD), many people hoped this signaled a new era of disease-modifying treatment. But 2 years later, aducanumab's failure to launch provides a cautionary tale about the complexities of dementia and the need for a thorough and transparent review of the role that regulatory agencies and various stakeholders play in approving AD drugs. We highlight the events leading to aducanumab's controversial approval and discuss some of the key lessons learned from the drug's failure to deliver the hoped-for benefits. These lessons include the inherent limitations of antiamyloid strategies for a complex disease in which amyloid is only one of several pathological processes, the need for clinical trials that better reflect the diversity of communities affected by AD, the potential pitfalls of futility analyses in clinical trials, the need for greater transparency and other modifications to the approval process, and the dementia field's unreadiness to move from the highly controlled environment of clinical trials to the widespread and chronic use of resource-intensive, disease-modifying drugs in real-world treatment scenarios. People with dementia desperately need effective therapies. We hope that the aducanumab story will inspire changes to the approval process-changes that restore public trust and improve future efforts to deliver disease-modifying therapies to the clinic.

Emerging drugs for the treatment of irritability associated with autism spectrum disorder.

INTRODUCTION: Autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is an early-onset disorder with a prevalence of 1% among children and reported disability-adjusted life years of 4.31 million. Irritability is a challenging behavior associated with ASD, for which medication development has lagged. More specifically, pharmacotherapy effectiveness may be limited against high adverse effects (considering side effect profiles and patient medication sensitivity); thus, the possible benefits of pharmacological interventions must be balanced against potential adverse events in each patient. AREAS COVERED: After reviewing the neuropathophysiology of ASD-associated irritability, the benefits and tolerability of emerging medications in its treatment based on randomized controlled trials were detailed in light of mechanisms and targets of action. EXPERT OPINION: Succeeding risperidone and aripiprazole, monotherapy with memantine may be beneficial. In addition, N-acetylcysteine, galantamine, sulforaphane, celecoxib, palmitoylethanolamide, pentoxifylline, simvastatin, minocycline, amantadine, pregnenolone, prednisolone, riluzole, propentofylline, pioglitazone, and topiramate, all adjunct to risperidone, and clonidine and methylphenidate outperformed placebo. These effects were through glutamatergic, γ-aminobutyric acidergic, inflammatory, oxidative, cholinergic, dopaminergic, and serotonergic systems. All medications were reported to be safe and tolerable. Considering sample size, follow-up, and effect size, further studies are necessary. Along with drug development, repositioning and combining existing drugs supported by the mechanism of action is recommended.

Fixed Versus Body-Sized-Based Dosing of Monoclonal Antibodies.

Monoclonal antibody products are an increasing portion of novel drug approvals. The labeling of initial drug approvals frequently involves body-size-based rather than fixed-dose administration regimens for adults without clear rationale for doing so. This presents challenges when prescribing these products for patients with extremes of body habitus who constitute a small portion of enrollment in pre-approval investigations. Fixed-dose regimens allow for standardized preparation with the potential to reduce the risk of calculation errors, drug waste, and make home administration more practical. Fixed-dose rather than body-size-based monoclonal antibody regimens should serve as the initial approach in early phase 1 clinical trials.

Reporting of post-protocol therapies in metastatic breast cancer registration clinical trials: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: As the treatment for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) often includes sequential lines of therapy, data on post-protocol treatment in clinical trials are valuable in the assessment of long-term outcomes. The objective of this study was to assess the reported data on post-protocol therapy in clinical trials supporting US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of drugs for MBC. METHODS: All initial and subsequent publications related to FDA approved indications for MBC between January 2000 and February 2023 were identified. Collected data included study design, patients' characteristics and whether reporting on post-protocol therapy was available. Differences in study design and population between studies with and without data on post-protocol therapy were evaluated. FINDINGS: Forty-one indications for MBC were identified. Data were evaluated from 249 publications or abstracts, comprising 20,152 patients. Reporting of post-protocol therapy was available for 22 (53.7 %) indications. Reported data were often incomplete. Reporting has not improved over time with reported data in 50 % and 55.2 % studies between 2000 and 2010 and 2011-2023 (p value for the difference = 1.0), respectively. Studies with OS as their primary endpoints were associated with significantly higher reporting of post-protocol therapy, (p = 0.02). Other characteristics of study design and population were comparable between studies with and without data on post-protocol therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Data on post-protocol therapy in trials supporting FDA approval of drugs for MBC are available for only half of the indications. As subsequent lines of therapy may have a crucial role in patients' outcome, post-protocol reporting should be included in the regulatory submission and be made available publicly.

Recent and anticipated novel drug approvals for 2023 and 2024.

PURPOSE: Health-system pharmacists play a crucial role in monitoring the pharmaceutical pipeline to manage formularies, allocate resources, and optimize clinical programs for new therapies. This article aims to support pharmacists by providing updates on new and anticipated novel drug approvals. SUMMARY: Selected drug approvals anticipated in the 12-month period covering the fourth quarter of 2023 through the third quarter of 2024 are reviewed. The analysis emphasizes drugs selected from 58 novel drugs awaiting FDA approval that are expected to have significant clinical and financial impact in hospitals and clinics. The pipeline includes recently added drugs with various indications, including oncology, infectious diseases such as complicated urinary tract infection and pneumonia, and rare diseases. CONCLUSION: Cellular and gene therapies continue to strengthen the pipeline as potential new treatment options for genetic disorders, rare diseases, and cancer. Additional diseases treated by new agents include pulmonary arterial hypertension, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, diabetes, and obesity.

Characteristics and outcomes of new molecular oncology drug approvals, in combination or monotherapy.

IMPORTANCE: Understanding the factors that are associated with new molecular entity (NME) cancer drug approvals as a single agent and in combination, and European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) scores, can aid in identifying suitable factors to consider in trial designs for future drugs. In addition, the association between the various outcomes can aid in determining benefit when surrogate outcomes are used in approval consideration. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to (1) use the measures used in evaluating clinical trials by ESMO scores to determine the differences in the characteristics of 2013-2022 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oncology NME drug approvals for those approved for use in combination or as a monotherapy, and (2) analyze the association between survival outcomes and the response rate for monotherapy NME drugs and/or drugs approved in combination. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis. SETTING: US FDA Oncology Drug Approvals (2013-2022) PARTICIPANTS: US FDA Oncology Drug Approvals (2013-2022) EXPOSURES: Trial-level characteristics (tumor types, basis of approval, randomized or not, phase) and associations between overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), or overall response rate (ORR) and whether NME drugs were approved as monotherapy or in combination . RESULTS: Drugs approved for use as a monotherapy are less likely to be approved using a randomized study (p < 0.001) and more likely to be approved via the accelerated pathway (p = 0.012) and be open-label (p < 0.001). Drugs approved for use as a combination or monotherapy significantly differed on their approval basis (p = 0.002), phase of trial at the time of approval (p = 0.02), and ESMO scores (p = 0.02). There was low correlation between response rate and either PFS or OS metrics. However, nearly all of the drugs with large improvements in OS (> 5months) were drugs with robust ORR. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Drugs approved as monotherapy with a low response rate are likely to have marginal benefit in OS and PFS.

A review of new drugs approved by the food and drug administration in 2022.

Introduction: The drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2022, for the first time for any indication or under any brand, were studied under the contexts of indications, mechanism of action, and side effects. Primary care practitioners with considering patients as a composite whole will benefit by acquainting themselves with these drugs and their indications and adverse effects. Observations: The drugs were approved in all, 11 for the management of neoplasia, and 5 each for hematological, neurological, and dermatological conditions. 11 of the approved drugs are monoclonal antibodies and six are small molecule inhibitors. Conclusion: Although the FDA's expedited approval program allows rapid market availability of drugs for difficult to treat conditions, a quarter of the globe does not have access to essential medicines, primarily due to cost. In light of this, approval agencies must reorient approval processes to improve accessibility.

Securing the Trustworthiness of the FDA to Build Public Trust in Vaccines.

The Covid-19 pandemic highlighted the need to examine public trust in the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) vaccine approval process and the role of political influence in the FDA's decisions. Ensuring that the FDA is itself trustworthy is important for justifying public trust in its actions, like vaccine approvals, thereby promoting public health. We propose five conditions of trustworthiness that the FDA should meet when it reviews vaccines, even during emergencies: consistency with rules, proper expert or political decision-makers, proper decision-making and noninterference, connection to public preference, and transparency of both reasons and procedures. The five conditions provide a road map of procedural and substantive requirements, which the FDA has variably implemented, focused on ensuring appropriate influence of political interests. While being a trustworthy agency cannot guarantee the public's trust, implementing these conditions builds a groundwork for public trust.