Characteristics of trials and regulatory pathways leading to US approval of innovative vs. non-innovative oncology drugs

Strength of statistical evidence for the efficacy of cancer drugs: a Bayesian reanalysis of randomized trials supporting Food and Drug Administration approval

OBJECTIVES

To quantify the strength of statistical evidence of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for novel cancer drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration in the last 2 decades.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We used data on overall survival (OS), progression-free survival, and tumor response for novel cancer drugs approved for the first time by the Food and Drug Administration between January 2000 and December 2020. We assessed strength of statistical evidence by calculating Bayes factors (BFs) for all available endpoints, and we pooled evidence using Bayesian fixed-effect meta-analysis for indications approved based on 2 RCTs. Strength of statistical evidence was compared among endpoints, approval pathways, lines of treatment, and types of cancer.

RESULTS

We analysed the available data from 82 RCTs corresponding to 68 indications supported by a single RCT and 7 indications supported by 2 RCTs. Median strength of statistical evidence was ambiguous for OS (BF = 1.9; interquartile range [IQR] 0.5-14.5), and strong for progression-free survival (BF = 24,767.8; IQR 109.0-7.3 × 106) and tumor response (BF = 113.9; IQR 3.0-547,100). Overall, 44 indications (58.7%) were approved without clear statistical evidence for OS improvements and 7 indications (9.3%) were approved without statistical evidence for improvements on any endpoint. Strength of statistical evidence was lower for accelerated approval compared to nonaccelerated approval across all 3 endpoints. No meaningful differences were observed for line of treatment and cancer type. This analysis is limited to statistical evidence. We did not consider nonstatistical factors (eg, risk of bias, quality of the evidence).

CONCLUSION

BFs offer novel insights into the strength of statistical evidence underlying cancer drug approvals. Most novel cancer drugs lack strong statistical evidence that they improve OS, and a few lack statistical evidence for efficacy altogether. These cases require a transparent and clear explanation. When evidence is ambiguous, additional postmarketing trials could reduce uncertainty.

Accessibility of cancer drugs in Switzerland: Time from approval to pricing decision between 2009 and 2018

BACKGROUND

Approved drugs must be included on the so-called "special list" (SL) by the Federal Office for Public Health (FOPH) to be reimbursed by the social health insurance in Switzerland. The FOPH decides whether a drug may be included on SL and if so, negotiates the maximum price with the manufacturer. Time period between approval and inclusion on SL is important to evaluate accessibility of patients to drugs.

METHODS

We identified all approved cancer drugs for first indication between 2009-2018 in Switzerland and determined whether they have been included on SL, and if so, how many days passed between approval and reimbursement, i.e., inclusion on SL. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed by using R.

RESULTS

70 cancer drugs have been approved between 2009 and 2018. Among this sample, 56 (80 %) are on SL. Average time from drug approval to inclusion date on SL increased from 234 days in 2009 to 463 days in 2018, with an average time of 352 days over the full analysis period.

CONCLUSION

Time period between approval and inclusion on SL has prolonged over the past years. This impedes patients' access to cancer drugs. Prioritizing HTA and price negotiation of cancer drugs with high clinical benefit or implement a regulation that sets a maximum time period for HTA and price negotiation are possible policy implications.

Access to Cancer Precision Medicines in Switzerland: A Comparative Analysis (USA and EU) and Health Policy Implications

Social health insurance is mandatory in Switzerland and covers the costs of basic medical care. In general, with regard to medicines, the costs are only reimbursed if the drug is (1) approved by Swissmedic and (2) listed on the so-called Spezia-litätenliste (SL) by the Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH). However, the SL does not include all drugs. For non-SL drugs, cost coverage is only granted under exceptional circumstances. Absence of cost coverage by social health insurance is especially problematic for patients who need access to cancer drugs, since they are often costly. Even if such cancer drugs are approved by Swissmedic, patients may still lack access to them. Therefore, access to medicines includes two aspects: (1) the availability of a drug on the market (i.e., approval of a drug) and (2) inclusion on the SL (i.e., cost coverage by social health insurance). In this study, we aim to compare the current approval regulations for oncologic precision medicines in the USA, Europe, and Switzerland; to investigate cost coverage for these drugs in Switzerland; and to develop health policy implications about how access to these drugs could be improved in Switzerland.