A Systematic Review of Treatment-Related Adverse Events for Combination Therapy of Multiple Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor and Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor.

BACKGROUND: Combination therapy with multiple tyrosine kinase inhibitors (multi-TKIs) and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) has been increasingly tested in clinical studies. This study aimed to investigate the effect of the addition of ICI to multi-TKIs on the profile of treatment-related adverse events. METHODS: An electronic database search was performed using PubMed and Web of Science to identify published clinical studies on multi-TKI monotherapy and multi-TKI plus ICI combination therapy from July 20, 2005 to July 1, 2023. The incidence rate of common adverse events caused by multi-TKI monotherapy and multi-TKI plus ICI combination therapy was obtained and compared from the viewpoints of (1) relative risk for the combination therapy vs sunitinib, (2) adverse event incidence rate by clinical trial, and (3) pooled incidence rate. The quality of the evidence was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Meta-analysis used random effects models. RESULTS: This systematic review identified 83 clinical studies involving 7951 patients. The combination therapy of multi-TKI and ICI was associated with an increased risk of diarrhea (relative risk [RR]: 1.24, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.15-1.33, P < .001), hypothyroidism (RR: 1.44, 95% CI: 1.11-1.87, P = .0064) and rash (RR: 1.71, 95% CI: 1.18-2.47, P = .0045) compared with multi-TKI monotherapy. The addition of ICI was suggested to decrease the risk of adverse events related to performance status. CONCLUSION: Our study identified an increased risk of treatment-related adverse events associated with multi-TKI plus ICI combination therapy. This would help optimize the management of toxicities caused by multi-TKI plus ICI combination therapy.

Characteristics of Clinical Trials for the US Food and Drug Administration Accelerated Approval and Subsequent Confirmatory Trials: Implications for Drug Approval in Japan.

The Accelerated Approval (AA) Program of the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was established to facilitate and expedite access to new drugs for serious or life-threatening conditions. Although many drugs have granted AAs in the US, the number of approvals under the conditional approval system in Japan remains limited. This study aimed to examine whether confirmatory trials after the US AA are conducted in accordance with the design of postmarketing requirements and assess the timing of regular approval (RA) in Japan for drugs that have been granted US AA. Utilizing FDA databases and Japanese regulatory data from 1992 to 2023, we analyzed indications, postmarketing requirements, and clinical trial designs. Our findings indicate that the AA program in the US is well-managed as most AAs were converted to RAs based on confirmatory study data that met the designations. From the Japanese perspective, our findings show that the over half of Japanese RAs can be obtained without waiting for confirmatory trial results. By granting RA, instead of conditional approval, based on exploratory trial data in the US AA, the opportunity to evaluate postmarketing confirmatory trial results might be lost in Japan. Therefore, further improvements are needed to actively utilize the conditional approval system, which could allow for the rapid introduction of innovative drugs and also the verification of their efficacy and safety at an appropriate time.

Comparison of safety outcomes of anticancer drugs in Japanese and non-Japanese patients in multi-regional clinical trials: meta-analysis of safety profiles.

No report has assessed the differences in adverse event (AE) profiles of anticancer drugs for all types of cancers in clinical trials involving Japanese patients. This study aimed to compare the safety outcomes of anticancer drugs in Japanese and non-Japanese patients in multi-regional clinical trials (MRCTs), regardless of the type of cancer or drug. All new approvals of oncology drugs in Japan from January 2009 to December 2018 were searched through the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency website. The odds ratio (OR) for comparing the incidence of AEs between Japanese and non-Japanese patients was estimated using the Mantel-Haenszel method with a random effect model. Sixty-six multi-regional phase 3 trials were identified involving 43,712 patients. Severe AE, AE leading to dose reduction, and AE leading to dose interruption were significantly more frequent in Japanese patients than in non-Japanese (odds ratios [ORs] were 1.32 (95% confidence interval (CI): 1.13-1.53), 1.97 (95% CI: 1.66-2.31), and 1.63 (95% CI: 1.43-1.86), respectively). Serious AEs (SAEs) and AEs leading to death were significantly less frequent in Japanese patients (OR: 0.70 (95% CI: 0.62-0.77) vs. 0.56 (95% CI: 0.44-0.67), respectively). There were no differences in AEs leading to study withdrawal. The incidence of most AEs was significantly higher in Japanese patients. In Japanese patients, the incidence of SAEs and AEs leading to death was low, but severe AEs, AEs leading to dose reductions, AEs leading to dose interruption, and individual adverse events were high.

Decision and timing of safety-related labeling changes for new drugs in Japan: Comparison with the United States and the European Union.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to compare safety-related labeling changes for newly approved drugs in Japan with those in the United States (US) and the European Union (EU), where guidance on the details of pharmacovigilance (PV) process has been published, to examine the extent to which the Japanese PV process is working. METHODS: Safety-related labeling changes for new drugs approved within 1 year in Japan, the US, and the EU were reviewed for the number, timing, and concordance of contents of the labeling change between countries/region. RESULTS: The number of labeling changes and median time from approval to the change (min, max) were 57 cases and 814 (90, 2454) days in Japan, 63 cases and 852 (161, 3051) days in the US, and 50 cases and 851 (157, 2699) days in the EU. Distribution of the revision date of the concordant labeling change in the three countries/region and distribution of differences in revision date between the two countries/region showed no trend of delayed labeling change in a specific country/region. Concordance rate of the labeling change was 36.1% (30/83) in US-EU, 21.2% (21/99) in Japan-US, and 23.0% (20/87) in Japan-EU (Fisher's exact test, p = 0.0313 [Japan-US vs. US-EU], p = 0.066 [Japan-EU vs. US-EU]). CONCLUSIONS: There was no trend of fewer or later labeling changes in Japan compared to those in the US/EU. While the concordance rate in US-EU was low, that in Japan-US and Japan-EU were even lower. Further investigation is needed to understand the reasons for these differences.

Oncology drug lag in Japan: has it improved over the last decade?

BACKGROUND: Existing studies and statistics on the drug lag between Japan and the United States (US) for anti-cancer drugs indicate that it has decreased, whereas more drugs are left unapproved in Japan. This study aimed to quantify the impact of unapproved drugs on the drug lag. METHODS: Information on 136 anti-cancer drugs approved in the US between 2011 and 2022 was collected. The approval lag, defined as the number of days from the date of approval in the US to the date of approval in Japan, was calculated for all selected drugs, and the median was calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. The approval lag for drugs not approved in Japan was treated as censored data. Factors potentially associated with the approval lag were explored using Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: The median approval lags for the first half-period (2011-2016) and the last half-period (2017-2022) were 961 days (2.6 years) and 1547 days (4.2 years), respectively (Log-rank test: p = 0.0687). The participation of Japan in the global pivotal trial was associated with a shorter approval lag, and new drug applications by non-Japanese companies that did not rank in the global sales top 20 were associated with a longer approval lag. CONCLUSIONS: Drug lag has not decreased over the last decade. The percentage of pivotal trials for US approval that included Japan has increased but should be further increased in the future. Japan may require a scheme to encourage smaller non-Japanese companies to include Japan in their global clinical development plan.

Impact of the Economic Status of the Patient's Country of Residence on the Outcome of Oncology Clinical Trials.

BACKGROUND: Prolongation of overall survival (OS) is commonly evaluated as a primary endpoint in confirmative oncology clinical trials; however, it is potentially affected by subsequent treatments carried out in practice. To design and implement multi-regional clinical trials properly, we compared survival outcomes between Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and non-OECD countries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Individual patient data from industry-sponsored multi-regional phase III oncology trials were obtained from the Project Data Sphere. Patients of each arm were divided into several subgroups based on race and country where patients were enrolled. We defined the member countries of the OECD. Cox regression analysis was conducted to estimate the hazard ratio (HR) for progression-free survival (PFS) and OS between the different subgroups in each trial, followed by a meta-analysis to estimate the summary HR and its confidence interval with a random-effect model. RESULTS: Eleven arms from 10 clinical trials were eligible for the analysis. No statistically significant difference was observed in PFS and OS between Caucasian and Asian. A prolongation of OS was observed in patients enrolled in the OECD group compared with non-OECD group, while no statistically significant difference was observed in PFS. CONCLUSION: The economic status and healthcare environment of countries where patients reside have an impact on the outcome of OS. Clinical trial sponsors are recommended to consider carefully how to properly design oncology clinical trials including the selection of countries and data management of subsequent treatments.

Response rate of anticancer drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration based on a single-arm trial.

BACKGROUND: In recent years, an increasing number of anticancer drugs have been approved based on the results of a single-arm trial (SAT). The magnitude of the objective response rate (ORR) in SATs is important for regulatory decisions, but there has been no clear guidance specifying the degree of ORR for approval. METHODS: All anticancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between January 2016 and December 2019 were identified through the FDA website. From these, we selected drugs approved for solid tumors based on SATs. For each indication, one regimen was selected from the standard-of-care as the best comparison therapy (BCT), which was defined as the latest regimen for the same tumor and treatment line. We compared the ORR of the investigated product with that of the BCT. RESULTS: Of the 31 solid tumor indications identified, we selected BCT for 28. In 23 of the 28 indications (82.1%), the ORR of the investigated product exceeded that of the BCT, and in 16 of these (69.6%), the lower limit of the 95% confidence interval (CI) of the ORR of the investigated product exceeded the point estimate of the BCT ORR. For seven products, the lower limit of the 95% CI was below the point estimate of the BCT ORR, with differences ranging from 1.0% to 3.4%. CONCLUSION: The lower limit of a 95% CI of the ORR of a new drug in an SAT exceeding the point estimate of the BCT ORR could be an important factor in obtaining regulatory approval.

Anti-Tumor Efficacy of Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 Antibodies in Combination With Other Anticancer Drugs in Solid Tumors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: The clinical efficacy of immune checkpoint inhibitors (CPIs) has been proven; however, it is also known that their efficacy as monotherapy is limited, with a response rate of 20% or less in solid tumors. The combination of CPIs and anticancer agents has been actively attempted in solid tumors area. In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we aimed to find favorable combination therapies of programmed death 1 (PD-1) or programmed death ligand 1 (PD-L1) inhibitors in terms of anti-tumor efficacy in clinical settings. METHODS: An electronic database search was performed using ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed, and ASCO/ESMO annual meeting libraries. We included randomized or non-randomized trials designed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combination therapies of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors and other anticancer drug-containing therapies. All clinical studies selected were solid tumors with objective response rate (ORR) data. The quality of the evidence was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool or the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Meta-analysis used random effects models to pool results. RESULTS: Sixteen studies involving 3793 patients were included in the primary analysis. These studies have a monotherapy group with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors as the control group or the in-study arm/cohort (1863 patients in the combination group with PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors and 1930 patients in PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor monotherapy). The pooled results showed that the combination of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors and other anticancer drugs significantly improved the ORR (relative risk [RR] = 1.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.46, 2.20). In the subgroup analysis, PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor plus DNA-synthesis or microtubule inhibitor led to a statistically significant improvement in the ORR compared to PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitor alone. CONCLUSIONS: It was suggested that combinations of PD-1/PD-L1 inhibitors and potential immunogenic cell death (ICD) inducers improve the clinical anti-tumor efficacy, although updated meta-analyses based on the results of ongoing clinical trials are further needed.

Acceptability of Manufacturer-Proposed Utility Values for NICE Cancer Medicine Appraisals: Analysis of Manufacturers' Information Sources.

OBJECTIVES: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence's (NICE) method guide for technology appraisals (TAs) encourages medicine manufacturers to use the EuroQol 5 Dimensions (EQ-5D) in relevant clinical trials to obtain utility values; however, the EQ-5D may have low sensitivity when compared to disease-specific measures. This study investigated whether the NICE TA committee's acceptance of manufacturer-proposed utility values is dependent on the manufacturers' sources of the utility values. METHODS: Using publicly available data for 2011-2020, we identified 136 single TAs of cancer medicines, the health-related quality-of-life-measures used in relevant clinical trials, manufacturers' sources of utility values, and the NICE TA committee's acceptance of these values. Fisher's exact tests were performed to compare the acceptability of different value sources and reasons for non-acceptance. RESULTS: The number of appraisals for which the EQ-5D in the relevant clinical trials was the source of the manufacturer-proposed utility values increased continuously over time. The TA committee's acceptance of values was not dependent on the information source. In cases where a submission for which the information source was the EQ-5D was rejected, the reason was generally related to inappropriate values for the UK population or inappropriate data adjustment, not data reliability. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrated that according with the NICE's method guide regarding utility values does not guarantee acceptance by the TA committee. Manufacturers must consider in advance possible differences between their clinical trials and clinical practice in the UK and refine plans for EQ-5D measurement in order to obtain convincing evidence.

A comparison of decision and timing of safety related labeling changes for new drugs approved both in Japan and the United States.

PURPOSE: It is important to make the most up-to-date drug safety information available to the public in a timely manner so that health care professionals and patients can consider the information. The aim of the present study was to investigate the consistency and simultaneity of safety related updates in product labeling in Japan and the United States. METHODS: New safety label changes that were made for new drugs approved concurrently both in Japan and the United States in the recent 5 years were identified and reviewed for concordance and time lag analysis. Factors associated with the time lag were also investigated. RESULTS: Despite similar medical practices, population health and regulation in the countries, a low level of concordance (40/115, 34.8%) in the decision of labeling change was found in 31 new active substances. Only 3/40 (7.5%) of the concordant changes were made simultaneously. Labeling change orders issued by regulators and domestic postmarketing adverse event reports were associated with a significant difference in the timing of labeling change between the countries. CONCLUSIONS: We found a low level of concordance between regulators in the decision of labeling changes and the timeliness of the changes. The low concordance and time lag highlighted the need for further international collaboration between regulators and industry and greater transparency in the decision-making process for the label change.

Comparison of efficacy outcomes of anticancer drugs between Japanese patients and the overall population.

BACKGROUND: It is important to recognize regional and racial differences in drug efficacy and safety when performing multi-regional clinical trials (MRCTs). To understand regional differences, we compared the efficacy results in Japanese patients and the overall population in the MRCTs of anticancer drugs. METHODS: All new approvals of oncology drugs in Japan from January 2009 to December 2018 were searched using the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency web site to find phase 3 MRCTs for the analysis. As the supporting data source, a literature search was performed in PubMed and Google Scholar. Linear regression analysis was performed and Pearson correlation coefficients (r) were calculated to compare the overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR) between Japanese patients and the overall population. RESULTS: Seventy MRCTs were identified. The correlation of hazard ratios (HRs) for OS between Japanese patients and the overall population was moderate (r = 0.45), and OS was 1.31 times longer in Japanese patients than in the overall population, although the correlation of median OS was strong (r = 0.91). The HRs for PFS were moderately correlated (r = 0.70) and the correlation of median PFS was strong (r = 0.90). The correlation of ORR was very strong (r = 0.96). CONCLUSION: The PFS and ORR were consistent between Japanese patients and the overall population. A longer median OS was observed in Japanese patients. Our results would be a useful reference when planning and conducting MRCTs that include Japan for global simultaneous drug development.

Increased availability of drugs is correlated with the number of patients diagnosed thereafter: Data analysis of 45 intractable diseases.

WHAT IS KNOWN: Estimates of the prevalence of diseases can be affected by non-biological factors such as change in diagnostic criteria and change in awareness of the diseases. The launch of a new drug is a potential contributory factor to the estimated prevalence of the target disease, but there appears to be no reports on this possible relationship. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the relationship between the change in the number of patients diagnosed and factors such as the number of drugs indicated and the number of relevant scientific articles, focused on 45 intractable diseases in Japan. METHODS: The number of patients with 1 of 45 intractable diseases from 2004 to 2013 was collected from publicly available data. The number of drugs indicated, the number of scientific articles, and diagnostic and certificate criteria for the disease were collected from publicly available sources from 2004 to 2013. Using these data, the correlation coefficient was calculated, and linear regression analyses were performed. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The rate of increase in the number of drugs and the increase rate of the number of articles were found to be associated with an increase in the number of patients from 2004 to 2013. Linear regression analysis showed that the increase rate of the number of drugs available (2004-2008) was a statistically significant factor correlated with the rate of increase in the number of patients diagnosed in the following period (2009-2013). However, the increase rate of the number of patients (2004-2008) was not associated with the rate of increase in the number of drugs (2009-2013). One possible reason as to why the number of new drugs was correlated with the patient diagnosis numbers thereafter was proposed to be due to an increased awareness of diseases among physicians. WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: This is the first study to investigate the relationship between the number of new drugs and the number of patients diagnosed based on data from multiple diseases. The investigation of data on 45 intractable diseases in Japan indicated that the increased availability of drugs was correlated with the increase in the number of patients in the future.

Medicine characteristics affecting the time to guidance publication by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in the single technology appraisal process.

OBJECTIVE: In England, the time gap between marketing authorization (MA) and guidance publication by National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) can limit patients' access to new medicines. In this study, our aim was to identify medicine characteristics associated with the long time gap between MA and guidance publication and explore the influencing factors. METHODS: We identified 116 single technology appraisals from 2016 to 2020 using publicly available data, and extracted information on the year of appraisal completion, application type, experiences of similar appraisals, orphan medicinal products (OMPs), cancer medicines, and accelerated assessment. Multiple regression analyses were performed to analyze the associations between the medicine characteristics and key time periods related to health technology assessment and MA processes. RESULTS: OMPs were associated with a long period between MA and guidance publication. Specifically, OMPs and cancer medicines were associated with slow guidance publication after the final scope (FS) development. However, there was no association between OMPs and the period between validation of MA application and FS development. Non-double-blinded randomized clinical trials and the use of comparators not specified in the FS were associated with slow guidance publication after the FS development. CONCLUSIONS: Our results demonstrate that OMPs are associated with a longer period between MA and guidance publication by the NICE than non-OMPs; this may be attributed to the slow guidance publication after the FS development. These findings indicate the necessity to shorten the appraisal process for OMPs.

Magnitude of advantage in tumor response contributes to a better correlation between treatment effects on overall survival and progression-free survival: a literature-based meta-analysis of clinical trials in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Although it is suggested that the endpoints originated from the concept of tumor shrinkage dynamics, such as early tumor shrinkage and depth of response, are strongly associated with overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC), they are yet to be validated as a single surrogate endpoint of OS by themselves. This study aimed to investigate the impact of advantage in tumor response on the correlation between treatment effects on progression-free survival (PFS) and OS in mCRC patients. METHODS: Based on an electronic search, we identified randomized controlled trials of first-line therapy for mCRC. The impact of advantage in objective response rate (ORR) on the correlation between treatment effects on PFS and OS was evaluated based on Spearman correlation coefficients (rs). RESULTS: Forty-seven trials with a total of 24,018 patients were identified. The hazard ratio for PFS showed a relatively higher correlation with that for OS (rs = 0.63) when the trials were limited to those that demonstrated a larger difference in ORR, compared to the case for trials that demonstrated a smaller difference (rs = 0.32). This tendency was also observed in the subgroup analysis stratified by the types of treatment agents (targeted or non-targeted). CONCLUSIONS: The magnitude of advantage in tumor response was suggested to contribute to a better prediction of OS benefit based on PFS in patients with mCRC. The accuracy of OS estimation in mCRC is expected to be improved by considering the degree of tumor shrinkage in conjunction with PFS.

Post-marketing safety-related regulatory actions on first-in-class drugs: A double-cohort study.

WHAT IS KNOWN AND OBJECTIVE: New first-in-class (FIC) drugs with novel mechanisms of action may be highly effective, but lack adequate safety information, and therefore may be associated with crucial post-marketing safety issues. The objective of this study was to evaluate the post-marketing risk of FIC drug with comparison occurrence of Post-marketing safety-related regulatory actions (PSRAs) due to FIC drugs to that due to other new drugs. METHODS: A full list of all new molecular entities and therapeutic biologics, except diagnostic agents and vaccines, which were approved in the United States between 1 January 2003, and 31 December 2013, were included in this study. Drugs with novel mechanisms of action at the time of approval were classified as the FIC cohort and other new drugs as the control cohort. PSRAs were defined as safety-related post-marketing withdrawal, new issuance or the addition of black box warnings. Specifically, we identified PSRAs associated with adverse drug reactions (ADR-PSRAs). Subsequently, we identified drug allergy ADR-PSRAs and class-effect ADR-PSRAs, and also extracted drug-specific ADR-PSRAs. To evaluate the post-marketing safety risk of FIC drugs, we estimated the odds ratio of the occurrence of ADR-PSRAs between the FIC cohort and the control cohort. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: The odds ratio of the occurrence of all ADR-PSRA in the FIC cohort was 0.96 (95% CI: 0.57-1.61, P = .8758), showing no difference compared to that of the control cohort. However, the odds ratio of the occurrence of drug-specific ADR-PSRAs in the FIC cohort was 2.06 (95% CI: 1.20-3.55, P = .0091). WHAT IS NEW AND CONCLUSION: This study demonstrated that a strong relationship existed between FIC drugs and the occurrence of drug-specific ADR-PSRAs, suggesting that post-marketing safety risk for FIC drugs is higher than that for other new drugs given the same class at approval.

Population/regional differences in efficacy of 3 drug categories (antidiabetic, respiratory and psychotropic agents) among East Asians: A retrospective study based on multiregional clinical trials.

AIMS: This study aimed to identify population/regional differences in drug efficacy and the influencing factors among East Asians to be considered when planning multiregional clinical trials (MRCTs) to facilitate rapid drug approval in Asians. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of efficacy (intergroup difference in endpoint between control and study drug treatment) among East Asian populations for 3 drug categories, antidiabetic, respiratory and psychotropic agents, was conducted in collaboration with pharmaceutical companies using their MRCT data. Common endpoints by drug category were selected; background factors that commonly affected the endpoints among regions were analysed first; then the population/regional differences were evaluated by the interaction term region-by-treatment using an analysis of covariance model after adjusting for background factors. RESULTS: Among 17 endpoints for eight pharmaceutical products from 3 drug categories, no substantial population/regional differences were detected in the 3 drug categories examined (P > .05), except for haemoglobin A1c change between Japan and Korea for an antidiabetic drug, insulin glulisine (P = .0068). However, no such regional differences were evident in patients with clinically important higher haemoglobin A1c baseline values (majority subgroup). Variability in disease severity at baseline and concomitant drugs were determined to be potential influencing factors for regional differences. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that the regional variability in efficacy of these 3 drug categories is not large among East Asians, and reveals the importance of considering background factors when planning MRCTs. Further studies are needed to evaluate regional variability in the efficacy of other drug categories and clarify the factors leading to regional differences in East Asians.

Regulatory characteristics and pivotal study design of US Food and Drug Administration approval of drugs for major vs. minor cancer.

PURPOSE: We aimed to investigate the regulatory approval of drugs for cancers by the US Food and Drug Administration based on the cancer type (major vs. minor), including the use of expedited development programs and duration from Investigational New Drug application (IND) to marketing approval. METHODS: From publicly available records and through a Freedom of Information Act request, we gathered data to evaluate regulatory characteristics and pivotal study design for 115 anticancer drug approvals between 2012 and 2017 and the data were analyzed based on cancer incidence (major vs. minor cancers) and how expedited programs, orphan drug designation, and pivotal study design contribute to expedited approval was studied. RESULTS: Drugs targeting minor cancers more frequently (67%; P = 0.0155) utilized breakthrough therapy designation and/or accelerated approval, both of which significantly contributed to expedited drug approval (median time from IND to approval, 6.4 years; P = 0.0008, 6.2 years; P < 0.0001). Drug approvals for pivotal study design without a comparator arm took significantly less time from IND to approval (median time from IND to approval, 6.2 years; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Drugs targeting minor cancers have frequently utilized the expedited development programs; thus, efficiently shortening time to approval. As many of such drugs are approved based on non-comparative pivotal studies, meticulous evaluation and follow-up should be performed for such drugs after their approval.

Current state of therapeutic development for rare cancers in Japan, and proposals for improvement.

This article discusses current obstacles to the rapid development of safe and effective treatments for rare cancers, and considers measures required to overcome these challenges. In order to develop novel clinical options for rare cancers, which tend to remain left out of novel therapeutic development because of their paucity, efficient recruitment of eligible patients, who tend to be widely dispersed across the country and treated at different centers, is necessary. For this purpose, it is important to establish rare cancer registries that are linked with clinical studies, to organize a central pathological diagnosis system and biobanks for rare cancers, and to consolidate patients with rare cancers to facilities that can conduct clinical studies meeting international standards. Establishing an all-Japan cooperative network is essential. Clinical studies of rare cancers have considerable limitations in study design and sample size as a result of paucity of eligible patients and, as a result, the level of confirmation of the efficacy and safety shown by the studies is relatively low. Therefore, measures to alleviate these weaknesses inherent to external conditions need to be explored. It is also important to reform the current research environment in order to develop world-leading treatment for rare cancers, including promotion of basic research, collaboration between industry and academia, and improvement of the infrastructure for clinical studies. Collaboration among a wide range of stakeholders is required to promote the clinical development of treatment for rare cancers under a nationwide consensus.

Assessment of Cardiovascular Risk With Glucagon-Like Peptide 1 Receptor Agonists in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes Using an Alternative Measure to the Hazard Ratio.

BACKGROUND: Randomized clinical trials with the aim of evaluating the cardiovascular risks associated with glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists, lixisenatide, liraglutide, semaglutide, and exenatide, have been conducted. They showed different results among the agents, but the reason has not been explained. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the cardiovascular risks associated with GLP-1 receptor agonists by using an alternative measure to the hazard ratio. METHODS: We used the difference in restricted mean survival time (RMST) as a measure of cardiovascular risks. Four randomized clinical trials with cardiovascular events as a primary endpoint, ELIXA (lixisenatide), LEADER (liraglutide), SUSTAIN-6 (semaglutide), and EXSCEL (exenatide), were reevaluated by estimating the RMSTs for each of the agents and placebo based on the reconstructed individual patient data for each time-to-event outcome from publicly available information. RESULTS: The differences of RMSTs (GLP-1 receptor agonist minus placebo: point estimate and 95% CI) for primary composite endpoint of cardiovascular events were 0 days [-14, 14] in ELIXA (1080 days follow-up), 20 days [6, 34] in LEADER (1620 days follow-up), 8 days [1, 15] in SUSTAIN-6 (672 days follow-up), and 11 days [-3, 26] in EXSCEL (1825 days follow-up). As for the risk of other cardiovascular outcomes, there were no substantial differences between GLP-1 receptor agonists and placebo. CONCLUSIONS: Liraglutide and semaglutide decrease the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events compared with placebo when using the difference in RMST. The previously reported result that GLP-1 receptor agonists do not increase the risk of cardiovascular outcomes compared with placebo is also confirmed.

Analysis of factors related to the occurrence of important drug-specific postmarketing safety-related regulatory actions: A cohort study focused on first-in-class drugs.

PURPOSE: First-in-class (FIC) drugs with novel modes of action pose concerns regarding important postmarketing safety issues. The purpose of this study was to analyze the factors related to the occurrence of postmarketing safety-related regulatory actions (PSRAs) for drugs approved in the United States (US), with a focus on FIC drugs. METHODS: New molecular entities and new therapeutic biologics approved in the United States between 1 January 2003 and 31 December 2013 were included in the analysis. Important drug-specific PSRAs were defined as market withdrawal or the addition of new black box warnings or warnings due to adverse drug reactions. The relationship between baseline characteristics and the occurrence of important drug-specific PSRAs was investigated using a multivariate logistic regression model. We also defined the event as the first important PSRA and estimated the time-to-event for each factor. RESULTS: ATC category L (antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents) and FIC drug classification were shown to be statistically significant factors, with odds ratios of 2.15 (95% CI: 1.12-4.11; P = 0.0203) and 1.87 (95% CI: 1.06-3.31; P = 0.0309), respectively. ATC category L and FIC drugs were also significant factors for time to occurrence of the first event. CONCLUSION: FIC designation and ATC category L were identified as factors related to important drug-specific PSRAs. These factors were also associated with the time to occurrence of the first important drug-specific PSRAs.