Efficacy, Safety, and Regulatory Approval of Food and Drug Administration–Designated Breakthrough and Nonbreakthrough Cancer Medicines

Purpose

The breakthrough therapy program was established in 2012 to expedite the development and review of new medicines. We evaluated the times to approval, efficacy, and safety of breakthrough-designated versus non–breakthrough-designated cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Methods

We studied all new cancer drugs approved by the FDA between January 2012 and December 2017. Regulatory and therapeutic characteristics (time to FDA approval, pivotal trial efficacy end point, novelty of mechanism of action) were compared between breakthrough-designated and non–breakthrough-designated cancer drugs. Random-effects meta-regression was used to assess the association between breakthrough therapy designation and hazard ratios for progression-free survival (PFS), response rates (RRs) for solid tumors, serious adverse events, and deaths not attributed to disease progression.

Results

Between 2012 and 2017, the FDA approved 58 new cancer drugs, 25 (43%) of which received breakthrough therapy designation. The median time to first FDA approval was 5.2 years for breakthrough-designated drugs versus 7.1 years for non–breakthrough-designated drugs (difference, 1.9 years; P = .01). There were no statistically significant differences between breakthrough-designated and non–breakthrough-designated drugs in median PFS gains (8.6 v 4.0 months; P = .11), hazard ratios for PFS (0.43 v 0.51; P = .28), or RRs for solid tumors (37% v 39%; P = .74). Breakthrough therapy–designated drugs were not more likely to act via a novel mechanism of action (36% v 39%; P = 1.00). Rates of deaths (6% v 4%; P = .99) and serious adverse events (38% v 36%; P = 0.93) were also similar in breakthrough-designated and non–breakthrough-designated drugs.

Conclusion

Breakthrough-designated cancer drugs were associated with faster times to approval, but there was no evidence that these drugs provide improvements in safety or novelty; nor was there a statistically significant efficacy advantage when compared with non–breakthrough-designated drugs.

Affordability and Price Increases of New Cancer Drugs in Clinical Guidelines, 2007-2016

In response to the rising cost of cancer drugs, the National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) recently developed a value framework, known as “Evidence Blocks,” to grade the efficacy, safety, evidence quality, evidence consistency, and affordability of treatments included in its clinical guidelines. The value scores were available for 55 of the 69 new cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration from 2007 to 2016. Overall, the treatment costs for 95% of new cancer medicines in NCCN clinical guidelines were scored as “very expensive” or “expensive”. In multivariable ordered logistic regression models, there was no association between the affordability of new cancer drugs and efficacy and safety data available in clinical guidelines. Most guideline-recommended drugs were subject to annual list price increases exceeding inflation.

Delays in completion and results reporting of clinical trials under the Paediatric Regulation in the European Union: A cohort study

BACKGROUND

Few medicines have been approved for children, leading to rates of off-label prescribing reported to be as high as 90%. In 2007, the European Union adopted the Paediatric Regulation, which mandates that pharmaceutical companies conduct paediatric studies for all new medicines, unless granted a waiver. We aimed to evaluate the availability of paediatric trial results from studies required under the Paediatric Regulation for new medicines authorised in the EU.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) public database of paediatric investigation plans was searched for new medicines centrally authorised in the EU between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2014 with at least 1 required paediatric study. For our study cohort of paediatric clinical trials required for these medicines, we used internal EMA databases and publicly available trial registries to determine changes to the planned completion date or study design, rates of trial completion, time to trial completion, and results reporting (peer-reviewed publication or posting on trial registry). Cox proportional hazards regression models were constructed to examine factors associated with study completion. A total of 326 paediatric clinical trials were required for 122 novel medicines authorised by the EMA between 2010 and 2014. In all, 76% (247/326) of paediatric studies were not planned to be completed until after the initial marketing authorisation. The planned completion dates for 50% (162/326) were further postponed by a median of 2.2 years. Overall, 38% (124/326) of paediatric studies were completed as of 30 November 2017. The rate of trial completion for paediatric studies planned to be completed after initial marketing authorisation was 23% (56/247), versus 86% (68/79) for trials planned to be completed before authorisation (adjusted hazard ratio 0.11; 95% CI 0.06-0.19). Among completed studies, the results were reported in a public registry or in the peer-reviewed literature for 85% (105/124) at a median of 1.1 years after study completion, and 60% (74/124) were published in a peer-reviewed journal. Limitations of this study include the potential lack of generalisability to medicines not authorised by the EMA and the possibility for more of these trials to be completed or published in the future.

CONCLUSIONS

The completion of many paediatric studies required under the Paediatric Regulation has been delayed. Paediatric studies planned to be completed after marketing authorisation were associated with a lower likelihood of eventual completion, highlighting the need to examine the implementation of current policies in ensuring timely availability of important paediatric information.

Social Media Impact of the Food and Drug Administration's Drug Safety Communication Messaging About Zolpidem: Mixed-Methods Analysis

Background

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issues drug safety communications (DSCs) to health care professionals, patients, and the public when safety issues emerge related to FDA-approved drug products. These safety messages are disseminated through social media to ensure broad uptake.

Objective

The objective of this study was to assess the social media dissemination of 2 DSCs released in 2013 for the sleep aid zolpidem.

Methods

We used the MedWatcher Social program and the DataSift historic query tool to aggregate Twitter and Facebook posts from October 1, 2012 through August 31, 2013, a period beginning approximately 3 months before the first DSC and ending 3 months after the second. Posts were categorized as (1) junk, (2) mention, and (3) adverse event (AE) based on a score between –0.2 (completely unrelated) to 1 (perfectly related). We also looked at Google Trends data and Wikipedia edits for the same time period. Google Trends search volume is scaled on a range of 0 to 100 and includes “Related queries” during the relevant time periods. An interrupted time series (ITS) analysis assessed the impact of DSCs on the counts of posts with specific mention of zolpidem-containing products. Chow tests for known structural breaks were conducted on data from Twitter, Facebook, and Google Trends. Finally, Wikipedia edits were pulled from the website’s editorial history, which lists all revisions to a given page and the editor’s identity.

Results

In total, 174,286 Twitter posts and 59,641 Facebook posts met entry criteria. Of those, 16.63% (28,989/174,286) of Twitter posts and 25.91% (15,453/59,641) of Facebook posts were labeled as junk and excluded. AEs and mentions represented 9.21% (16,051/174,286) and 74.16% (129,246/174,286) of Twitter posts and 5.11% (3,050/59,641) and 68.98% (41,138/59,641) of Facebook posts, respectively. Total daily counts of posts about zolpidem-containing products increased on Twitter and Facebook on the day of the first DSC; Google searches increased on the week of the first DSC. ITS analyses demonstrated variability but pointed to an increase in interest around the first DSC. Chow tests were significant (P<.0001) for both DSCs on Facebook and Twitter, but only the first DSC on Google Trends. Wikipedia edits occurred soon after each DSC release, citing news articles rather than the DSC itself and presenting content that needed subsequent revisions for accuracy.

Conclusions

Social media offers challenges and opportunities for dissemination of the DSC messages. The FDA could consider strategies for more actively disseminating DSC safety information through social media platforms, particularly when announcements require updating. The FDA may also benefit from directly contributing content to websites like Wikipedia that are frequently accessed for drug-related information.

The FDA's Expedited Programs and Clinical Development Times for Novel Therapeutics, 2012-2016

This study uses the Drugs@FDA database to analyze clinical development times for drugs to treat serious diseases within the 4 FDA expedited programs intended to speed drug review and approval.

Effect of US Food and Drug Administration's Cardiovascular Safety Guidance on Diabetes Drug Development

In 2008, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued guidance on the need for cardiovascular outcome trials to assess the safety of new diabetes medications. Using two large commercial databases, we evaluated the effect of the FDA's cardiovascular safety guidance on drug development for type 2 diabetes as well as a comparison group of drugs intended to treat other alimentary and metabolic conditions. The FDA's guidance was associated with a 31% differential decrease in the rate of diabetes drugs entering phase II trials, but the remaining drugs were significantly more likely to target novel biological pathways (72% of drugs had novel mechanisms after the guidance vs. 49% before the guidance). No differential changes were observed for phase I and phase III trials. There was no measurable improvement during the study period in glycemic efficacy among investigational products entering phase III trials. This research highlights how regulatory actions can impact pharmaceutical innovation.

Radiologist performance in the interpretation of contrast enemas performed for Hirschsprung's disease in children >1 year of age

AIM

To evaluate the diagnostic performance of contrast enemas (CEs) for the diagnosis of Hirschsprung's disease (HD).

METHODS AND MATERIALS

CE studies performed as part of an HD workup in patients 1-18 years of age over a 10-year period were identified. All abnormal CE studies and an equal number of age-matched controls were included in the final study group. Two radiologists independently and blindly reviewed all CE studies for quality (scale of 0-3) and the presence of large colon calibre, colon redundancy, transition zone, rectosigmoid ratio, and abnormal contractions. Readers also determined whether a rectal biopsy would be recommended to confirm an HD diagnosis. Discrepancies were resolved in consensus. Findings were correlated with surgery and biopsy data.

RESULTS

Out of 834 CE studies, 38 abnormal CE studies were identified (mean age 5.9 years) and included 38 matched controls. Seventeen of 76 patients were recommended for rectal biopsy, of which five were confirmed to have HD. Twelve of 70 (17.1%) were false positives, and were clinically confirmed not to have HD. The proportion of HD in the present population was 6/834 (0.72%). Of the 17 recommended for biopsy, CE studies showed 17/17 (100%) with an abnormal rectosigmoid ratio, 16/17 (94.1%) with redundant colon, and 15/17 (88%) with large colon. Of patients not recommended for biopsy, one was diagnosed with HD, (false negative, 16.7%). The diagnostic performance of CE was 83.3% sensitivity and 82.9% specificity.

CONCLUSION

Few children >1 year of age were found to have HD and the diagnostic performance of the CE is moderately high. The CE examination is a valuable non-invasive imaging study to help exclude older children who may not have HD, thereby obviating the need for invasive rectal biopsy and surgery.

Failure of Investigational Drugs in Late-Stage Clinical Development and Publication of Trial Results

IMPORTANCE

Many investigational drugs fail in late-stage clinical development. A better understanding of why investigational drugs fail can inform clinical practice, regulatory decisions, and future research.

OBJECTIVE

To assess factors associated with regulatory approval or reasons for failure of investigational therapeutics in phase 3 or pivotal trials and rates of publication of trial results.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Using public sources and commercial databases, we identified investigational therapeutics that entered pivotal trials between 1998 and 2008, with follow-up through 2015. Agents were classified by therapeutic area, orphan designation status, fast track designation, novelty of biological pathway, company size, and as a pharmacologic or biologic product.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

For each product, we identified reasons for failure (efficacy, safety, commercial) and assessed the rates of publication of trial results. We used multivariable logistic regression models to evaluate factors associated with regulatory approval.

RESULTS

Among 640 novel therapeutics, 344 (54%) failed in clinical development, 230 (36%) were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and 66 (10%) were approved in other countries but not by the FDA. Most products failed due to inadequate efficacy (n = 195; 57%), while 59 (17%) failed because of safety concerns and 74 (22%) failed due to commercial reasons. The pivotal trial results were published in peer-reviewed journals for 138 of the 344 (40%) failed agents. Of 74 trials for agents that failed for commercial reasons, only 6 (8.1%) were published. In analyses adjusted for therapeutic area, agent type, firm size, orphan designation, fast-track status, trial year, and novelty of biological pathway, orphan-designated drugs were significantly more likely than nonorphan drugs to be approved (46% vs 34%; adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.3; 95% CI, 1.4-3.7). Cancer drugs (27% vs 39%; aOR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.3-0.9) and agents sponsored by small and medium-size companies (28% vs 42%; aOR, 0.4; 95% CI, 0.3-0.7) were significantly less likely to be approved.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Roughly half of investigational drugs entering late-stage clinical development fail during or after pivotal clinical trials, primarily because of concerns about safety, efficacy, or both. Results for the majority of studies of investigational drugs that fail are not published in peer-reviewed journals.

Temporal Trends and Factors Associated With Cardiovascular Drug Development, 1990 to 2012

Cardiovascular disease remains a leading cause of death, but stakeholders have recently raised concerns about the pace of innovation and investment in developing new therapeutics. Here, the authors characterized temporal trends in cardiovascular research and development over the past 2 decades and the likelihood of successful completion of pre-approval clinical trials. The authors also evaluated the reasons for discontinuation, novelty, and rates of trial results publication for cardiovascular therapies in late-stage development. Between 1990 and 2012, the number of new cardiovascular drugs entering clinical trials declined across all stages of development (p < 0.001 for linear trends). There was no evidence for a difference in probability of successful progression to the next stage of development between cardiovascular and noncardiovascular drugs. Small and medium-sized companies sponsored 43%, 38%, and 31% of new Phase 1, Phase 2, and Phase 3 trials, respectively. Roughly one-half of the drugs in Phase 3 trials were categorized as targeting a novel biological pathway. The number of cardiovascular trials sponsored by small and medium-sized companies and the number of novel drugs entering Phase 3 trials increased over time. Most drugs were discontinued in Phase 3 due to inadequate efficacy (44%) or safety issues (24%), but the Phase 3 trial results for only one-half of the discontinued drugs were published in peer-reviewed journals. These results shed light on important shifts in research and development activity and confirm the perceived challenges in cardiovascular translational research.

Comparison of rates of safety issues and reporting of trial outcomes for medical devices approved in the European Union and United States: cohort study

OBJECTIVE

 To evaluate safety alerts and recalls, publication of key trial outcomes, and subsequent US approval of high profile medical devices introduced in the European Union.

DESIGN

 Cohort study.

SETTING

 Novel cardiovascular, orthopedic, and neurologic devices approved in the EU through Conformité Européenne marking between 2005 and 2010.

DATA SOURCES

 Public and commercial databases searched up to January 2016 for press releases and announcements of approvals; public Food and Drug Administration and European regulatory authority databases for US approvals and safety alerts and recalls; and Medline, Embase, and Web of Science for peer reviewed publications.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

 We categorized the novelty of the devices in the study sample as a "major innovation" or an "other change," and extracted descriptive data about the devices and information on any safety alerts and withdrawals. Linear regression models examined factors associated with differential EU and US approvals. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to evaluate factors associated with safety alerts and recalls and the publication of trial outcomes for devices categorized as major innovations. Models controlled for time, therapeutic category, regulatory pathway, size of sponsoring company, and indicator variables for devices approved first in the EU and devices approved only in the EU.

RESULTS

 67% (206/309) of devices identified were approved in both the US and the EU, of which 63% (129/206) were approved first in the EU. The unadjusted rate of safety alerts and recalls for devices approved first in the EU was 27% (62/232) compared with 14% (11/77) for devices approved first in the US. The adjusted hazard ratio for safety alerts and recalls was 2.9 (95% confidence interval 1.4 to 6.2) for devices approved first in the EU. The results of pivotal trials were published for 49% (37/75) of devices categorized as major innovations, with an overall publication rate of 37% five years after approval.

CONCLUSIONS

 Devices approved first in the EU are associated with an increased risk of post-marketing safety alerts and recalls. Poor trial publication rates mean that patients and clinicians need greater regulatory transparency to make informed decisions about treatment.

Leveraging Novel and Existing Pathways to Approve New Therapeutics to Treat Serious Drug-Resistant Infections

Accelerating the development and approval of novel therapeutics has emerged as a key public health priority given the mortality, morbidity, and economic costs associated with infections caused by drug-resistant bacteria. However, there is limited empirical evidence to guide policymaking, such as the factors that may disadvantage antibiotics compared to other classes of drugs. In this Article, we empirically examine characteristics of the key clinical trials underpinning FDA's approval of antibiotics and other drugs over the past decade. Despite perceptions that antibiotic trials are larger and more difficult to conduct, we find that antibiotic trials are no larger than those conducted for drugs approved in other disease areas with high unmet medical needs, suggesting that policymakers may need to target other levers to meaningfully stimulate innovation. We discuss the risks and benefits of harnessing new and existing regulatory pathways to speed the approval of new drugs, particularly those intended to treat patients with serious and life-threatening infections, and we evaluate ways that proposals for new regulatory pathways could be improved to better prioritize and expedite the approval of therapies with the greatest potential for patient health benefits.