Unpublished trials of alprazolam XR and their influence on its apparent efficacy for panic disorder.

OBJECTIVE: To test for publication bias with alprazolam, the most widely prescribed benzodiazepine, by comparing its efficacy for panic disorder using trial results from (1) the published literature and (2) the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). METHODS: From FDA reviews, we included data from all phase 2/3 efficacy trials of alprazolam extended-release (Xanax XR) for the treatment of panic disorder. A search for matching publications was performed using PubMed and Google Scholar. Publication bias was examined by comparing: (1) overall trial results (positive or not) according to the FDA v. corresponding publications; (2) effect size (Hedges's g) based on FDA data v. published data. RESULTS: The FDA review showed that five trials were conducted, only one of which (20%) was positive. Of the four not-positive trials, two were published conveying a positive outcome; the other two were not published. Thus, according to the published literature, three trials were conducted and all (100%) were positive. Alprazolam's effect size calculated using FDA data was 0.33 (CI95% 0.07-0.60) v. 0.47 (CI95% 0.30-0.65) using published data, an increase of 0.14, or 42%. CONCLUSIONS: Publication bias substantially inflates the apparent efficacy of alprazolam XR.

The temporal association between adverse drug reactions and antirheumatic drugs utilisation in Western Australia: a retrospective study from real-world data (1995-2015).

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) can result in morbidity, mortality, and higher healthcare costs. Given the limited information available on ADRs associated with antirheumatic medications, this study aims to analyse and compare ADR reporting for these drugs in the pharmacovigilance datasets of Western Australia (WA) and the United States (US). METHODS: Therapeutic Goods Administration provided WA pharmacovigilance data of selected antirheumatic drugs to from 1995 to 2015. The proportional reporting ratio (PRR) for WA case reports was compared to corresponding USA pharmacovigilance data by assessing the disproportionality of each ADR. clinically significant or true ADRs were determined using the Evans 2001 criteria (n > 2, chi-square > 4, PRR > 2). RESULTS: A total of 232 reports were found in WA, mostly on sixty-nine women aged 45 to 69. Methotrexate, leflunomide, azathioprine, sulfasalazine, and infliximab had the highest reported ADRs, related to gastrointestinal disorders. Patients who used biological agents in WA had 2.7 times the likelihood of reporting true ADRs compared to conventional antirheumatic drugs. The ADR rates in the two datasets were comparable over the study period. CONCLUSIONS: The PRR values of ADRs were consistent between WA and US databases. Methotrexate and infliximab use were commonly associated with ADR reports in WA females, with incidence rates comparable to the US; while patients using biological agents were more likely to report true ADRs than those on conventional antirheumatic drugs in WA.

Animal use and opportunities for reduction in carcinogenicity studies supporting approved new drug applications in the U.S., 2015-2019.

A minimum of 65,341 rats and mice were used in 109 carcinogenicity studies conducted for new drug applications approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration from 2015 through 2019. By analyzing how these animals were used, we compared the potential for reducing animal use of implementing existing international guidelines and recommendations. The greatest reduction, 18.7%, would result from evaluating exposure by microsampling blood in main studies to replace toxicokinetics satellites, which used three-fold more mice than rats. A similar reduction, 17.3%, would result from replacing 33 long-term studies in mice with short-term studies in transgenic mice. Based on histopathology findings in chronic studies, 15 long-term studies in rats could have been waived, using 8410 fewer rats. Simply using single, rather than dual, negative control groups would result in a 7.8% reduction, and eliminating positive control groups would use 640 fewer transgenic mice. Combined, an estimated 46% reduction would be achieved, using approximately 29,876 fewer animals. The publication of an addendum to the main carcinogenicity testing guideline promises to decrease the number of long-term studies conducted in rats and mice and presents opportunity to promote full harmonization and implementation of related recommendations that would further dramatically reduce animal use.

United States Food and Drug Administration Regulation of Human Cells, Tissues, and Gene Therapies.

Research and development of gene therapies and cell- or tissue-based therapies has experienced exponential growth in recent decades and the potential for these products to treat diverse, often rare, clinical indications is promising. The Office of Therapeutic Products (OTP) in the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) at the United States Food and Drug Administration (US FDA) is responsible for the regulation of these products, among others, throughout the entire product lifecycle. This chapter provides an overview of the science- and data-driven approach to US FDA regulatory oversight of cell and gene therapy (CGT) products to ensure their safety and efficacy.

United States Food and Drug Administration's authorization of reduced exposure claims for IQOS®: implications for regulation in Latin America.

Philip Morris International has used the July 7, 2020 United States Food and Drug Administration's (US FDA) modified risk tobacco product order for IQOS®, which authorized certain reduced exposure marketing claims, as a corporate strategy to promote and normalize its heated tobacco products in Latin America. The modified risk tobacco product orders are based on the US's unique regulatory system that is not, and should not be, replicated anywhere else in the world. Philip Morris International's global public relations campaign largely ignored the FDA's rejection of reduced risk claims for IQOS and other key FDA findings that are important for policy-makers, regulators, and consumers - including tobacco users and Philip Morris International's customers - to understand the risks associated with the product. In Latin America in particular, Philip Morris International has used media outlets to promote this misleading information to the public. This company has also used the FDA ruling to lobby regulators in Latin America to relax regulations on IQOS in the region. As tobacco companies rapidly introduce new tobacco products in low- and middle-income countries, public health advocates and Parties to the World Health Organization (WHO) Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) should take measures to prevent the promotion of misleading statements about heated tobacco products, including IQOS. As Latin American countries are at different stages in their regulation of heated tobacco products, governments should adhere to their WHO FCTC obligations and the recommendations of the Conference of the Parties by entirely prohibiting the sale of heated tobacco products or strictly applying to heated tobacco products all the relevant tobacco demand-reduction policies based on the WHO FCTC (making sure to capture both heated cigarettes and heating devices).

Philip Morris International ha empleado el dictamen que la Administración de Alimentos y Medicamentos (FDA) de Estados Unidos emitió el 7 de julio del 2020 sobre IQOS como producto de tabaco de riesgo modificado ­que la autorizó a usar ciertas declaraciones relativas a una exposición reducida al comercializar el producto­ como estrategia corporativa para promover y normalizar sus productos de tabaco calentado en América Latina. Los dictámenes sobre productos de tabaco de riesgo modificado se fundamentan en el sistema regulatorio único de Estados Unidos, que no se replica ni debería ser replicado en ningún otro lugar del mundo. La campaña mundial de relaciones públicas de Philip Morris International omitió en gran medida que la FDA rechazó los argumentos de que IQOS implica un riesgo reducido y otros hallazgos clave de la FDA que son importantes para que los responsables de las políticas, los reguladores y los consumidores, incluidos los consumidores de tabaco y los clientes de Philip Morris International, comprendan los riesgos asociados con el producto. En América Latina en particular, Philip Morris International ha utilizado los medios de comunicación para difundir esta información engañosa. Esta compañía también ha utilizado el fallo de la FDA para presionar a los reguladores en América Latina con el objetivo de que flexibilicen las regulaciones sobre IQOS en la Región. A medida que las compañías tabacaleras introducen con celeridad nuevos productos de tabaco en países de ingresos bajos y medianos, los defensores de la salud pública y los Estados Parte del Convenio Marco para el Control del Tabaco de la Organización Mundial de la Salud (CMCT de la OMS) deben tomar medidas para evitar la difusión de declaraciones engañosas sobre los productos de tabaco calentado, como IQOS. Dado que los países latinoamericanos se encuentran en diferentes etapas en la regulación de los productos de tabaco calentado, los gobiernos deben cumplir con sus obligaciones estipuladas en el CMCT de la OMS y las recomendaciones de la Conferencia de las Partes mediante la prohibición total de la venta de productos de tabaco calentado o la aplicación estricta a los productos de tabaco calentado de todas las políticas pertinentes sobre la reducción de la demanda de tabaco basadas en el CMCT de la OMS (y asegurarse de abarcar tanto los cigarrillos calentados como los dispositivos de calentamiento).

A Philip Morris International utilizou a decisão de 7 de julho de 2020 da Administração de Alimentos e Fármacos dos Estados Unidos (United States Food and Drug Administration, FDA), que caracterizou o IQOS como produto de tabaco com risco modificado e que permitiu o uso de determinadas alegações de exposição reduzida no marketing do produto, como estratégia corporativa para promover e normalizar seus produtos de tabaco aquecido na América Latina. As decisões relativas aos produtos de tabaco com risco modificado se baseiam no singular sistema regulatório dos EUA, que não é e não deve ser reproduzido em nenhum outro lugar do mundo. A campanha global de relações públicas da Philip Morris International ignorou em grande parte a rejeição da FDA às afirmações de risco reduzido do IQOS e outros achados fundamentais da FDA, que são informações importantes para formuladores de políticas, órgãos regulamentadores e consumidores ­ incluindo usuários de tabaco e clientes da Philip Morris International ­ entenderem os riscos associados ao produto. A Philip Morris International tem usado a mídia para veicular essa informação enganosa ao público, principalmente na América Latina. A empresa também usou a decisão da FDA para pressionar órgãos regulamentadores na América Latina a flexibilizarem a regulamentação do IQOS na região. Conforme as empresas de tabaco introduzem rapidamente novos produtos em países de baixa e média renda, os ativistas de saúde pública e as Partes da Convenção-Quadro para Controle do Tabaco (CQCT) da Organização Mundial da Saúde (OMS) devem tomar providências para prevenir a promoção de alegações enganosas sobre produtos de tabaco aquecido, incluindo o IQOS. Como os países da América Latina estão em diferentes estágios da regulamentação de produtos de tabaco aquecido, os governos devem cumprir suas obrigações com a CQCT da OMS e seguir as recomendações da Conferência das Partes, proibindo totalmente a venda de produtos de tabaco aquecido ou aplicando rigorosamente aos produtos de tabaco aquecido todas as políticas relevantes de redução da demanda por tabaco, com base na CQCT da OMS (certificando-se de abranger tanto os cigarros aquecidos quanto os dispositivos de aquecimento).

Impact of Regulatory Guidance on Evaluating Cardiovascular Risk of New Glucose-Lowering Therapies to Treat Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Lessons Learned and Future Directions.

Responding to concerns about the potential for increased risk of adverse cardiovascular outcomes, specifically myocardial infarction, associated with certain glucose-lowering therapies, the US Food and Drug Administration and the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency issued guidance to the pharmaceutical industry in 2008. Glucose-lowering therapies were granted regulatory approval primarily from smaller studies that have demonstrated reductions in glycated hemoglobin concentration. Such studies were overall underpowered and of insufficient duration to show any effect on cardiovascular outcomes. The 2008 guidance aimed to ensure the cardiovascular safety of new glucose-lowering therapies to treat patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. This resulted in a plethora of new cardiovascular outcome trials, most designed primarily as placebo-controlled noninferiority trials, but with many also powered for superiority. Several of these outcome trials demonstrated cardiovascular benefits of the newer agents, resulting in the first-ever cardiovascular protection indications for glucose-lowering therapies. Determining whether the guidance continues to have value in its current form is critically important as we move forward after the first decade of implementation. In February 2018, a think tank comprising representatives from academia, industry, and regulatory agencies convened to consider the guidance in light of the findings of the completed cardiovascular outcome trials. The group made several recommendations for future regulatory guidance and for cardiovascular outcome trials of glucose-lowering therapies. These recommendations include requiring only the 1.3 noninferiority margin for regulatory approval, conducting trials for longer durations, considering studying glucose-lowering therapies as first-line management of type 2 diabetes mellitus, considering heart failure or kidney outcomes within the primary outcome, considering head-to-head active comparator trials, increasing the diversity of patients enrolled, evaluating strategies to streamline registries and the study of unselected populations, and identifying ways to improve translation of trial results to general practice.

Comparison of regulatory pathways for the approval of advanced therapies in the European Union and the United States.

BACKGROUND AIMS: Regulatory agencies in the European Union (EU) and in the United States of America (USA) have adapted and launched regulatory pathways to accelerate patient access to innovative therapies, such as advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs). The aim of this study is to analyze similarities and differences between regulatory pathways followed by the approved ATMPs in both regions. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the ATMPs approved by EU and US regulatory agencies was carried out until May 31, 2020. Data were collected on the features and timing of orphan drug designation (ODD), scientific advice (SA), expedited program designation (EP), marketing authorization application (MAA) and marketing authorization (MA) for both regions. RESULTS: In the EU, a total of fifteen ATMPs were approved (eight gene therapies, three somatic cell therapies, three tissue-engineered products and one combined ATMP), whereas in the USA, a total of nine were approved (five gene therapies and four cell therapies); seven of these were authorized in both regions. No statistical differences were found in the mean time between having the ODD or EP granted and the start of the pivotal clinical trial or MAA in the EU and USA, although the USA required less time for MAA assessment than the EU (mean difference, 5.44, P = 0.012). The MAA assessment was shorter for those products with a PRIME or breakthrough designation.. No differences were found in the percentage of ATMPs with expedited MAA assessment between the EU and the USA (33.3% versus 55.5%, respectively, P = 0.285) or in the time required for the MAA expedited review (mean difference 4.41, P = 0.105). Approximately half of the products in both regions required an Advisory Committee during the MAA review, and 60% required an oral explanation in the EU. More than half of the approved ATMPs (67% and 55.55% in the EU and the USA, respectively) were granted an ODD, 70% by submitting preliminary clinical data in the EU. The mean number of SA and protocol assistance per product conducted by the European Medicines Agency was 1.71 and 3.75, respectively, and only 13% included parallel advice with health technology assessment bodies. A total of 53.33% of the products conducted the first SA after the pivotal clinical study had started, reporting more protocol amendments. Finally, of the seven ATMPs authorized in both regions, the type of MA differed for only two ATMPs (28.6%), and four out of eight products non-commercialized in the USA had a non-standard MA in the EU. CONCLUSIONS: The current approved ATMPs mainly target orphan diseases. Although EU and US regulatory procedures may differ, the main regulatory milestones reached by the approved ATMPs are similar in both regions, with the exception of the time for MAA evaluation, the number of authorized products in the regions and the type of authorization for some products. More global regulatory convergence might further simplify and expedite current ATMP development in these regions.

Impact of a drug safety communication on the severity of benzonatate exposures reported to poison centers.

PURPOSE: Identify if publication of the 2010 drug safety communication (DSC) regarding benzonatate was associated with a decrease in the incidence of severe benzonatate poisonings reported to United States poison centers. METHODS: This retrospective database study utilized the National Poison Data System to compare the incidence of severe benzonatate poisonings before and after the publication of a drug safety communication. We utilized interrupted time series analysis to compare 2000-2010 (pre-DSC) to 2012-2019 (post-DSC). RESULTS: There were 18 619 benzonatate exposures reported to US poison centers during the time period covered and 11 554 exposures were included. There was an increase in exposures throughout the time period. There was no difference in the incidence of severe outcomes in the two time periods. In the pre-DSC era, rates of severe outcomes increased by 0.4% per year followed by an immediate non-significant drop of 2.9% in incidence of severe outcomes (P = .15). Finally, the slope of severe outcomes in the post-DSC era showed an increase of 0.3% per year, which was not significantly different from the pre-DSC era (P = .78). CONCLUSION: Publication of a Drug Safety Communication regarding the risks of benzonatate did not result in a decrease in the proportion of severe benzonatate poisoning reported to US poison centers. Deaths and other severe outcomes continued to occur at a similar rate after the publication.

Pediatric contrast-enhanced ultrasound: shedding light on the pursuit of approval in the United States.

For two decades, pediatric contrast US has been well accepted throughout Europe and other parts of the world outside the United States because of its high diagnostic efficacy and extremely favorable safety profile. This includes intravenous (IV) administration, contrast-enhanced US (CEUS) and the intravesical application, contrast-enhanced voiding urosonography (ceVUS). However, the breakthrough for pediatric contrast US in the United States did not come until 2016, when the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the first pediatric indication for a US contrast agent. This initial approval covered the use of Lumason (Bracco Diagnostics, Monroe Township, NJ) for the evaluation of focal liver lesions via IV administration in children. A second pediatric indication followed shortly thereafter, when the FDA extended the use of Lumason for assessing known or suspected vesicoureteral reflux via intravesical application in children. Both initial pediatric approvals were granted without prospective pediatric clinical trials, based instead on published literature describing favorable safety and efficacy in children. Three years later, in 2019, the FDA approved Lumason for pediatric echocardiography following a clinical trial involving a total of 12 subjects at 2 sites. The story of how we achieved these FDA approvals spans more than a decade and involves the extraordinary dedication of two professional societies, namely the International Contrast Ultrasound Society (ICUS) and the Society for Pediatric Radiology (SPR). Credit also must be given to the FDA staff for their commitment to the welfare of children and their openness to compelling evidence that contrast US is a safe, reliable, radiation-free imaging option for our pediatric patients. Understanding the history of this approval process will impact the practical application of US contrast agents, particularly when expanding off-label indications in the pediatric population. This article describes the background of the FDA's approval of pediatric contrast US applications to better illuminate the potential pathways to approvals of future indications.

Regulatory reliance to approve new medicinal products in Latin American and Caribbean countries.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the current status of regulatory reliance in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) by assessing the countries' regulatory frameworks to approve new medicines, and to ascertain, for each country, which foreign regulators are considered as trusted regulatory authorities to rely on. METHODS: Websites from LAC regulators were searched to identify the official regulations to approve new drugs. Data collection was carried out in December 2019 and completed in June 2020 for the Caribbean countries. Two independent teams collected information regarding direct recognition or abbreviated processes to approve new drugs and the reference (trusted) regulators defined as such by the corresponding national legislation. RESULTS: Regulatory documents regarding marketing authorization were found in 20 LAC regulators' websites, covering 34 countries. Seven countries do not accept reliance on foreign regulators. Thirteen regulatory authorities (Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and the unique Caribbean Regulatory System for 15 Caribbean States) explicitly accept relying on marketing authorizations issued by the European Medicines Agency, United States Food and Drug Administration, and Health Canada. Ten countries rely also on marketing authorizations from Australia, Japan, and Switzerland. Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico are reference authorities for eight LAC regulators. CONCLUSIONS: Regulatory reliance has become a common practice in the LAC region. Thirteen out of 20 regulators directly recognize or abbreviate the marketing authorization process in case of earlier approval by a regulator from another jurisdiction. The regulators most relied upon are the European Medicines Agency, United States Food and Drug Administration, and Health Canada.

Development of Treatments for Localized Prostate Cancer in Patients Eligible for Active Surveillance: U.S. Food and Drug Administration Oncology Center of Excellence Public Workshop.

PURPOSE: The following is a summary of discussion at a United States FDA (Food and Drug Administration) public workshop reviewing potential trial designs and end points to develop therapies to treat localized prostate cancer. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The workshop focused on the challenge that drug and device development to treat localized prostate cancer has been limited by the large trial sizes and lengthy timelines required to demonstrate an improvement in overall or metastasis-free survival and by the lack of agreed on alternative end points. Additionally, evolving treatment paradigms in the management of localized prostate cancer include the widespread use of active surveillance of patients with low and some intermediate risk prostate cancer, and the availability of advances in imaging and genomics. RESULTS: The workshop addressed issues related to trial design in this setting. Attendees discussed several potential novel end points such as a delay of morbidity due to radiation or prostatectomy and pathological end points such as Gleason Grade Group upgrade. CONCLUSIONS: The workshop provided an open forum for multiple stakeholder engagement to advance the development of effective treatment options for men with localized prostate cancer.

A Path Forward for Regenerative Medicine.

Although clinical trials of cell-based approaches to cardiovascular disease have yielded some promising results, no cell-based therapy has achieved regulatory approval for a cardiovascular indication. To broadly assess the challenges to regulatory approval and identify strategies to facilitate this goal, the Cardiac Safety Research Consortium sponsored a session during the Texas Heart Institute International Symposium on Cardiovascular Regenerative Medicine in September 2017. This session convened leaders in cardiovascular regenerative medicine, including participants from academia, the pharmaceutical industry, the US Food and Drug Administration, and the Cardiac Safety Research Consortium, with particular focus on treatments closest to regulatory approval. A goal of the session was to identify barriers to regulatory approval and potential pathways to overcome them. Barriers identified include manufacturing and therapeutic complexity, difficulties identifying an optimal comparator group, limited industry capacity for funding pivotal clinical trials, and challenges to demonstrating efficacy on clinical end points required for regulatory decisions. Strategies to overcome these barriers include precompetitive development of a cell therapy registry network to enable dual-purposing of clinical data as part of pragmatic clinical trial design, development of standardized terminology for product activity and end points to facilitate this registry, use of innovative statistical methods and quality of life or functional end points to supplement outcomes such as death or heart failure hospitalization and reduce sample size, involvement of patients in determining the research agenda, and use of the Food and Drug Administration's new Regenerative Medicine Advanced Therapy designation to facilitate early discussion with regulatory authorities when planning development pathways.

Changes in emergency department visits for zolpidem-attributed adverse drug reactions after FDA Drug Safety Communications.

Purpose: To identify possible changes in U.S. emergency department (ED) visits from zolpidem-attributed adverse drug reactions (ADRs) after 2013 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Drug Safety Communications (DSCs), which notified the public about FDA's new dosing recommendations for zolpidem. Methods: We estimated the occurrence of ED visits from zolpidem-attributed ADRs using nationally representative, public health surveillance of medication harms (National Electronic Injury Surveillance System-Cooperative Adverse Drug Event Surveillance project, 2010-2017). We estimated the number of zolpidem prescriptions using IQVIA National Prescription Audit, 2010-2017. We calculated rates of ED visits for zolpidem-attributed ADRs per 10 000 dispensed zolpidem prescriptions and identified time trends and potential inflection points using joinpoint regression. For comparison, we repeated these analyses for sedating antidepressants commonly used to treat disordered sleep (trazodone, doxepin, and mirtazapine). Results: The best-fit regression model for rates of ED visits for zolpidem-attributed ADRs by 6-month intervals identified a single inflection point in the second half of 2014 (P = .024) with a 6.7% biannual decrease from 2010 to 2014 ([-13.1%, 0.3%], P = .059) and a 13.9% biannual increase from the second half of 2014 through 2017 ([-1.1%, 31.3%], P = .068). No change or inflection points were identified for rates of ED visits for sedating antidepressant-attributed ADRs. Conclusions: While there was a nominal decline in the rate of ED visits for ADRs in the time period before and for 18 months after FDA's 2013 zolpidem DSCs, the decrease was not sustained, and thus questions remain concerning the long-term impact of the zolpidem DSCs on ADRs.

Acute toxicity "six-pack" studies supporting approved new drug applications in the U.S., 2015-2018.

The acute toxicity "six-pack" is a battery of animal tests used to evaluate acute systemic toxicity by three routes of exposure, skin and eye irritation/corrosion, and skin sensitization. A perception exists that these tests are not required for pharmaceuticals. For the four years from 2015 through 2018, we tallied the number of corresponding tests submitted by sponsors in approved, original new drug applications, as reported by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in publicly available reviews. In 125 reviews, we identified 228 single dose acute toxicity studies, 62 in vivo local tolerance studies, and 32 in vivo skin sensitization studies, as well as 37 in vitro or ex vivo local tolerance studies. A total of 4798 animals were used in these studies; however, FDA's reporting was inconsistent, and we estimate the actual number of animals used to be 8998. For the evaluation of single dose acute toxicity, we accessed two guidance documents with conflicting recommendations regarding routes of administration and number of species to be used. For the evaluation of local tolerance and skin sensitization, most studies examined were conducted by routes other than that intended for human administration. Non-animal methods used to evaluate skin sensitization were not reported.

U.S. Food and Drug Administration anticancer drug approval trends from 2016 to 2018 for lung, colorectal, breast, and prostate cancer.

OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to describe the clinical and regulatory aspects of new drugs and indications that were approved for lung, breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer, from 2016 to 2018, in order to provide health technology assessment trends in oncology. METHODS: Data were collected from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) online database for new medications and indications approved for the above-mentioned types of cancer. Data regarding clinical study characteristics and regulatory information were collected. RESULTS: From 2016 to 2018, 53 percent of the FDA approvals of new drugs and indications for the most incident cancers were for oral protein kinase inhibitor monotherapy for advanced lung cancer. Since 2018, four drugs were approved as tumor-agnostic therapies. A biomarker was included in 72 percent of indications, and 58 percent of approvals were for targeted therapies, potentially heralding an end to research into conventional cytotoxic agents. A special designation for faster approval was granted in 78 percent of new approvals. The majority of the studies were open label randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (44 percent), followed by blind RCTs, single-arm clinical trials, and cohort studies. Only 14 percent of studies used overall survival as the primary end point; the vast majority used surrogate end points, and did not use patient-important outcomes. Three biosimilars were approved in the period. CONCLUSION: Advanced lung cancer therapy, mainly targeted drugs, accounted for 53 percent of approvals. Special designations for faster approval were used in 78 percent of FDA approvals, and four drugs were approved for tumor-agnostic treatment-a new form of approval.

Publication statuses of clinical trials supporting FDA-approved immune checkpoint inhibitors: a meta-epidemiological investigation.

BACKGROUND: The low data publication rate for Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved drugs, and discrepancies between FDA-submitted versus published data, remain a concern. We investigated the publication statuses of sponsor-submitted clinical trials supporting recent anticancer drugs approved by the FDA, with a focus on immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICPis). METHODS: We identified all ICPis approved between 2011 and 2014, thereby obtaining 3 years of follow-up data. We assessed the clinical trials performed for each drug indication and matched each trial with publications in the literature. The primary benchmark was the publication status 2 years post-approval. We examined the association between time to publication and drug type using a multilevel Cox regression model that was adjusted for clustering within drug indications and individual covariates. RESULTS: Between 2011 and 2014, 36 anticancer drugs including 3 ICPis were newly approved by the FDA. Of 19 trials investigating the 3 ICPis, 11 (58%) were published within 2 years post-approval. We randomly selected 10 of the 33 remaining anticancer drugs; 68 of 101 trials investigating these drugs (67%) were published. Overall, the publication rate was 66% at 2 years post-approval with a median time to publication of 2.3 years. There was no significant difference in the time to trial publication between ICPis and other anticancer drugs (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8-1.7; P = 0.55). However, findings related to non-ICPis investigated specifically in randomized phase 2 or phase 3 trials were significantly more likely to be published earlier than those related to ICPis (adjusted HR, 7.4; 95% CI, 1.8-29.5; P = 0.005). CONCLUSION: One in 3 sponsor-submitted trials of the most recently approved anticancer drugs remained unpublished 2 years post-FDA approval. We found no evidence that the drug type was associated with the time to overall trial publication.

Hurdles of environmental risk assessment procedures for advanced therapy medicinal products: comparison between the European Union and the United States.

An environmental risk assessment (ERA) consists of an analysis of the risks to human health and the environment that a medicinal product may cause due to its release during clinical development or after entering the market. Regulators in European Union (EU) and the United States (US) require that advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) that are also genetically modified organisms (GMOs) undergo an ERA in order to be approved for marketing authorization. This work aims to review the regulatory issues that need to be taken into consideration for carrying out an ERA, comparing the EU and the US. The European regulatory framework for environmental procedures and the dissimilarities in its implementation across the Member States and its implications at a logistical level are analyzed in detail. In addition, this review provides a brief insight into the non-clinical and clinical assessments that should be carried out during the development of the product in order to conduct a successful ERA, and thus facilitate its marketing authorization and post-marketing monitoring. Finally, the need for a European harmonization regarding environmental procedures for ATMPs is discussed.

FDA's Gottlieb Aims To End Biosimilars Groundhog Day.

The FDA commissioner has an 11-step "action plan" to get biosimilars out of a repeat mode of unrealized potential. But issues like interchangeability still need clarifying if biosimilars are to have a major effect on drug expenditures.

Why Biosimilars Can Never Be Identical To Originators-and Why They Don't Need To Be.

The FDA's approval criteria require a biosimilar to be highly similar to its original biologic and show "no clinically meaningful differences." But mere similarity is not close enough for many clinicians and some patients; it makes biosimilars seem riskier than the original biologics.