Availability of evidence of benefits on overall survival and quality of life of cancer drugs approved by European Medicines Agency: retrospective cohort study of drug approvals 2009-13

Ce6-GFFY is a novel photosensitizer for colorectal cancer therapy

Photodynamic therapy is an "old" strategy for cancer therapy featuring clinical safety and rapid working, but suitable photosensitizers for colorectal cancer therapy remain lacking. This study synthesized a novel photosensitizer termed Ce6-GFFY based on a self-assembling peptide GFFY and a photo-responsive molecule chlorin e6 (Ce6). Ce6-GFFY forms macroparticles with a diameter of ∼160 nm and possesses a half-life of 10 h, as well as an ideal tumor-targeting ability in mouse models. Ce6-GFFY effectively penetrates cells and generates numerous reactive oxygen species upon 660 nm laser irradiation. The reactive oxygen species promotes the accumulation of cytotoxic T cells and decrease of myeloid-derived suppressor cells in the tumor microenvironment through immunogenic cell death, thus prohibiting the growth of both primary and metastatic tumors after once treatment. This study not only provides a strategy for photosensitizer development but also confirms a promising application of Ce6-GFFY for colorectal cancer therapy.

The Erosion of Healthcare and Scientific Integrity: A Growing Concern

Background

Tremendous achievements in healthcare and science over the past 200 years have enhanced life expectancy in parallel with a shift from dogma to humanistic liberal education. Advancements in cancer have included vaccines treating causes of cancer (eg, hepatitis C- induced liver cancer and human papillomavirus-induced cervical cancer) along with improved cancer survival in children. In contrast, developments in cancer, frequently touted as "discoveries" or "breakthroughs" in media headlines, have been demonstrated to be ephemeral rather than game changers. In reality, cancer incidences are increasing, and relapse and mortality rates have not changed substantially. By this, we are experiencing today similar challenges to those before the so-called Humboldt reform. The trend towards managerialism with a focus on quantity in health care and science endangers their integrity.

Methods

Due to the complexity of integrity of healthcare and science, in-depth contemplation of this review contains foundations of actions in healthcare and science, information regarding cancer, as an example, quantity focus of healthcare, technology, publishing, marketing and media, predatory publishers, followed by psychologic and sociologic aspects which influence our perception.

Results

A complex paradoxical transformation has occurred, in which quality and humanism have been replaced by quantity, revenue, and marketing, together with "citation silence", (ignoring original findings), and increased corruption and misconduct. This shift explains why the integrity of healthcare and science is being eroded.

Conclusion

Countries and societies are only as strong as their healthcare and science, both of which are only as strong as their emphasis on quality and integrity. Awareness of this situation may represent a first step toward a renewed focus on accountability.

Preferences for public health insurance coverage of new anticancer drugs: a discrete choice experiment among non-small cell lung cancer patients in China

BACKGROUND

Ensuring equal access to affordable, high-quality, and satisfied healthcare for cancer patients is a challenge worldwide. Our study aimed to investigate preferences for public health insurance coverage of new anticancer drugs among non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients in China.

METHODS

We identified six attributes of new anticancer drugs and adopted a Bayesian-efficient design to generate choice scenarios for a discrete choice experiment (DCE). The one-on-one, face-to-face DCE was conducted in four cities in Jiangsu Province. The mixed logit regression model was used to estimate patient-reported preferences for each attribute. The interaction model was used to investigate preference heterogeneity.

RESULTS

Data from 486 patients were available for analysis. The most valuable attribute was the out-of-pocket cost if reimbursed (RI = 32.25%), followed by extension of overall survival (RI = 15.99%), and low incidence of serious side effects (RI = 14.45%). Patients had the highest willingness to pay for the comparative 9-month' extension of overall survival. Patients with advanced NSCLC were more likely to expect new anticancer drugs could improve HRQoL (p < 0.01) and require fewer out-of-pocket costs (p < 0.01). Older patients and patients with low income cared more about the out-of-pocket costs (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Health insurance policymakers need to consider the affordability, comparative survival benefits, comparative safety, and comparative patient-reported outcomes of new anticancer drugs. The findings also highlight the need to ensure affordability for older patients, low-income patients, and patients with advanced cancer.

Post-Market Evidence for Cancer Medicines in Regulatory and Clinical Decision-Making: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Cancer medicines usually have uncertain efficacy and safety profiles when they are first approved by medicines regulators because this evidence usually emerges post-market. Little is known about the extent to which post-market evidence is evaluated and integrated into evidence review processes in regulatory and clinical contexts.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this scoping review is to examine the literature on how post-market evidence on benefits and harms is evaluated and integrated in regulatory decisions and guidance for clinical decision-making.

METHODS

This scoping review focussed on the organisations that review cancer medicines and post-market evidence for their benefits and harms. It examined all regulatory or clinical contexts in which this post-market evidence might be included in evidence review processes for evaluation then integration into regulatory or clinical contexts. Four electronic databases were searched. Titles and abstracts were screened for all retrieved references followed by full-text screening by two independent reviewers according to pre-specified inclusion criteria.

RESULTS

In total, 28 studies met inclusion criteria. These included 31 assessments by medicines regulators, four by clinical practice guideline developers and two by health technology assessment agencies. Half of the studies evaluated clinical outcomes for benefit or harms (e.g., overall survival, serious adverse events). We found that more published literature evaluated and integrated post-market evidence for benefits and harms of cancer medicines in regulatory than in clinical situations, such as treatment guidelines and health technology assessments. In these studies, post-market evidence for harms seemed to be integrated more often than for benefits. And the studies showed a gap: only some of the evaluated post-market evidence was subsequently integrated in both regulatory and clinical situations.

CONCLUSION

Overall, these findings raise important questions around the availability, accessibility, and assessment of post-market evidence for benefits and harms of cancer medicines so that it can be used by health professionals working in cancer services and by people with cancer.

Evidence Following Conditional NICE Technology Appraisal Recommendations: A Critical Analysis of Methods, Quality and Risk of Bias

BACKGROUND

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) may approve health technologies on condition of more evidence generated only in research (OiR) or only with research (OwR). NICE specifies the information needed to comply with its request, although it may not necessarily guarantee good quality and timely evidence for re-appraisal, before reaching a final decision.

AIM

This study aimed to critically appraise the methods, quality and risk of bias of evidence generated in response to NICE OiR and OwR technology appraisal (TA) and highly specialised technologies (HSTs) recommendations.

METHODS

NICE TAs (between March 2000 and September 2020) and HST evaluations (to October 2023) of medicines were reviewed. Conditional recommendations were analysed to identify the evidence requested by NICE for re-appraisal. The new evidence was analysed for compliance with NICE's request and assessed using the Cochrane Collaboration's tools for risk of bias in randomised trials and the ROBINS-I tool for non-randomised evidence.

RESULTS

NICE made 54 conditional recommendations from TAs (13 OiR and 41 OwR) and five conditional recommendations for HSTs (all OwR). Of these, 16 TAs presented additional evidence for re-appraisal (9 OiR [69%] and 7 OwR [17%]) and three HSTs (3 OwR [60%]). Two of the nine re-appraised TAs with OiR recommendation and four of the seven OwR complied fully with NICE's request for further evidence, while all three from the HSTs complied. The majority of re-appraised TAs and HSTs included evidence that was deemed to be at serious, high, moderate or unclear risk of bias. Among the 26 randomised controlled trials from TAs assessed, eight were categorised as having low risk of bias in all domains and ten had at least one domain as a high risk of bias. Reporting was unclear for the remainder. Twenty-two non-randomised studies, primarily single-arm studies, were susceptible to biases mostly due to the selection of participants and to confounding. Two HSTs provided evidence from randomised controlled trials which were classified as unclear or high risk of bias. All non-randomised evidence from HSTs were categorised as moderate or serious risk of bias.

CONCLUSIONS

There is widespread non-compliance with agreed data requests and important variation in the quality of evidence submitted in response to NICE conditional approval recommendations. Quality standards ought to be stipulated in respect to evidence contributing to re-appraisals following NICE conditional approval recommendations.

Factors affecting the feasibility of post-authorisation RCTs for conditionally authorised anticancer medicines: a multistakeholder perspective from a qualitative focus group study

OBJECTIVE

The collection of comprehensive data from post-authorisation trials for conditionally authorised anticancer medicines is frequently delayed. This raises questions about the feasibility of post-authorisation randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that aim to address remaining uncertainties. Therefore, this study explored factors that facilitate or impede the feasibility of post-authorisation RCTs from the perspective of stakeholders directly involved in the design, medical-ethical approval, and conduct of these RCTs.

DESIGN

We conducted four qualitative focus groups (FGs).

SETTING

FG discussions focused on the oncology setting in European context.

PARTICIPANTS

Twenty-eight European patients, physicians, medical ethicists and pharmaceutical industry representatives participated in the FGs.

INTERVENTION

Respondents were informed about the topic and the purpose of the FGs before and at the start of FG discussions. An FG script was used to guide the discussion, which was informed by 14 semi-structured interviews with various stakeholders.

RESULTS

We identified factors with the potential to impact feasibility related to trial design, trial conduct, factors external to a trial and post-authorisation interaction with regulators. Factors that may be particularly relevant for the post-authorisation setting include the choice of relevant endpoints and the inclusion of a fair comparator (trial design), strategies to increase patients' and physicians' willingness to participate (trial conduct), and external factors relating to a medicine's commercial availability, the presence of competing medicines and trials and the perceptions about clinical equipoise. Post-authorisation interaction with regulators about how to obtain comprehensive data was deemed necessary in cases where a post-authorisation RCT seems infeasible.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on the identified factors, our findings suggest that patient recruitment and retention could be assessed more in-depth during regulatory feasibility assessments at the time of granting conditional marketing authorisation and that sponsors and regulators should better inform patients and physicians about the remaining uncertainties for conditionally authorised medicines and the necessity for post-authorisation RCTs. By enhancing the evaluation of trial feasibility, timely completion of post-authorisation RCTs may be facilitated to resolve the remaining uncertainties within a reasonable timeframe.

Patients' considerations of time toxicity when assessing cancer treatments with marginal benefit

BACKGROUND

Effective techniques for eliciting patients' preferences regarding their own care, when treatment options offer marginal gains and different risks, is an important clinical need. We sought to evaluate the association between patients' considerations of the time burdens of care ("time toxicity") with decisions about hypothetical treatment options.

METHODS

We conducted a secondary analysis of a multicenter, mixed-methods study that evaluated patients' attitudes and preferences toward palliative-intent cancer treatments that delayed imaging progression-free survival (PFS) but did not improve overall survival (OS). We classified participants based on if they spontaneously volunteered one or more consideration of time burdens during qualitative interviews after treatment trade-off exercises. We compared the percentage of participants who opted for treatments with no PFS gain, some PFS gain, or who declined treatment regardless of PFS gain (in the absence of OS benefit). We conducted narrative analysis of themes related to time burdens.

RESULTS

The study cohort included 100 participants with advanced cancer (55% women, 63% age > 60 years, 38% with gastrointestinal cancer, and 80% currently receiving cancer-directed treatment. Forty-six percent (46/100) spontaneously described time burdens as a factor they considered in making treatment decisions. Participants who mentioned time (vs not) had higher thresholds for PFS gains required for choosing additional treatments (P value .004). Participants who mentioned time were more likely to decline treatments with no OS benefit irrespective of the magnitude of PFS benefit (65%, vs 31%). On qualitative analysis, we found that time burdens are influenced by several treatment-related factors and have broad-ranging impact, and illustrate how patients' experiences with time burdens and their preferences regarding time influence their decisions.

CONCLUSIONS

Almost half of participating patients spontaneously raised the issue of time burdens of cancer care when making hypothetical treatment decisions. These patients had notable differences in treatment preferences compared to those who did not mention considerations of time. Decision science researchers and clinicians should consider time burdens as an important attribute in research and in clinic.

New cancer medicines in Europe 2010-2020: comparison of medicines with or without extensions of indications

INTRODUCTION

During the last decade, extensions of therapeutic indications have been one of the most common methods to extend the lifecycle of a medical product in the post-authorisation phase and to increase the use and sales of medicines. The aim of this study was to gain understanding of the lifecycle of cancer medicines and especially the role and level of evidence extensions in comparison to first indications.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified all new outpatient cancer medicines approved by the European Medicines Agency between 2010 and 2020 and the extensions to their indications. We compared general study design characteristics from the European public assessment reports using critical appraisal tools and clinical added value assessments.

RESULTS

We identified altogether 55 new outpatient cancer medicines, 31 of which had one or more extension(s) of indication and 24 had no extension of indication. In total, there were 57 extensions. The most common extension of indication was a change in the treatment line (35%). Compared with first indications, the overall quality of studies supporting extensions was better in terms of study designs. The proportion of medicines providing CAV was higher in extensions compared with first indication of medicines with and without extensions.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on different assessments and perspectives, we found that extensions of indications are a very common and important part of extending the lifecycle of outpatient cancer medicines in Europe. Our findings also suggest that the clinical value of cancer medicines increases with extensions.

Can Machine Learning Overcome the 95% Failure Rate and Reality that Only 30% of Approved Cancer Drugs Meaningfully Extend Patient Survival?

Despite implementing hundreds of strategies, cancer drug development suffers from a 95% failure rate over 30 years, with only 30% of approved cancer drugs extending patient survival beyond 2.5 months. Adding more criteria without eliminating nonessential ones is impractical and may fall into the "survivorship bias" trap. Machine learning (ML) models may enhance efficiency by saving time and cost. Yet, they may not improve success rate without identifying the root causes of failure. We propose a "STAR-guided ML system" (structure-tissue/cell selectivity-activity relationship) to enhance success rate and efficiency by addressing three overlooked interdependent factors: potency/specificity to the on/off-targets determining efficacy in tumors at clinical doses, on/off-target-driven tissue/cell selectivity influencing adverse effects in the normal organs at clinical doses, and optimal clinical doses balancing efficacy/safety as determined by potency/specificity and tissue/cell selectivity. STAR-guided ML models can directly predict clinical dose/efficacy/safety from five features to design/select the best drugs, enhancing success and efficiency of cancer drug development.

Should Patients Be Allowed to Pay Out of Pocket? The Ethical Dilemma of Access to Expensive Anti-cancer Treatments in Universal Healthcare Systems: A Dutch Case Study

With the increasing prices of newly approved anti-cancer treatments contributing to rising healthcare costs, healthcare systems are facing complex economic and ethical dilemmas. Especially in countries with universal access and mandatory health insurance, including many European countries, the organizing of funding or reimbursement of expensive new treatments can be challenging. When expensive anti-cancer treatments are deemed safe and effective, but are not (yet) reimbursed, ethical dilemmas arise. In countries with universal healthcare systems, such as the Netherlands, this gives rise to a rather new ethical dilemma: should patients be allowed to pay out of pocket, using private funds, for medical treatments? On the one hand, to allow patients to pay for treatments out of pocket would be in line with the medical-ethical principles of beneficence and autonomy. On the other hand, allowing patients to pay out of pocket for anti-cancer treatments may lead to unequal access to medical treatments and could be considered unfair to patients who are less well-off. Thus, it could undermine the values of equality and solidarity, on which the Dutch healthcare system is built. Furthermore, out-of-pocket payments could potentially lead to financial hardship and distress for patients, which would conflict with the principle of non-maleficence. Does this mean that patients can rightfully be denied access to approved but not (yet) reimbursed anti-cancer treatments? In this article, we will use the Dutch healthcare system, which is based on equal access and solidarity, as a case study to draw attention to this-currently relatively unknown and unresolved-dilemma and to clarify the values at stake. This article contributes to current discussions about the societal problem of rising healthcare costs by informing policymakers, healthcare professionals, and ethicists about the ethical dilemma of out-of-pocket payments in universal healthcare systems, and aims to support health authorities, policymakers and health professionals in developing policy for whether to allow out-of-pocket payment-based access to newly approved but (too) expensive anti-cancer treatments.

Clinical trial design and treatment effects: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled and single-arm trials supporting 437 FDA approvals of cancer drugs and indications

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to analyse the association between clinical trial design and treatment effects for cancer drugs with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional study and meta-analysis.

SETTING

Data from Drugs@FDA, FDA labels, ClincialTrials.gov and the Global Burden of Disease study.

PARTICIPANTS

Pivotal trials for 170 drugs with FDA approval across 437 cancer indications between 2000 and 2022.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Treatment effects were measured in HRs for overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), and in relative risk for tumour response. Random-effects meta-analyses and meta-regressions explored the association between treatment effect estimates and clinical trial design for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and single-arm trials.

RESULTS

Across RCTs, greater effect estimates were observed in smaller trials for OS (ß=0.06, p<0.001), PFS (ß=0.15, p<0.001) and tumour response (ß=-3.61, p<0.001). Effect estimates were larger in shorter trials for OS (ß=0.08, p<0.001) and PFS (ß=0.09, p=0.002). OS (ß=0.04, p=0.006), PFS (ß=0.10, p<0.001) and tumour response (ß=-2.91, p=0.004) outcomes were greater in trials with fewer centres. HRs for PFS (0.54 vs 0.62, p=0.011) were lower in trials testing the new drug to an inactive (placebo/no treatment) rather than an active comparator. The analysed efficacy population (intention-to-treat, per-protocol, or as-treated) was not consistently associated with treatment effects. Results were consistent for single-arm trials and in multivariable analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Pivotal trial design is significantly associated with measured treatment effects. Particularly small, short, single-centre trials testing a new drug compared with an inactive rather than an active comparator could overstate treatment outcomes. Future studies should verify results in unsuccessful trials, adjust for further confounders and examine other therapeutic areas. The FDA, manufacturers and trialists must strive to conduct robust clinical trials with a low risk of bias.

Pricing, Procurement and Reimbursement Policies for Incentivizing Market Entry of Novel Antibiotics and Diagnostics: Learnings from 10 Countries Globally

BACKGROUND

Fostering market entry of novel antibiotics and enhanced use of diagnostics to improve the quality of antibiotic prescribing are avenues to tackle antimicrobial resistance (AMR), which is a major public health threat. Pricing, procurement and reimbursement policies may work as AMR 'pull incentives' to support these objectives. This paper studies pull incentives in pricing, procurement and reimbursement policies (e.g., additions to, modifications of, and exemptions from standard policies) for novel antibiotics, diagnostics and health products with a similar profile in 10 study countries. It also explores whether incentives for non-AMR health products could be transferred to AMR health products.

METHODS

This research included a review of policies in 10 G20 countries based on literature and unpublished documents, and the production of country fact sheets that were validated by country experts. Initial research was conducted in 2020 and updated in 2023.

RESULTS

Identified pull incentives in pricing policies include free pricing, higher prices at launch and price increases over time, managed-entry agreements, and waiving or reducing mandatory discounts. Incentives in procurement comprise value-based procurement, pooled procurement and models that delink prices from volumes (subscription-based schemes), whereas incentives in reimbursement include lower evidence requirements for inclusion in the reimbursement scheme, accelerated reimbursement processes, separate budgets that offer add-on funding, and adapted prescribing conditions.

CONCLUSIONS

While a few pull incentives have been piloted or implemented for antibiotics in recent years, these mechanisms have been mainly used to incentivize launch of certain non-AMR health products, such as orphan medicines. Given similarities in their product characteristics, transferability of some of these pull incentives appears to be possible; however, it would be essential to conduct impact assessments of these incentives. Trade-offs between incentives to foster market entry and thus potentially improve access and the financial sustainability for payers need to be addressed.

Postrecurrence Treatment in Neoadjuvant or Adjuvant FDA Registration Trials: A Systematic Review

Importance

In oncology randomized clinical trials, suboptimal access to best available care at recurrence (or relapse) may affect overall survival results.

Objective

To assess the proportion and the quality of postrecurrence treatment received by patients enrolled in US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) registration trials of systemic therapy in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting.

Evidence Review

For this systematic review, all trials leading to an FDA approval from January 2018 through May 2023 were obtained from the FDA website and drug announcements. Randomized clinical trials of an anticancer drug in the neoadjuvant or the adjuvant setting were included. Trials of supportive care treatment and treatments given in combination with radiotherapy were excluded. Information abstracted for each trial included tumor type, setting, phase, type of sponsor, reporting and assessment of postrecurrence, and overall survival data.

Findings

A total of 14 FDA trials met the inclusion criteria. Postrecurrence data were not available in 6 of 14 registration trials (43%). Of the 8 remaining trials, postrecurrence treatment was assessed as suboptimal in 6 (75%). Overall, only 2 of 14 trials (14%) had data assessed as appropriate.

Conclusions and Relevance

This systematic review found that 43% of randomized clinical trials of anticancer treatment in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant context failed to present any assessable postrecurrence treatment data. In instances in which these data were shared, postrecurrence treatment was suboptimal 75% of the time. The findings suggest that regulatory bodies should enforce rules stipulating that patients have access to the best standard of care at recurrence.

Health-related quality of life outcomes reporting associated with FDA approvals in haematology and oncology

Objective

Health-related quality of life (HRQoL) outcomes are important in making clinical and policy decisions. This study aimed to examine the HRQoL reporting in cancer drug trials leading to Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals.

Methods and analysis

This retrospective cohort study analysed HRQoL data for trials leading to FDA approvals between July 2015 and May 2020. Proportion of included trials that reported HRQoL, latency between FDA approval and first report of HRQoL data, HRQoL outcomes, and their correlation with OS (overall survival) and PFS (progression-free survival) were analysed.

Results

Of the 233 trials associated with 207 FDA approvals, HRQoL was reported in 50% of trials, of which only 42% had the data reported by the time of FDA approval. There were no changes in frequency of HRQoL reporting between 2015 and 2020. HRQoL data were first reported in the primary publication in only 30% trials. Of the 115 trials with HRQoL data available, HRQoL improved in 43%, remained stable in 53% and worsened in 4% of trials. Among the trials that led to FDA approvals based on surrogate endpoints (79%), HRQoL was reported in 45% and improved only in 18% trials. There was no association between OS and PFS benefit and HRQoL outcomes.

Conclusion

Rates of HRQoL reporting were suboptimal in trials that led to FDA approvals with no improvements seen between 2015 and 2020. HRQoL reporting was often delayed and not presented in the primary publication. HRQoL reporting was further sparse in trials with approvals based on surrogate endpoints and HRQoL improved in only a minority of them.

Ethical considerations in the regulation and use of herbal medicines in the European Union

The regulation and use of herbal medicines is a topic of debate due to concerns about their quality, safety, and efficacy. EU Directive 2004/24/EC on Herbal Medicinal Products was a significant step towards establishing a regulatory framework for herbal medicinal products in the EU, and bridging the gap between conventional and herbal medicines. This Directive allows herbal medicinal products to be marketed in the EU through full marketing authorisation, well-established use, and traditional use of herbal medicinal products. The framework relies on the correlation between the therapeutic claims of herbal medicine and the scientific evidence backing them up: the greater the claims made regarding medicinal benefits, the more evidence is required to substantiate its efficacy and safety. This regulatory framework acknowledges and incorporates traditional knowledge when evaluating herbal medicines, showcasing a balanced approach that values cultural traditions while mandating monographs for traditional herbal medicinal products. Excluding herbal medicines completely limits access to affordable treatment, particularly when they serve as the only alternative for some, and protects consumer autonomy. This EU framework could therefore serve as a practical guidance for the use and regulation of herbal medicines, even outside the EU. In conclusion, it is argued that the same moral imagination and courage shown by regulators in the case of herbal medicines could perhaps be used in the regulatory frameworks of other healthcare products.

Application of the ESMO Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale to assess the clinical benefit of antibody drug conjugates in solid cancer: a systematic descriptive analysis of phase III and pivotal phase II trials

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess the clinical benefit value of approved antibody drug conjugates (ADCs) for solid tumours using the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) V.1.1.

DESIGN

Systematic descriptive analysis.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed was searched for publications from 1 January 2000 to 18 October 2023.

ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA

We included the phase III randomised controlled trials or phase II pivotal trials leading to approval of ADCs in solid tumours.

DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS

Two independent reviewers extracted data and discrepancies were resolved by consensus in the presence of a third investigator.

RESULTS

ESMO-MCBS Scores were calculated for 16 positive clinical trials of eight ADCs, which were first approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the China National Medical Products Administration and the Japanese Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency for solid cancers. Among 16 trials, 4 (25%) met the ESMO-MCBS benefit threshold grade, while 12 (75%) of the regimens did not meet the ESMO-MCBS benefit threshold grade. 5 (31%) of the 16 trials had no published scorecard on the ESMO website due to the approval by other jurisdictions but not by the FDA or EMA. Discrepancies between our results and the ESMO scorecard were observed in 4 (36%) of 11 trials, mostly owing to integration of more recent data.

CONCLUSIONS

ESMO-MCBS is an important tool for assessing the clinical benefit of cancer drugs, but not all drugs met the meaningful benefit threshold.

Regulatory histories of recently withdrawn ovarian cancer treatment indications of 3 PARP inhibitors in the US and Europe: lessons for the accelerated approval pathway

Background

Withdrawals of drug indications may reveal potential inadequacies in the regulatory approval processes of new drugs. Understanding potential weaknesses of the regulatory approval process is paramount given the increasing use of expedited pathways. In this paper, we focus on three poly-ADP-ribose polymerase inhibitors (olaparib, rucaparib and niraparib) for the treatment of women with heavily pretreated, recurrent ovarian cancer, which were eventually withdrawn.

Methods

We use a comparative case study approach to evaluate the regulatory histories of these drug indications in the US and Europe.

Results

Two drug indications benefited from the FDA's accelerated approval pathway, which explicitly lowers the bar for evidence of efficacy at the time of approval. Following accelerated approval, manufacturers are mandated to conduct post-marketing studies to confirm clinical benefit. The FDA granted accelerated approval to olaparib and rucaparib based on data on surrogate endpoints and converted the approval to regular approval after the submission of additional data on surrogate endpoints from one of two required confirmatory trials, that is, without data on clinical benefit. Niraparib directly received regular approval based only on data on a surrogate endpoint. By contrast, the EMA granted conditional marketing authorisation to rucaparib and was quicker to restrict usage than the FDA.

Conclusion

The regulatory histories of these drug indications highlight the need to reform the accelerated approval pathway by ensuring that post-marketing requirements are followed, and that regular approval is only based on evidence of clinical benefit.

Patient-Reported Outcomes in Phase 3 Clinical Trials for Blood Cancers: A Systematic Review

Importance

Published research suggests that patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are neither commonly collected nor reported in randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for solid tumors. Little is known about these practices in RCTs for hematological malignant neoplasms.

Objective

To evaluate the prevalence of PROs as prespecified end points in RCTs of hematological malignant neoplasms, and to assess reporting of PROs in associated trial publications.

Evidence Review

All issues of 8 journals known for publishing high-impact RCTs (NEJM, Lancet, Lancet Hematology, Lancet Oncology, Journal of Clinical Oncology, Blood, JAMA, and JAMA Oncology) between January 1, 2018, and December 13, 2022, were searched for primary publications of therapeutic phase 3 trials for adults with hematological malignant neoplasms. Studies that evaluated pretransplant conditioning regimens, graft-vs-host disease treatment, or radiotherapy as experimental treatment were excluded. Data regarding trial characteristics and PROs were extracted from manuscripts and trial protocols. Univariable analyses assessed associations between trial characteristics and PRO collection or reporting.

Findings

Ninety RCTs were eligible for analysis. PROs were an end point in 66 (73%) trials: in 1 trial (1%) as a primary end point, in 50 (56%) as a secondary end point, and in 15 (17%) as an exploratory end point. PRO data were reported in 26 of 66 primary publications (39%): outcomes were unchanged in 18 and improved in 8, with none reporting worse PROs with experimental treatment. Trials sponsored by for-profit entities were more likely to include PROs as an end point (49 of 55 [89%] vs 17 of 35 [49%]; P < .001) but were not significantly more likely to report PRO data (20 of 49 [41%] vs 6 of 17 [35%]; P = .69). Compared with trials involving lymphoma (18 of 29 [62%]) or leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome (18 of 28 [64%]), those involving plasma cell disorders or multiple myeloma (27 of 30 [90%]) or myeloproliferative neoplasms (3 of 3 [100%]) were more likely to include PROs as an end point (P = .03). Similarly, compared with trials involving lymphoma (3 of 18 [17%]) or leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome (5 of 18 [28%]), those involving plasma cell disorders or multiple myeloma (16 of 27 [59%]) or myeloproliferative neoplasms (2 of 3 [67%]) were more likely to report PROs in the primary publication (P = .01).

Conclusions and Relevance

In this systematic review, almost 3 of every 4 therapeutic RCTs for blood cancers collected PRO data; however, only 1 RCT included PROs as a primary end point. Moreover, most did not report resulting PRO data in the primary publication and when reported, PROs were either better or unchanged, raising concern for publication bias. This analysis suggests a critical gap in dissemination of data on the lived experiences of patients enrolled in RCTs for hematological malignant neoplasms.

The impact of current therapeutic options on the health-related quality of life of patients with relapse/refractory multiple myeloma: a systematic review of clinical studies

PURPOSE

Patients with relapse and/or refractory multiple myeloma (RRMM) have a high disease burden with poor health-related quality of life (HRQoL) which worsens with each additional relapse. We aimed to review the impact of triplet, doublet, monotherapies, and salvage autologous stem cell transplantation on the HRQoL of RRMM patients.

METHODS

We performed a comprehensive literature search of Medline/PubMed, Wiley Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Scopus, CINAHL, and Clinicaltrials.gov to identify clinical studies in RRMM patients with HRQoL as an outcome measure. The ISOQoL and CONSORT-PRO extension guidelines were used to assess the quality of HRQoL reporting. We synthesized the result using a qualitative analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 10,245 RRMM patients enrolled in 28 eligible studies received either a triplet, doublet regimen, monotherapy, or salvage autologous stem cell transplantation. The EORTC QLQ-C30 was the most used questionnaire, and compliance with HRQoL reporting standards is generally poor among studies without an additional HRQoL publication. Most of the current therapeutic options are at best able to maintain HRQoL at baseline but not improve it. The methodological and reporting heterogeneity among the studies complicates generalizations.

CONCLUSIONS

Many of the current treatment regimens for RRMM have demonstrated clinical effectiveness in trials. Unlike newly diagnosed MM, these regimens are less likely to result in significant improvement in HRQoL in RRMM. This should be communicated to patients before initiating therapies.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Individualized therapeutic approach for RRMM should be chosen based on a shared decision-making process that aligns clinical efficacy with patients' treatment priorities and HRQoL.

Pan-Cancer Molecular Biomarkers: A Paradigm Shift in Diagnostic Pathology

The rapid adoption of next-generation sequencing in clinical oncology has enabled the detection of molecular biomarkers shared between multiple tumor types. These pan-cancer biomarkers include sequence-altering mutations, copy number changes, gene rearrangements, and mutational signatures and have been demonstrated to predict response to targeted therapy. This article reviews issues surrounding current and emerging pan-cancer molecular biomarkers in clinical oncology: technological advances that enable the broad detection of cancer mutations across hundreds of genes, the spectrum of driver and passenger mutations derived from human cancer genomes, and implications for patient care now and in the near future.

Improvement of assessment in surrogate endpoint and safety outcome of single-arm trials for anticancer drugs

INTRODUCTION

Single-arm trials (SATs) and surrogate endpoints were adopted as pivotal evidence for accelerated approval of anticancer drugs for more than 30 years. However, concerns regarding clinical evidence quality in trials, particularly in the SATs of anticancer drugs have increasingly been raised. SAT may not always provide strong evidence due to the lack of control and endpoint of overall survival that is typically present in randomized controlled trials.

AREAS COVERED

Clinical trial endpoint adjudication is a crucial factor in surrogate outcome measurement to ensure the data quality of the clinical trial of anticancer drugs. In this review, we systematically discuss the characteristics of adjudications in assessments in surrogate endpoint and safety outcome respectively, which are essential for ensuring reliable and transparent outcomes. Endpoint adjudication effectively reduces potential bias and mitigates variance that may be introduced by investigators when analyzing the medical records for the surrogate endpoints. We analyze the advantages and disadvantages of each type of adjudicator and provide a summary of the roles of adjudicators.

EXPERT OPINION

By suggestion of improving data reliability and transparency in pivotal trials, this review aims to supply a strategy for better clinical investigation for anticancer drugs, ultimately leading to better patient outcomes.

Innovations in pharmaceutical policies and learnings for sustainable access to affordable medicines

Sustainable access to affordable medicines remains a public health issue globally, including for high-income countries. To foster the debate on avenues for the future, the fifth PPRI Conference held in Vienna on 25 and 26 April 2024 will offer a forum for the debate on innovating pharmaceutical policymaking to develop and implement futureproof policy options, which are able to address current and future challenges. The Conference invites a broad audience of stakeholders, including researchers, policymakers, payers, patients, industry and health professionals. The conference topics are organised in three strands: Strand 1 on 'Local challenges, global learnings' aims to contribute to lively discussions on the implementation of pharmaceutical policies across the globe. Best-practice examples will be presented, supplemented by case studies of less effective policies which can offer rich learnings. Strand 2 on 'Strengthening the evidence base' is the place for presentations and discussions on topics such as health technology assessments, managed entry agreements and real-world data. Strand 3 'Futureproofing pharmaceutical policies' is particularly dedicated to explore innovation in policymaking to achieve sustainable access to affordable medicines.

Real-World Data and Evidence in Lung Cancer: A Review of Recent Developments

Conventional cancer clinical trials can be time-consuming and expensive, often yielding results with limited applicability to real-world scenarios and presenting challenges for patient participation. Real-world data (RWD) studies offer a promising solution to address evidence gaps and provide essential information about the effects of cancer treatments in real-world settings. The distinction between RWD and data derived from randomized clinical trials lies in the method of data collection, as RWD by definition are obtained at the point of care. Experimental designs resembling those used in traditional clinical trials can be utilized to generate RWD, thus offering multiple benefits including increased efficiency and a more equitable balance between internal and external validity. Real-world data can be utilized in the field of pharmacovigilance to facilitate the understanding of disease progression and to formulate external control groups. By utilizing prospectively collected RWD, it is feasible to conduct pragmatic clinical trials (PCTs) that can provide evidence to support randomized study designs and extend clinical research to the patient's point of care. To ensure the quality of real-world studies, it is crucial to implement auditable data abstraction methods and develop new incentives to capture clinically relevant data electronically at the point of care. The treatment landscape is constantly evolving, with the integration of front-line immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), either alone or in combination with chemotherapy, affecting subsequent treatment lines. Real-world effectiveness and safety in underrepresented populations, such as the elderly and patients with poor performance status (PS), hepatitis, or human immunodeficiency virus, are still largely unexplored. Similarly, the cost-effectiveness and sustainability of these innovative agents are important considerations in the real world.

Clinical trials and tribulations

We need better post-approval monitoring and reporting to assess the efficiency of new cancer therapies in the real world beyond clinical trials.

Harnessing the Potential of Real-World Evidence in the Treatment of Colorectal Cancer: Where Do We Stand?

OPINION STATEMENT

Treatment guidelines for colorectal cancer (CRC) are primarily based on the results of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), the gold standard methodology to evaluate safety and efficacy of oncological treatments. However, generalizability of trial results is often limited due to stringent eligibility criteria, underrepresentation of specific populations, and more heterogeneity in clinical practice. This may result in an efficacy-effectiveness gap and uncertainty regarding meaningful benefit versus treatment harm. Meanwhile, conduct of traditional RCTs has become increasingly challenging due to identification of a growing number of (small) molecular subtypes. These challenges-combined with the digitalization of health records-have led to growing interest in use of real-world data (RWD) to complement evidence from RCTs. RWD is used to evaluate epidemiological trends, quality of care, treatment effectiveness, long-term (rare) safety, and quality of life (QoL) measures. In addition, RWD is increasingly considered in decision-making by clinicians, regulators, and payers. In this narrative review, we elaborate on these applications in CRC, and provide illustrative examples. As long as the quality of RWD is safeguarded, ongoing developments, such as common data models, federated learning, and predictive modelling, will further unfold its potential. First, whenever possible, we recommend conducting pragmatic trials, such as registry-based RCTs, to optimize generalizability and answer clinical questions that are not addressed in registrational trials. Second, we argue that marketing approval should be conditional for patients who would have been ineligible for the registrational trial, awaiting planned (non) randomized evaluation of outcomes in the real world. Third, high-quality effectiveness results should be incorporated in treatment guidelines to aid in patient counseling. We believe that a coordinated effort from all stakeholders is essential to improve the quality of RWD, create a learning healthcare system with optimal use of trials and real-world evidence (RWE), and ultimately ensure personalized care for every CRC patient.

Cost-effectiveness of the top 100 drugs by public spending in Canada, 2015-2021: a repeated cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

To assess the distribution and spending by cost-effectiveness category among those drugs with the highest public spending levels in Canada.

DESIGN

Repeated cross-sectional study.

SETTING

The Canadian provinces of Manitoba, Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Cost-effectiveness assessments by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) for top-100 brand-name outpatient drugs by gross public plan spending in any year between 2015 and 2021 in Canada Institute for Health Information's National Prescription Drug Utilization Information System data. Gross public plan spending by cost-effectiveness category.

RESULTS

From 2015 to 2021, 152 brand-name drugs occupied a top-100 rank and were included in the analysis. Of those, 117 had been assessed by CADTH. During the 7-year period, there was an increase in both top-100 drugs with cost-effective (from 18 to 24) and cost-ineffective (from 29 to 41) assessments, while drugs not assessed or with an unclear assessment declined (from 31 to 19 and from 22 to 16, respectively). As a share of spending on top-100 drugs with an assessment, spending on cost-effective drugs was mostly stable at 40%-46% from 2015 to 2021, while spending on cost-ineffective drugs increased from 30% to 45%.

CONCLUSION

A large and growing share of public drug spending has been allocated to cost-ineffective drugs in Canada. Dedicating large budgets to such treatments prevents spending with greater health impact elsewhere in the healthcare system and could restrain the capacity to pay for groundbreaking pharmaceutical innovation in the future.

Analyses of quality of life in cancer drug trials - a review of measurements and analytical choices in post-reimbursement studies

OBJECTIVES

For drugs reimbursed with limited evidence of patient benefits, confirmatory evidence of overall survival (OS) and quality of life (QoL) benefits is important. For QoL data to serve as valuable input to patients and decision-makers, it must be measured and analyzed using appropriate methods. We aimed to assess the measurement and analyses of post-reimbursement QoL data for cancer drugs introduced in Swedish healthcare with limited evidence at the time of reimbursement.

METHODS

We reviewed any published post-reimbursement trial data on QoL for cancer drugs reimbursed in Sweden between 2010 and 2020 with limited evidence of improvement in QoL and OS benefits at the time of reimbursement. We extracted information on the instruments used, frequency of measurement, extent of missing data, statistical approaches, and the use of pre-registration and study protocols.

RESULTS

Out of 22 drugs satisfying our inclusion criteria, we identified published QoL data for 12 drugs in 22 studies covering multiple cancer types. The most frequently used QoL instruments were EORTC QLQ-C30 and EQ-5D-3/5L. We identified three areas needing improvement in QoL measurement and analysis: (i) motivation for the frequency of measurements, (ii) handling of the substantial missing data problem, and (iii) inclusion and adherence to QoL analyses in clinical trial pre-registration and study protocols.

CONCLUSIONS

Our review shows that the measurements and analysis of QoL data in our sample of cancer trials covering drugs initially reimbursed without any confirmed QoL or OS evidence have significant room for improvement. The increasing use of QoL assessments must be accompanied by a stricter adherence to best-practice guidelines to provide valuable input to patients and decision-makers.

Differences in time to patient access to innovative cancer medicines in six European countries

Patients across Europe face inequity regarding access to anticancer medicines. While access is typically evaluated through reimbursement status or sales data, patients can receive first access through early access programs (EAPs) or off-label use. This study aims to assess the time to patient access at the hospital level, considering different indications and countries. (Pre-)registered access to six innovative medicines (Olaparib, Niraparib, Ipilimumab, Osimeritinib, Nivolumab and Ibritunib) was measured using a cross-sectional survey. First patient access to medicines and indications were collected using the hospital databases. Nineteen hospitals from Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland and France participated. Analysis showed that some hospitals achieved patient access before national reimbursement, primarily through EAPs. The average time from EMA-approval to patient access for these medicines was 2.1 years (Range: -0.9-7.1 years). Hospitals in Italy and France had faster access compared to Hungary and Belgium. Variation was also found within countries, with specialized hospitals (x̄: -0.9 years; SD: 2.0) more likely to provide patient access prior to national reimbursement than general hospitals (x̄: 0.4 years; SD: 2.9). Contextual differences were observed, with EAPs or off-label use being more prevalent in Switzerland than Hungary. Recent EMA-approved indications and drug combinations reached patients at a later stage. Substantial variation in patient access time was observed between and within countries. Improving pricing and reimbursement timelines, fostering collaboration between national health authorities and market authorization holders, and implementing nationally harmonized, data-generating EAPs can enhance timely and equitable patient access to innovative cancer treatments in Europe.

Analysis of oncological drugs authorised in Spain in the last decade: association between clinical benefit and reimbursement

BACKGROUND

Our study aimed to assess whether there was a relationship between clinical benefits and reimbursement decisions as well as the inclusion of economic evaluations in  therapeutic positioning reports (IPTs) and to explore factors influencing reimbursement decisions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We analysed all anti-cancer drugs approved in Spain from 2010 to September 2022. The clinical benefit of each drug were evaluated using the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) 1.1. The characteristics of these drugs were obtained from the Spanish Agency of Medicines and Medical Devices. Reimbursement status information was obtained using BIFIMED, a web resource available in Spanish and consulted the agreements of the Interministerial Committee on Pricing of Medicines (CIPM).

RESULTS

In total, 73 drugs were included involving 197 indications. Almost half of the indications had substantial clinical benefit (49.8% yes vs. 50.3% no). Of the 153 indications with a reimbursement decision, 61 (56.5%) reimbursed indications had substantial clinical benefit compared to 14 (31.1%) of the non-reimbursed (p < 0.01). The median gain of overall survival was 4.9 months (2.8-11.2) for reimbursed indications and 2.9 months (1.7-5) in non-reimbursed (p < 0.05). Only six (3%) indications had an economic evaluation in the IPT.

CONCLUSION

Our study revealed that there is a relationship between substantial clinical benefit and the reimbursement decision in Spain. However, we also found that the overall survival gain was modest, and a significant proportion of the reimbursed indications had no substantial clinical benefit. Economic evaluations in IPTs are infrequent and cost-effectiveness analysis is not provided by CIPM.

The target atlas for antibody-drug conjugates across solid cancers

Antibody-Drug Conjugates (ADCs) represent a rapidly advancing category of oncology therapeutics, spanning the targeted therapy for both hematologic malignancies and solid cancers. A crucial aspect of ADC research involves the identification of optimal surface antigens that can effectively differentiate target cells from most mammalian cell types. Herein, we have devised an algorithm and compiled an extensive dataset annotating cell membrane proteins. This dataset is derived from comprehensive transcriptomic, proteomic, and genomic data encompassing 19 types of solid cancer as well as normal tissues. The aim is to uncover potential therapeutic surface antigens for precise ADC targeting. The resulting target landscape comprises 165 combinations of targets and indications, along with 75 candidates of cell surface proteins. Notably, 35 of these candidates possess characteristics suitable for ADC targeting, and have not been previously reported in ADC research and development. Additionally, we have identified a total of 159 ADCs from a pool of 760 clinical trials. Of these, 72 ADCs are presently undergoing interventional evaluation for a variety of solid cancer types, targeting 36 unique antigens. We conducted an analysis of their expression in normal tissues using this comprehensive annotation dataset, revealing a diverse range of profiles for the current ADC targets. Moreover, we emphasize that the biological impacts of target antigens have the potential to enhance their clinical effectiveness. We propose a comprehensive assessment of the drugability of target antigens, considering multiple facets. This study represents a thorough exploration of pan-cancer ADC targets over the past two decades, underscoring the potential of a comprehensive solid cancer target atlas to broaden the scope of ADC therapies.

Navigating the unknown: how to best 'reflect' standard of care in indications without a dedicated treatment pathway in health technology assessment submissions

There is an urgent need for expedited approval and access for new health technologies targeting rare and very rare diseases, some of which are associated with high unmet treatment needs. Once a new technology achieves regulatory approval, the technology needs to be assessed by health technology assessment (HTA) bodies to inform coverage and reimbursement decisions. This assessment quantitatively examines the clinical effectiveness, safety and/or economic impact of the new technology relative to standard of care (SoC) in a specific market. However, in rare and very rare diseases, the patient populations are small and there is often no established treatment pathway available to define 'SoC'. In these situations, several challenges arise to assess the added benefit of a new technology - both clinically and economically - due to lack of established SoC to guide an appropriate comparator selection. These challenges include: How should 'SoC' be defined and characterized in HTA submissions for new technologies aiming to establish new treatment standards? What is usual care without an established clinical pathway? How should the evidence for the comparator 'SoC' (i.e., usual care) arm be collected in situations with low patient representation and, sometimes, limited disease-specific clinical knowledge in certain geographies? This commentary outlines the evidence generation challenges in designing clinical comparative effectiveness for a new technology when there is a lack of established SoC. The commentary also proposes considerations to facilitate the reliable integration of real-world evidence into HTA and decision-making based on the collective experience of the authors.

The Origin of First-in-Class Drugs: Innovation Versus Clinical Benefit

First-in-class (FIC) designation became a hallmark of innovation, however, even at the marketing authorization stage, little is known about the clinical benefits these products deliver. We identified the provenance of the FIC drugs that entered the French market from 2008 to 2018 and matched these medicines to the clinical benefit grading by Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS) and Prescrire. Analyses were performed using descriptive statistics to present our findings by drug origin and therapeutic area and to establish the degree of concordance between HAS and Prescrire. Of the 135 FIC drugs identified, 71.1% (n = 96) originated from the industry, 16.3% (n = 22) from academia, and 12.6% (n = 17) from joint partnerships. Three therapeutic areas accounted for most FIC medications: antineoplastic (25.9%, N = 35), anti-infective (14.1%, N = 19), and metabolic (11.1%, N = 15) agents. HAS and Prescrire agreed on 60.74% of clinical benefit gradings. According to HAS, only 5% of all FIC drugs had substantial added benefit, and only 3%, according to Prescrire. HAS and Prescrire graded 45.9% and 68.2%, respectively, of FIC drugs as no clinical benefit and 48.9% and 28.9%, respectively, as some clinical benefit. FIC-designated drugs are primarily of industry (> 70%) rather than academic origin. We found that 55% of FIC medicines that entered the French market over the 10-year period deliver no additional clinical benefit. Whereas FIC medicines may represent important scientific advancements in drug development, in > 50% of cases, the new mode of action does not translate into additional clinical benefits for patients.

Cancer medicines: a private vice for public benefit?

Cancer medicines have become one of the most dominant global medical technologies. They generate huge profits for the biopharmaceutical industry as well as fuel the research and advocacy activities of public funders, patient organisations, clinical and scientific communities and entire federal political ecosystems. The mismatch between the price, affordability and value of many cancer medicines and global need has generated significant policy debate, yet we see little change in behaviours from any of the major actors from public research funders through to regulatory authorities. In this policy analysis we examine whether, considering the money and power inherent in this system, any rationale global consensus and policy can be achieved to deliver affordable and equitable cancer medicines that consistently deliver clinically meaningful benefit.

Are We Losing the Final Fight against Cancer?

Despite our increasing understanding of the biology and evolution of the cancer process, it is indisputable that the natural process of cancer creation has become increasingly difficult to cure, as more mutations are found with age. It is significantly more difficult to challenge the curative method when there is heterogeneity within the tumor, as it hampers clinical and genetic categorization. With advances in diagnostic technologies and screening leading to progressive tumor shrinkage, it becomes more difficult over time to evaluate the effects of treatment on overall survival. New treatments are often authorized based on early evidence, such as tumor response; disease-free, progression-free, meta-static-free, and event-free survival; and, less frequently, based on clinical endpoints, such as overall survival or quality of life, when standard guidelines are not available to approve pharmaceuticals. These clearances usually happen quite rapidly. Although approval takes longer, relative survival demonstrates the genuine worth of a novel medication. Pressure is being applied by pharmaceutical companies and patient groups to approve "new" treatments based on one of the above-listed measures, with results that are frequently insignificantly beneficial and frequently have no impact on quality of life.

VOLY: The Monetary Value of a Life-Year at the End of Patients' Lives

OBJECTIVE

We explored the monetary value of the end-of-life (EoL) health gains, that is, the value of a life-year (VOLY) gained at the end of a patient's life in Croatia. We tested whether the nature of the illness under valuation (cancer and/or rare disease) is a factor in the valuation of EoL-VOLYs. The aim was for our results to contribute to the health and longevity valuation literature and more particularly to the debate on the appropriate cost-effectiveness threshold for EoL treatments as well as to provide input into the debate on the justifiability of a cancer and/or a rare disease premium when evaluating therapies.

METHODS

A contingent valuation was conducted in an online survey using a representative sample of the Croatian population (n = 1500) to calculate the willingness to pay for gains in the remaining life expectancy at the EoL, from the social-inclusive-individual perspective, using payment scales and an open-ended payment vehicle. Our approach mimics the actual decision-making problem of deciding whether to reimburse therapies targeting EoL conditions such as metastatic cancer whose main purpose is to extend life (and not add quality to life).

RESULTS

Average EoL-VOLY across all scenarios was estimated at €67,000 (median €40,000). In scenarios that offered respondents 1 full year of life extension, EoL-VOLY was estimated at €33,000 (median €22,000). Our results show that the type of illness is irrelevant for EoL-VOLY evaluations.

CONCLUSIONS

The pressure to reimburse expensive therapies targeting EoL conditions will continue to increase. Delivering "value for money" in healthcare, both in countries with relatively higher and lower budget restrictions, requires the valuation of different types of health gains, which should, in turn, affect our ability to evaluate their cost effectiveness.

Antibody-drug conjugates in cancer therapy: innovations, challenges, and future directions

The emergence of antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) as a potential therapeutic avenue in cancer treatment has garnered significant attention. By combining the selective specificity of monoclonal antibodies with the cytotoxicity of drug molecules, ADCs aim to increase the therapeutic index, selectively targeting cancer cells while minimizing systemic toxicity. Various ADCs have been licensed for clinical usage, with ongoing research paving the way for additional options. However, the manufacture of ADCs faces several challenges. These include identifying suitable target antigens, enhancing antibodies, linkers, and payloads, and managing resistance mechanisms and side effects. This review focuses on the strategies to overcome these hurdles, such as site-specific conjugation techniques, novel antibody formats, and combination therapy. Our focus lies on current advancements in antibody engineering, linker technology, and cytotoxic payloads while addressing the challenges associated with ADC development. Furthermore, we explore the future potential of personalized medicine, leveraging individual patients' molecular profiles, to propel ADC treatments forward. As our understanding of the molecular mechanisms driving cancer progression continues to expand, we anticipate the development of new ADCs that offer more effective and personalized therapeutic options for cancer patients.

Uptake and availability of new outpatient cancer medicines in 2010-2021 in Nordic countries - survey of competent authorities

BACKGROUND

Nordic countries excel in cancer care, but studies on uptake, costs, or managed entry agreements of cancer medicines have not been conducted recently. The aim of this study was to examine the uptake and availability of orally administered new cancer medicines in Nordic countries. Orally administered cancer medicines enable and are used in the community as part of outpatient care. Firstly, we studied the distribution, costs and adoption of managed entry agreements of these medicines, and secondly, uptake of and managed entry agreements for cancer medicines used in outpatient care that were granted marketing authorization in Europe in 2010-2021.

METHODS

An E-mail survey of competent authorities, meaning pharmaceutical service organizers, payers or other government or non-government actors developing pharmaceutical service operations, in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden in April-June 2022. The data were analysed using frequencies and percentages for descriptive analysis.

RESULTS

The distribution of cancer medicines has similarities in Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden, where cancer medicines can be distributed both via hospitals or hospital pharmacies for inpatient use, and via community pharmacies for outpatient use. In Denmark, cancer medicines are predominantly distributed via publicly funded hospitals. In all countries that provided data on the costs, the costs of cancer medicines had notably gone up from 2010 to 2021. The number of reimbursable medicines out of new cancer medicines varied from 36 products in Denmark and Iceland to 51 products in Sweden, out of 67 studied products. Managed entry agreements, often with confidential discounts, were in use in all Nordic countries. The number of agreements and the cancer types for which agreements were most often made varied from three agreements made in Iceland to 35 agreements made in Finland, out of 67 studied products. Average days from authorization to reimbursement of new cancer medicines varied from an average of 416 to 895 days.

CONCLUSIONS

Nordic countries share similar characteristics but also differ in terms of the details in distribution, adopted managed entry agreements, market entry, and availability of new orally administered cancer medicines used in the outpatient care. The costs of cancer medicines have increased in all Nordic countries during the last decade. Due to differences in health care and because orally administered cancer medicines can be dispensed at community and hospital pharmacies in all studied countries other than Denmark, the number of reimbursable medicines and managed entry agreements vary between countries. However, Nordic countries show good agreement for 2010 to 2021 in entry and reimbursement decisions of novel cancer medicines.

Patients' attitudes and preferences toward delayed disease progression in the absence of improved survival

BACKGROUND

Cancer patients' attitudes toward progression-free survival (PFS) gains offered by treatment are not well understood, particularly in the absence of overall survival (OS) gains. The objectives were to describe patients' willingness to accept treatment that offers PFS gains without OS gains, to compare these findings with treatments offering OS gains, and to qualitatively summarize patients' reasons for their preferences.

METHODS

A multicenter, cross-sectional, convergent mixed-methods study design recruited patients who had received at least 3 months of systemic therapy for incurable solid tumors. A treatment trade-off exercise determined the gains in imaging PFS that patients require to prefer additional systemic treatment for a scenario of a newly diagnosed, asymptomatic, incurable abdominal tumor. A qualitative, descriptive, thematic analysis explored factors influencing patients' decisions, and a narrative method integrated the quantitative and qualitative findings.

RESULTS

In total, 100 patients participated (63% were older than 60 years of age). If additional treatment with added toxicity offered no OS advantage, 17% would prefer it for no PFS benefit; 26% for some PFS benefit (range, 3-9 months), whereas 51% would decline it regardless of PFS benefit. Similarly, 71% preferred additional treatment offering a 6-month OS advantage dependent on described toxicity levels (P = .03). A spectrum of reasons for these preferences reflected the complexity of participants' attitudes and values.

CONCLUSIONS

Prolongation of time to progression was not universally valued. Most patients did not prefer treatments that negatively affect quality of life for PFS gains alone. Implications for individual decision making, policy, and trials research are discussed.

Developing and validating a multi-criteria decision analytic tool to assess the value of cancer clinical trials: evaluating cancer clinical trial value

BACKGROUND

Demonstrating safety and efficacy of new medical treatments requires clinical trials but clinical trials are costly and may not provide value proportionate to their costs. As most health systems have limited resources, it is therefore important to identify the trials with the highest value. Tools exist to assess elements of a clinical trial such as statistical validity but are not wholistic in their valuation of a clinical trial. This study aims to develop a measure of clinical trials value and provide an online tool for clinical trial prioritisation.

METHODS

A search of the academic and grey literature and stakeholder consultation was undertaken to identify a set of criteria to aid clinical trial valuation using multi-criteria decision analysis. Swing weighting and ranking exercises were used to calculate appropriate weights of each of the included criteria and to estimate the partial-value function for each underlying metric. The set of criteria and their respective weights were applied to the results of six different clinical trials to calculate their value.

RESULTS

Seven criteria were identified: 'unmet need', 'size of target population', 'eligible participants can access the trial', 'patient outcomes', 'total trial cost', 'academic impact' and 'use of trial results'. The survey had 80 complete sets of responses (51% response rate). A trial designed to address an 'Unmet Need' was most commonly ranked as the most important with a weight of 24.4%, followed by trials demonstrating improved 'Patient Outcomes' with a weight of 21.2%. The value calculated for each trial allowed for their clear delineation and thus a final value ranking for each of the six trials.

CONCLUSION

We confirmed that the use of the decision tool for valuing clinical trials is feasible and that the results are face valid based on the evaluation of six trials. A proof-of-concept applying this tool to a larger set of trials with an external validation is currently underway.

Toward Best Practices for Economic Evaluations of Tumor-Agnostic Therapies: A Review of Current Barriers and Solutions

OBJECTIVES

Cancer therapies targeting tumor-agnostic biomarkers are challenging traditional health technology assessment (HTA) frameworks. The high prevalence of nonrandomized single-arm trials, heterogeneity, and small benefiting populations are driving outcomes uncertainty, challenging healthcare decision making. We conducted a structured literature review to identify barriers and prioritize solutions to generating economic evidence for tumor-agnostic therapies.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE and Embase for English-language studies conducting economic evaluations of tumor-agnostic treatments or exploring related challenges and solutions. We included studies published by December 2022 and supplemented our review with Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence technical reports for approved tumor-agnostic therapies. Three reviewers abstracted and summarized key methodological and empirical study characteristics. Challenges and solutions were identified through authors' statements and categorized using directed content analysis.

RESULTS

Twenty-six studies met our inclusion criteria. Studies spanned economic evaluations (n = 5), reimbursement reviews (n = 4), qualitative research (n = 1), methods validations (n = 3), and commentaries or literature reviews (n = 13). Challenges encountered related to (1) the treatment setting and clinical trial designs, (2) a lack of data or low-quality data on clinical and cost parameters, and (3) an inability to produce evidence that meets HTA guidelines. Although attempted solutions centered on analytic approaches for managing missing data, proposed solutions highlighted the need for real-world evidence combined with life-cycle HTA to reduce future evidentiary uncertainty.

CONCLUSIONS

Therapeutic innovation outpaces HTA evidence generation and the methods that support it. Existing HTA frameworks must be adapted for tumor-agnostic treatments to support future economic evaluations enabling timely patient access.

Progress and Challenges of the New Conditional Approval Process in China: A Pooled Analysis From 2018 to 2021

PURPOSE

To speed the review and approval of drugs and address pressing medical needs, China began to advocate for the implementation of the conditional approval process in 2017. We aimed to assess the implementation of the conditional approval process in China and further analyze its potential problems and future challenges.

METHODS

This study examined the new drug approval with conditions in China between 2018 and 2021, based on an analysis of drug technical review documents from the Center for Drug Evaluation (CDE). Using publicly available information, we further analyzed the characteristics and results of pivotal clinical trials of conditionally approved drugs, postmarketing study requirements and progress.

FINDINGS

Between 2018 and 2021, China conditionally approved 50 drugs, with 80% (40/50) being antineoplastic agents. Premarketing pivotal trials predominantly used single-arm clinical trials (83.7%, 41/49), while postmarketing trials mainly employed randomized controlled clinical trials (81.0%, 34/42). In oncology drugs, conditionally approved drugs with progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) as primary endpoints achieved significant clinical value in terms of efficacy. However, there were also pivotal clinical trials with response rate (RR) as the primary endpoint that demonstrated lower clinical benefits (8.9% of drugs with RR below 20%). Safety analysis revealed substantial variations in the proportions of grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) and serious adverse events (SAEs) across pivotal trials (Grade ≥ 3 AEs: 9.0%-99.0%; SAEs: 8.0%-83.0%). For nononcology drugs, pivotal trials also demonstrated an acceptable risk-benefit ratio but exhibited methodological issues. Meanwhile, Most postmarketing studies lacked completion date restrictions (43.2%, 17/47), and no requirements were specified for the transition to full approval. Furthermore, surrogate endpoints were primarily utilized both pre- and postmarketing, but the rational selection of surrogate endpoints remains to be investigated.

IMPLICATIONS

The conditional approval process expedites patient access to drugs for serious diseases. However, challenges pertaining to evidence assessment during approval and design flaws in postmarketing studies exist in China's conditional approval system, necessitating future improvements.

Reporting reimbursement price decisions for onco-hematology drugs in Spain

Introduction

Even using well-established technology assessment processes, the basis of the decisions on drug price and reimbursement are sometimes perceived as poorly informed and sometimes may be seen as disconnected from value. The literature remains inconclusive about how Health Technology Assessment Bodies (HTAb) should report the determinants of their decisions. This study evaluates the relationship between oncology and hematology drug list prices and structured value parameters at the time of reimbursement decision in Spain.

Methods

The study includes all new onco-hematological products (22), with a first indication authorized between January 2017 and December 2019 in Spain and pricing decisions published up until October 2022. For each product, 56 contextual and non-contextual indicators reflecting the structured multiple criteria decision analysis (MCDA) - Evidence-based Decision-Making (EVIDEM) framework were measured. The relationship between prices and the MCDA-EVIDEM framework was explored using univariate statistical analyses.

Results

Higher prices were observed when the standard of care included for combinations, if there were references to long-lasting responses, for fixed-duration treatment compared to treatment until progression and treatment with lower frequencies of administration; lower prices were observed for oral administration compared to other routes of administration. Statistically significant associations were observed between prices and the median duration of treatment, the impact on patient autonomy, the ease of use of the drug, and the recommendations of experts.

Discussion

The study suggests that indicators related to the type of standard of care, references to long-lasting responders, the convenience of the use of the drug, and the impact of treatment on patient autonomy, as well as contextual indicators such as the existence of previous clinical consensus, are factors in setting oncology drug prices in Spain. The implementation of MCDA-EVIDEM methodologies may be useful to capture the influence on pricing decisions of additional factors not included in legislation or consolidated assessment frameworks such as the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EunetHTA) core model. It may be opportune to consider this in the upcoming revision of the Spanish regulation for health technology assessments and pricing and reimbursement procedures.

Clinical Outcomes of First-line Therapies for Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review of Trials Published Between 2010 and 2020

OBJECTIVES

To analyze the evolution of clinical outcomes derived from clinical trials on first-line therapies for advanced or metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) published between 2010 and 2020, focusing on how these outcomes impact survival rates and management of patients.

METHODS

A systematic review of phase III and pivotal phase II clinical trials was conducted by a structured search on Medline and Embase. A comprehensive set of variables was collected to assess their influence on survival rates. We also estimated the clinical benefit by applying the ESMO-MCBS v1.1 and extracted the authors' conclusions.

RESULTS

Sixty-six studies involving 34,951 patients were included. Best survival outcomes were found for nonsquamous non-small cell lung cancer (OS and progression-free survival medians: 19.4 and 10.2 mo) and for those expressing molecular targets (OS and progression-free survival medians: 23.8 and 11.0 mo). No significant influence on survival rates was observed for industry funding and disease stage (IIIB/IV vs. IV). ESMO-MCBS v1.1 was applied in 45 positive studies and resulted in a meaningful clinical benefit score in 37.8%. Quality of life (QoL) was reported in 57.6% of the original publications and showed statistical significance favoring the experimental arm in 33.3%. Positive authors' conclusions (75.7% of trials) were based on OS and/or QoL in 34% and on surrogate endpoints in 66%.

CONCLUSIONS

Extended survival times and a steady improvement in QoL have been observed. However, there were more than twice as many studies reporting positive authors' conclusions as studies meeting the ESMO threshold for meaningful clinical benefit.

Regulatory benefit-risk assessment of oncology drugs: A systematic review of FDA and EMA approvals

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) and FDA have policy goals of strengthening benefit-risk (B-R) capabilities; but how this has been translating into regulatory practice is unclear. A systematic review of oncology drug approvals between 2015 and 2020 was conducted with approvals identified through review of FDA and EMA annual reports, with extraction of information on submission, clinical program and B-R assessment from publicly available review documents. Data were extracted from 236 reviews (EMA: 66 new submissions, 100 label extensions; FDA: 70 new submissions). The standard of evidence for B-R assessments seems to have diversified over time; yet, despite policy targets to extend their use, these assessments rarely include patient experience or real-world data.

Is Target-Based Drug Discovery Efficient? Discovery and "Off-Target" Mechanisms of All Drugs

Target-based drug discovery is the dominant paradigm of drug discovery; however, a comprehensive evaluation of its real-world efficiency is lacking. Here, a manual systematic review of about 32000 articles and patents dating back to 150 years ago demonstrates its apparent inefficiency. Analyzing the origins of all approved drugs reveals that, despite several decades of dominance, only 9.4% of small-molecule drugs have been discovered through "target-based" assays. Moreover, the therapeutic effects of even this minimal share cannot be solely attributed and reduced to their purported targets, as they depend on numerous off-target mechanisms unconsciously incorporated by phenotypic observations. The data suggest that reductionist target-based drug discovery may be a cause of the productivity crisis in drug discovery. An evidence-based approach to enhance efficiency seems to be prioritizing, in selecting and optimizing molecules, higher-level phenotypic observations that are closer to the sought-after therapeutic effects using tools like artificial intelligence and machine learning.

Opportunities for Savings in Risk Arrangements for Oncologic Care

Importance

As the US accelerates adoption of alternative payment through global payment models such as Accountable Care Organizations (ACOs) or Medicare Advantage (MA), high spending for cancer care is a potential target for savings.

Objective

To quantify the extent to which ACOs and other risk-bearing organizations operating in a specific geographic area (hospital referral region [HRR]) could achieve savings by steering patients to efficient medical oncology practices.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This observational study included serial cross-sections of Medicare beneficiaries with cancer from 2010 to 2018. Data were analyzed from August 2021 to March 2023.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Total spending and spending by category in the 1-year period following an index visit for a patient with newly diagnosed (incident) or poor-prognosis cancer.

Results

The incident cohort included 1 309 825 patients with a mean age of 74.0 years; the most common cancer types were breast (21.4%), lung (16.7%), and colorectal cancer (10.0%). The poor prognosis cohort included 1 429 973 (mean age, 72.7 years); the most common cancer types were lung (26.6%), lymphoma (11.7%), and leukemia (7.3%). Options for steering varied across markets; the top quartile market had 10 or more oncology practices, but the bottom quartile had 3 or fewer oncology practices. Total spending (including Medicare Part D) in the incident cohort increased from a mean of $57 314 in 2009 to 2010 to $66 028 in 2016 to 2017. Within markets, total spending for practices in the highest spending quartile was 19% higher than in the lowest quartile. Hospital spending was the single largest component of spending in both time periods ($20 390 and $19 718, respectively) followed by Part B (infused) chemotherapy ($8022 and $11 699). Correlations in practice-level spending between the first-year (2009) and second-year (2010) spending were high (>0.90 in all categories with most >0.98), but these attenuated over time.

Conclusions and Relevance

These results suggest there may be opportunities for ACOs and other risk-bearing organizations to select or drive referrals to lower-spending oncology practices in many local markets.