Flawed evidence underpins approval of new cancer drugs

Do You Want to Stay Single? Considerations on Single-Arm Trials in Drug Development and the Postregulatory Space

Single-arm trials (SATs), while not preferred, remain in use throughout the drug development cycle. They may be accepted by regulators in particular contexts (e.g., in oncology or rare diseases) when the potential effects of new treatments are very large and placebo treatment is unethical. However, in the postregulatory space, SATs are common, and perhaps even more poorly suited to address the questions of interest. In this manuscript, we review regulatory and HTA positions on SATs; challenges posed by SATs to address research questions beyond regulators, evolving statistical methods to provide context for SATs, case studies where SATs could and could not address questions of interest, and communication strategies to influence decision making and optimize study design to address evidence needs.

How do cancer clinicians perceive real-world data and the evidence derived therefrom? Findings from an international survey of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer

Background: The role of real-world evidence (RWE) in the development of anticancer therapies has been gradually growing over time. Regulators, payers and health technology assessment agencies, spurred by the rise of the precision medicine model, are increasingly incorporating RWE into their decision-making regarding the authorization and reimbursement of novel antineoplastic treatments. However, it remains unclear how this trend is viewed by clinicians in the field. This study aimed to investigate the opinions of these stakeholders with respect to RWE and its suitability for informing regulatory, reimbursement-related and clinical decisions in oncology.

Methods: An online survey was disseminated to clinicians belonging to the network of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer between May and July 2021.

Results: In total, 557 clinicians across 30 different countries participated in the survey, representing 13 distinct cancer domains. Despite seeing the methodological challenges associated with its interpretation as difficult to overcome, the respondents mostly (75.0%) perceived RWE positively, and believed such evidence could be relatively strong, depending on the designs and data sources of the studies from which it is produced. Few (4.6%) saw a future expansion of its influence on decision-makers as a negative evolution. Furthermore, nearly all (94.0%) participants were open to the idea of sharing anonymized or pseudonymized electronic health data of their patients with external parties for research purposes. Nevertheless, most clinicians (77.0%) still considered randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to be the gold standard for generating clinical evidence in oncology, and a plurality (49.2%) thought that RWE cannot fully address the knowledge gaps that remain after a new antitumor intervention has entered the market. Moreover, a majority of respondents (50.7%) expressed that they relied more heavily on RCT-derived evidence than on RWE for their own decision-making.

Conclusion: While cancer clinicians have positive opinions about RWE and want to contribute to its generation, they also continue to hold RCTs in high regard as sources of actionable evidence.

Potential negative impact of reputed regulators' decisions on the approval status of new cancer drugs in Latin American countries: A descriptive analysis

BACKGROUND

Many new cancer drugs are being approved by reputed regulatory authorities without evidence of overall survival benefit, quality of life improvement, and often based on clinical trials at high risk of bias. In recent years, most Latin American (LA) countries have reformed their marketing authorization (MA) rules to directly accept or abbreviate the approval process in case of earlier authorization by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the US Food and Drug Administration, mainly. This study assessed the potential impact of decisions taken by EMA regarding the approval of new cancer drugs based on no evidence of overall survival or in potentially biased clinical trials in LA countries.

DESIGN

Descriptive analysis.

SETTING

Publicly accessible marketing authorization databases from LA regulators, European Public Assessment Report by EMA, and previous studies accessing EMA approvals of new cancer drugs 2009-2016.

MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURES

Number of new cancer drugs approved by LA countries without evidence of overall survival (2009-2013), and without at least one clinical trial scored at low risk of bias, or with no trial supporting the marketing authorization at all (2014-2016).

RESULTS

Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Panama and Peru have publicly accessible and trustful MA databases and were included. Of the 17 cancer drugs approved by EMA (2009-2013) without evidence of OS benefit after a postmarketing median time of 5.4 years, 6 LA regulators approved more than 70% of them. Of the 13 drugs approved by EMA (2014-2016), either without supporting trial or with no trial at low risk of bias, Brazil approved 11, Chile 10, Peru 10, Argentina 10, Colombia 9, Ecuador 9, and Panama 8.

CONCLUSIONS

LA countries keep approving new cancer drugs often based on poorly performed clinical trials measuring surrogate endpoints. EMA and other reputed regulators must be aware that their regulatory decisions might directly influence decisions regarding MA, health budgets and patient's care elsewhere.

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

Objective.

To describe the current status of regulatory reliance in Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) by assessing the countries’ regulatory frameworks to approve new medicines, and to ascertain, for each country, which foreign regulators are considered as trusted regulatory authorities to rely on.

Methods.

Websites from LAC regulators were searched to identify the official regulations to approve new drugs. Data collection was carried out in December 2019 and completed in June 2020 for the Caribbean countries. Two independent teams collected information regarding direct recognition or abbreviated processes to approve new drugs and the reference (trusted) regulators defined as such by the corresponding national legislation.

Results.

Regulatory documents regarding marketing authorization were found in 20 LAC regulators’ websites, covering 34 countries. Seven countries do not accept reliance on foreign regulators. Thirteen regulatory authorities (Argentina, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay, and the unique Caribbean Regulatory System for 15 Caribbean States) explicitly accept relying on marketing authorizations issued by the European Medicines Agency, United States Food and Drug Administration, and Health Canada. Ten countries rely also on marketing authorizations from Australia, Japan, and Switzerland. Argentina, Brazil, Chile, and Mexico are reference authorities for eight LAC regulators.

Conclusions.

Regulatory reliance has become a common practice in the LAC region. Thirteen out of 20 regulators directly recognize or abbreviate the marketing authorization process in case of earlier approval by a regulator from another jurisdiction. The regulators most relied upon are the European Medicines Agency, United States Food and Drug Administration, and Health Canada.