Regulatory histories of recently withdrawn ovarian cancer treatment indications of 3 PARP inhibitors in the US and Europe: lessons for the accelerated approval pathway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and niraparib) for the treatment of women with heavily pretreated, recurrent ovarian cancer, which were eventually withdrawn.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.

The role of drug regulatory authorities and health technology assessment agencies in shaping incentives for antibiotic R&D: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Few antibiotics have entered the market in recent years despite the need for new treatment options. Some of the challenges of bringing new antibiotics to market are linked to the marketing authorization and health technology assessment (HTA) processes. Research shows great variation in geographic availability of new antibiotics, suggesting that market introduction of new antibiotics is unpredictable. We aimed to investigate regulatory authorities' and HTA agencies' role in developing non-financial incentives to stimulate antibiotic research and development (R&D).

METHODS

We conducted individual, semi-structured, stakeholder interviews. Participants were recruited from regulatory authorities (EMA and FDA) and HTA agencies in Europe. Participants had to be experienced with assessment of antibiotics. The data were analyzed using a deductive and inductive approach to develop codes and identify key themes. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis including the constant comparison method to define concepts, and rival thinking to identify alternative explanations.

RESULTS

We found that (1) interpretation of key concepts guiding the understanding of what type of antibiotics are needed vary (2) lack of a shared approach on how to deal with limited clinical data in the marketing authorization and HTA processes is causing barriers to getting new antibiotics to market (3) necessary adaptations to the marketing authorization process causes uncertainties that transmit to other key stakeholders involved in delivering antibiotics to patients.

CONCLUSIONS

A shared understanding of limited clinical data and how to deal with this issue is needed amongst stakeholders involved in antibiotic R&D, marketing authorization, and market introduction to ensure antibiotics reach the market before resistance levels are out of control. Regulatory authorities and HTA agencies could play an active role in aligning the view of what constitutes an unmet medical need, and direct new economic models towards stimulating greater diversity in the antibiotic armamentarium.

Real-world data in oncology: a questionnaire-based analysis of the academic research landscape examining the policies and experiences of the cancer cooperative groups

BACKGROUND

Real-world data (RWD) have quickly emerged as an important source of information to address uncertainties about new treatments, including novel anticancer therapies. Many stakeholders are using such data and the evidence derived therefrom to answer the questions that remain about the safety and effectiveness of antitumor medicines after their approval by regulators. Our objective was to investigate the academic RWD study landscape and explore to what extent RWD are being integrated into investigator-initiated clinical research.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We designed an online survey that was distributed between May and August 2022 to representatives of cancer cooperative groups active in Europe, North America, South America, Asia, and/or Oceania.

RESULTS

In total, 125 cooperative groups operating in 58 different countries and conducting research across 13 distinct cancer domains participated in the survey. While most of the responders (67.2%) did not have a formal policy in place to gather and utilize RWD, a majority (68.0%) had carried out studies involving the analysis of such data before, both for exploratory and confirmatory purposes. The groups that were experienced in capturing and interpreting RWD had mainly worked with observational RWD that were not predominantly prospective or retrospective in nature and which originated from disease registries, electronic health records, and patient questionnaires. They perceived the low costs and the large scale of RWD research to be its most significant benefits, and viewed the accompanying methodological and operational challenges as its biggest constraints. However, they did not have a common understanding of what RWD were. Despite their experience with analyzing RWD, their research portfolio still primarily comprised traditional clinical trials; 62.5% of the groups that had never undertaken any RWD studies were nonetheless planning to initiate them in the future.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer cooperative groups are already incorporating RWD studies into their research agendas, but still lack knowledge and expertise in this regard, and do not agree on what RWD are. The conduct of conventional clinical trials continues to be their priority.

Regulatory and Ethical Aspects of Orthobiologic Therapies

Orthobiologic therapies show significant promise to improve outcomes for patients with musculoskeletal pathology. There are considerable research efforts to develop strategies that seek to modulate the biological environment to promote tissue regeneration and healing and/or provide symptomatic relief. However, the regulatory pathways overseeing the clinical translation of these therapies are complex, with considerable worldwide variation. The introduction of novel biologic treatments into clinical practice raises several ethical dilemmas. In this review, we describe the process for seeking approval for biologic therapies in the United States, Europe, and Japan. We highlight a number of ethical issues raised by the clinical translation of these treatments, including the design of clinical trials, monitoring outcomes, biobanking, "off-label" use, engagement with the public, marketing of unproven therapies, and scientific integrity.

Use of US Food and Drug Administration Expedited Drug Development and Review Programs by Orphan and Nonorphan Novel Drugs Approved From 2008 to 2021

IMPORTANCE

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has 4 programs that can be used alone or in combination to expedite drug availability: Accelerated Approval, Breakthrough Therapy, Fast Track, and Priority Review. Drugs using these programs can include novel drugs, which do not contain a previously FDA-approved active moiety, and orphan drugs, intended for diseases or conditions affecting fewer than 200 000 people; to date, no comprehensive evaluation of how these programs have been used in combination has been published.

OBJECTIVE

To assess how often and in what combinations expedited programs are used in the development and review of approved novel biologics and small-molecule drugs, stratified by orphan drug status and indication.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional study evaluated all novel drugs that were FDA approved between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2021.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The main outcome was the frequency with which expedited programs were used and in what combinations, stratified by orphan drug status and drug type (small molecule vs therapeutic biologic). The unit of analysis was the novel drug-indication pair because a drug can be approved for multiple indications, each of which may use a different expedited program or differ in orphan drug status.

RESULTS

The study included 581 novel drug-indication pairs approved during the 14-year study period; 252 (43.4%) were orphan drugs, 139 (23.9%) were therapeutic biologics, and 442 (76.1%) were small-molecule drugs. Use of at least 1 expedited program increased from 11 of 26 drug-indication pairs (42.3%) in 2008 to 41 of 55 (74.5%) in 2021. Of the 363 approved drug-indication pairs using at least 1 expedited program, 225 (62.0%) were orphan drugs; at least 1 expedited program was used by 97 of the 139 approved biologic drugs (69.8%) and by 266 of the 442 approved small-molecule drugs (60.2%). Eighty-two of the 581 novel drug-indication pairs (14.1%) used the Accelerated Approval Program; of those, 65 (79.3%) were oncology drugs and 70 (85.4%) had an orphan designation.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

The study showed that use of the FDA's expedited programs to bring novel drugs to market in the US increased from 2008 to 2021. The findings suggest that this trend is likely to continue.

A framework for assessing the impact of accelerated approval

The FDA's Accelerated Approval program (AA) is a regulatory program to expedite availability of products to treat serious or life-threatening illnesses that lack effective treatment alternatives. Ideally, all of the many stakeholders such as patients, physicians, regulators, and health technology assessment [HTA] agencies that are affected by AA should benefit from it. In practice, however, there is intense debate over whether evidence supporting AA is sufficient to meet the needs of the stakeholders who collectively bring an approved product into routine clinical care. As AAs have become more common, it becomes essential to be able to determine their impact objectively and reproducibly in a way that provides for consistent evaluation of therapeutic decision alternatives. We describe the basic features of an approach for evaluating AA impact that accommodates stakeholder-specific views about potential benefits, risks, and costs. The approach is based on a formal decision-analytic framework combining predictive distributions for therapeutic outcomes (efficacy and safety) based on statistical models that incorporate findings from AA trials with stakeholder assessments of various actions that might be taken. The framework described here provides a starting point for communicating the value of a treatment granted AA in the context of what is important to various stakeholders.

Spending by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services Before and After Confirmation of Benefit for Drugs Granted US Food and Drug Administration Accelerated Approval, 2012 to 2017

Importance

Accelerated approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) grants market authorization for drugs based on clinical trials using surrogate end points likely to anticipate a clinical benefit. The FDA requires postapproval trials to confirm benefit, after which the accelerated approval is converted to a standard approval or is withdrawn. However, trials frequently fail to assess clinical benefit, and expenditure for these drugs may be substantial.

Objective

To evaluate spending by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) on drugs granted FDA accelerated approval before and after confirmation of benefit.

Design and Setting

This was a cross-sectional study of CMS spending on drugs granted FDA accelerated approval for original indications from 2012 to 2017, with follow-up through 2020. Using data from the Drugs@FDA database and a validated methodology, the characteristics of new drugs granted FDA accelerated approval were identified and analyzed, including indication area, type of drug, type of confirmatory trial end point, orphan designation, number of supplemental indications, and conversion status.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Overall and annualized spending by Medicare Parts B and D and Medicaid from 2012 to 2020, before and after conversion to standard approval. Analyses were conducted from June 30, 2021, to March 21, 2022.

Results

From 2012 to 2017, the FDA granted accelerated approval to 38 drugs for 42 original indications. Through 2020, CMS spending for these drugs was $67.9 billion (median [IQR], $329.3 million [$54.4 million-$1.6 billion]). For 22 drugs (58%) that were converted to standard approval on the basis of clinical trial results, annualized spending increased substantially after conversion ($35.0 million vs $199.0 million), and spending after conversion accounted for $51.0 billion (75%) of overall spending. However, only 6 conversions (27%) of the 22 were supported by confirmatory trials evaluating clinical outcomes as primary end points. Drugs evaluated using surrogate end points accounted for $40.3 billion (59%) of CMS spending.

Conclusions and Relevance

The findings of this cross-sectional study indicate that most of the drugs granted FDA accelerated approval for original indications from 2012 to 2017 lacked confirmatory trials evaluating clinical outcomes to support conversion to standard approval. Automatic coverage mandates produced substantial CMS spending for drugs with unproven clinical benefits.

Challenges in confirming drug effectiveness after early approval

[Figure: see text].

U.S. Food and Drug Administration Reasoning in Approval Decisions When Efficacy Evidence Is Borderline, 2013-2018

BACKGROUND

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has substantial flexibility in its approval criteria in the context of life-threatening disease and unmet therapeutic need.

OBJECTIVE

To understand the FDA's evidentiary standards when flexible criteria are employed.

DESIGN

Case series.

SETTING

Applications submitted between 2013 and 2018 that went through multiple review cycles because the evidence for clinical efficacy was initially deemed insufficient.

MEASUREMENTS

Information was obtained from the approval package (available on Drugs@FDA), including advisory committee minutes, FDA reviews, and complete response letters.

RESULTS

Of 912 applications reviewed, 117 went through multiple review cycles; only 22 of these faced additional review primarily because of issues related to clinical efficacy. Concerns about the end point, the clinical meaningfulness of the observed effect, and inconsistent results were common bases for initial rejection. In 7 of the 22 cases, the approval did not require new evidence but rather new interpretations of the original evidence. No FDA decisions cited reasoning used in previous decisions.

LIMITATION

The conclusions rely on the authors' interpretation of the FDA statements and on a series of "close calls."

CONCLUSION

The FDA has no mechanism to find or tradition to cite similar cases when weighing evidence for approvals, resulting in standalone, bespoke decisions. These decisions show highly variable criteria for "substantial evidence" when flexible evidential criteria are used, highlighted by the recent approval of aducanumab. A precedential tradition and suitable information system are required for the FDA to improve institutional memory and build upon past decisions. These would increase the FDA's decisional transparency, consistency, and predictability, which are critical to preserving the FDA's most valuable asset, the public's trust.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The Impact of Variability in Patient Exposure During Premarket Clinical Development on Postmarket Safety Outcomes

We characterized the size of the premarket safety population for 278 small-molecule new molecular entities (NMEs) and 61 new therapeutic biologics (NTBs) approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between October 1, 2002, and December 31, 2014, evaluating the relationship of premarket safety population size to regulatory characteristics and postmarket safety outcomes. The median size of the safety population was 1,044, and was lower for NTBs than NMEs (median: 920 vs. 1,138, P = 0.04), orphan products than nonorphan products (393 vs. 1,606, P < 0.001), and for products with fast-track designation (617 vs. 1,455, P < 0.001), priority review (630 vs. 1,735, P < 0.001), and accelerated approval (475 vs. 1,164, P < 0.001), than products without that designation. The median number of postmarket safety label updates and issues added to the label were higher with larger premarket exposure among nonorphan products, but not among orphan products. Products with accelerated approval using a surrogate end point had a higher median number of safety issues added to the label than those with full approval, but this did not vary with the size of the safety population; fast-track and priority review were not associated with the number of safety issues added to the label. A smaller safety population size was associated with a longer time to first safety outcome for nonorphan products but not orphan products. For orphan and nonorphan products combined, smaller premarket safety population size is not associated with the number or timing of postmarket safety outcomes, regardless of expedited program participation.

US Food and Drug Administration utilization of postmarketing requirements and postmarketing commitments, 2009-2018

BACKGROUND/AIMS

The US Food and Drug Administration outlines clinical studies as postmarketing requirements and commitments to be fulfilled following approval of new drugs and biologics ("therapeutics"). Regulators have increasingly emphasized lifecycle evaluation of approved therapeutics, and postmarketing studies are intended to advance our understanding of therapeutic safety and efficacy. However, little is known about the indications that clinical studies outlined in postmarketing requirements and commitments investigate, including whether they are intended to generate evidence for approved or other clinical indications. Therefore, we characterized US Food and Drug Administration postmarketing requirements and commitments for new therapeutics approved from 2009 to 2018.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional study of all novel therapeutics, including small-molecule drugs and biologics, receiving original US Food and Drug Administration approval from 2009 to 2018, using approval letters accessed through the Drug@FDA database. Outcomes included the number and characteristics of US Food and Drug Administration postmarketing requirements and commitments for new therapeutics at original approval, including the types of studies outlined, the indications to be investigated, and the clinical evidence to be generated.

RESULTS

From 2009 to 2018, the US Food and Drug Administration approved 343 new therapeutics with 1978 postmarketing requirements and commitments. Overall, 750 (37.9%) postmarketing requirements and commitments outlined clinical studies. For 71 of 343 (20.7%) therapeutics, no postmarketing requirements or commitments for clinical studies were outlined, while at least 1 was outlined for 272 (79.3%; median 2 (interquartile range: 1-4)). Among these 272 therapeutics, the number of postmarketing requirements and commitments for clinical studies per therapeutic did not change from 2009 (median: 2 (interquartile range: 1-4)) to 2018 (median: 2 (interquartile range: 1-3)). Among the 750 postmarketing requirements and commitments for clinical studies, 448 (59.7%) outlined new prospective cohort studies, registries, or clinical trials, while the remainder outlined retrospective studies, secondary analyses, or completion of ongoing studies. Although 455 (60.7%) clinical studies investigated only original approved therapeutic indications, 123 (16.4%) enrolled from an expansion of the approved disease population and 61 (8.1%) investigated diseases unrelated to approved indications.

CONCLUSIONS

The US Food and Drug Administration approves most new therapeutics with at least 1 postmarketing requirement or commitment for a clinical study, and outlines investigations of safety or efficacy for both approved and unapproved indications. The median number of 2 clinical studies outlined has remained relatively constant over the last decade. Given increasing emphasis by the US Food and Drug Administration on faster approval and lifecycle evaluation of therapeutics, these findings suggest that more postmarketing requirements and commitments may be necessary to address gaps in the clinical evidence available for therapeutics at approval.

Essential statistical principles of clinical trials of pain treatments

This article presents an overview of fundamental statistical principles of clinical trials of pain treatments. Statistical considerations relevant to phase 2 proof of concept and phase 3 confirmatory randomized trials investigating efficacy and safety are discussed, including (1) research design; (2) endpoints and analyses; (3) sample size determination and statistical power; (4) missing data and trial estimands; (5) data monitoring and interim analyses; and (6) interpretation of results. Although clinical trials of pharmacologic treatments are emphasized, the key issues raised by these trials are also directly applicable to clinical trials of other types of treatments, including biologics, devices, nonpharmacologic therapies (eg, physical therapy and cognitive-behavior therapy), and complementary and integrative health interventions.

Safety of Newer Disease Modifying Therapies in Multiple Sclerosis

In the past decade, the therapeutic arsenal for multiple sclerosis has expanded greatly. Newer more potent disease modifying therapies (DMTs) with varying mechanisms of actions are increasingly used early in the disease course. These newer DMTs include oral therapies (teriflunomide, dimethyl fumarate, fingolimod, siponimod, ozanimod, and cladribine) and infusion therapies (natalizumab, alemtuzumab, and ocrelizumab), and are associated with better control of disease activity and long-term outcomes in patients with MS compared to older injectable therapies (interferon beta and glatiramer acetate). However, they are associated with safety concerns and subsequent monitoring requirements. Adverse events are initially observed in phase 2 and 3 clinical trials, and further long-term data are collected in phase 3 extension studies, case series, and post-marketing reports, which highlight the need to periodically re-evaluate and adjust monitoring strategies to optimize treatment safety in an individualized approach.

Association between FDA and EMA expedited approval programs and therapeutic value of new medicines: retrospective cohort study

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the therapeutic value of new drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the association between these ratings and regulatory approval through expedited programs.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

New drugs approved by the FDA and EMA between 2007 and 2017, with follow-up through 1 April 2020.

DATA SOURCES

Therapeutic value was measured using ratings of new drugs by five independent organizations (Prescrire and health authorities of Canada, France, Germany, and Italy).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Proportion of new drugs rated as having high therapeutic value; association between high therapeutic value rating and expedited status.

RESULTS

From 2007 through 2017, the FDA and EMA approved 320 and 268 new drugs, respectively, of which 181 (57%) and 39 (15%) qualified for least one expedited program. Among 267 new drugs with a therapeutic value rating, 84 (31%) were rated as having high therapeutic value by at least one organization. Compared with non-expedited drugs, a greater proportion of expedited drugs were rated as having high therapeutic value among both FDA approvals (45% (69/153) v 13% (15/114); P<0.001) and EMA approvals (67% (18/27) v 27% (65/240); P<0.001). The sensitivity and specificity of expedited program for a drug being independently rated as having high therapeutic value were 82% (95% confidence interval 72% to 90%) and 54% (47% to 62%), respectively, for the FDA, compared with 25.3% (16.4% to 36.0%) and 90.2% (85.0% to 94.1%) for the EMA.

CONCLUSIONS

Less than a third of new drugs approved by the FDA and EMA over the past decade were rated as having high therapeutic value by at least one of five independent organizations. Although expedited drugs were more likely than non-expedited drugs to be highly rated, most expedited drugs approved by the FDA but not the EMA were rated as having low therapeutic value.

Decision Making Under Uncertainty: Comparing Regulatory and Health Technology Assessment Reviews of Medicines in the United States and Europe

Assessments of clinical evidence vary between regulators and health technology assessment bodies, but precise differences remain unclear. To compare uncertainties raised on the clinical evidence of approved drugs, we analyzed assessments of regulators and health technology assessment (HTA) bodies in the United States and Europe. We found that US and European regulators report uncertainties related to safety for almost all drugs (85–94%), whereas HTA bodies reported these less (53–59%). By contrast, HTA bodies raised uncertainties related to effects against relevant comparators for almost all drugs (88–100%), whereas this was infrequently addressed by regulators (12–32%). Regulators as well as HTA bodies reported uncertainties related to the patient population for 60–95% of drugs. The patterns of regulator‐HTA misalignment were comparable between the United States and Europe. Our results indicate that increased coordination between these complementary organizations is necessary to facilitate the collection of necessary evidence in an efficient and timely manner.

Assessment of Clinical Trials Supporting US Food and Drug Administration Approval of Novel Therapeutic Agents, 1995-2017

IMPORTANCE

Since the introduction of the Fast Track designation in 1988, the number of special regulatory programs available for the approval of new drugs and biologics by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has increased, offering the agency flexibility with respect to evidentiary requirements.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize pivotal efficacy trials supporting the approval of new drugs and biologics during the past 3 decades.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cross-sectional study included 273 new drugs and biologics approved by the FDA for 339 indications from 1995 to 1997, from 2005 to 2007, and from 2015 to 2017.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Therapeutics were classified by product type and therapeutic area as well as orphan designation and use of special regulatory programs, such as Priority Review and Accelerated Approval. Pivotal trials were characterized by use of randomization, blinding, types of comparators, primary end points, number of treated patients, and trial duration, both individually and aggregated by each indication approval.

RESULTS

A total of 273 new drugs and biologics were approved by the FDA in these 3 periods (107 [39.2%] in 1995-1997; 57 [20.9%] in 2005-2007; and 109 [39.9%] in 2015-2017), representing 339 indications (157 [46.3%], 64 [18.9%], and 118 [34.8%], respectively). The proportion of therapeutic approvals using at least 1 special regulatory program increased (37 [34.6%] in 1995-1997; 33 [57.9%] in 2005-2007; and 70 [64.2%] in 2015-2017), as did indication approvals receiving an orphan designation (20 [12.7%] in 1995-1997; 17 [26.6%] in 2005-2007, and 45 [38.1%] in 2015-2017). The most common therapeutic areas differed over time (infectious disease, 53 [33.8%] in 1995-1997 vs cancer, 32 [27.1%] in 2015-2017). When considering the aggregate pivotal trials supporting each indication approval, the proportion of indications supported by at least 2 pivotal trials decreased (80.6% [95% CI, 72.6%-87.2%] in 1995-1997; 60.3% [95% CI, 47.2%-72.4%] in 2005-2007; and 52.8% [95% CI, 42.9%-62.6%] in 2015-2017; P < .001). The proportion of indications supported by only single-group pivotal trials increased (4.0% [95% CI, 1.3%-9.2%] in 1995-1997; 12.7% [95% CI, 5.6%-23.5%] in 2005-2007; and 17.0% [95% CI, 10.4%-25.5%] in 2015-2017; P = .001), whereas the proportion supported by at least 1 pivotal trial of 6 months' duration increased (25.8% [95% CI, 18.4%-34.4%] in 1995-1997; 34.9% [95% CI, 23.3%-48.0%] in 2005-2007; and 46.2% [95% CI, 36.5%-56.2%] in 2015-2017; P = .001).

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

In this study, more recent FDA approvals of new drugs and biologics were based on fewer pivotal trials, which, when aggregated by indication, had less rigorous designs but longer trial durations, suggesting an ongoing need for continued evaluation of therapeutic safety and efficacy after approval.

Generating comparative evidence on new drugs and devices after approval

Certain limitations of evidence available on drugs and devices at the time of market approval often persist in the post-marketing period. Often, post-marketing research landscape is fragmented. When regulatory agencies require pharmaceutical and device manufacturers to conduct studies in the post-marketing period, these studies might remain incomplete many years after approval. Even when completed, many post-marketing studies lack meaningful active comparators, have observational designs, and might not collect patient-relevant outcomes. Regulators, in collaboration with the industry and patients, ought to ensure that the key questions unanswered at the time of drug and device approval are resolved in a timely fashion during the post-marketing phase. We propose a set of seven key guiding principles that we believe will provide the necessary incentives for pharmaceutical and device manufacturers to generate comparative data in the post-marketing period. First, regulators (for drugs and devices), notified bodies (for devices in Europe), health technology assessment organisations, and payers should develop customised evidence generation plans, ensuring that future post-approval studies address any limitations of the data available at the time of market entry impacting the benefit-risk profiles of drugs and devices. Second, post-marketing studies should be designed hierarchically: priority should be given to efforts aimed at evaluating a product's net clinical benefit in randomised trials compared with current known effective therapy, whenever possible, to address common decisional dilemmas. Third, post-marketing studies should incorporate active comparators as appropriate. Fourth, use of non-randomised studies for the evaluation of clinical benefit in the post-marketing period should be limited to instances when the magnitude of effect is deemed to be large or when it is possible to reasonably infer the comparative benefits or risks in settings, in which doing a randomised trial is not feasible. Fifth, efficiency of randomised trials should be improved by streamlining patient recruitment and data collection through innovative design elements. Sixth, governments should directly support and facilitate the production of comparative post-marketing data by investing in the development of collaborative research networks and data systems that reduce the complexity, cost, and waste of rigorous post-marketing research efforts. Last, financial incentives and penalties should be developed or more actively reinforced.

Generating comparative evidence on new drugs and devices before approval

Fewer than half of new drugs have data on their comparative benefits and harms against existing treatment options at the time of regulatory approval in Europe and the USA. Even when active-comparator trials exist, they might not produce meaningful data to inform decisions in clinical practice and health policy. The uncertainty associated with the paucity of well designed active-comparator trials has been compounded by legal and regulatory changes in Europe and the USA that have created a complex mix of expedited programmes aimed at facilitating faster access to new drugs. Comparative evidence generation is even sparser for medical devices. Some have argued that the current process for regulatory approval needs to generate more evidence that is useful for patients, clinicians, and payers in health-care systems. We propose a set of five key principles relevant to the European Medicines Agency, European medical device regulatory agencies, US Food and Drug Administration, as well as payers, that we believe will provide the necessary incentives for pharmaceutical and device companies to generate comparative data on drugs and devices and assure timely availability of evidence that is useful for decision making. First, labelling should routinely inform patients and clinicians whether comparative data exist on new products. Second, regulators should be more selective in their use of programmes that facilitate drug and device approvals on the basis of incomplete benefit and harm data. Third, regulators should encourage the conduct of randomised trials with active comparators. Fourth, regulators should use prospectively designed network meta-analyses based on existing and future randomised trials. Last, payers should use their policy levers and negotiating power to incentivise the generation of comparative evidence on new and existing drugs and devices, for example, by explicitly considering proven added benefit in pricing and payment decisions.

Biomarkers as Surrogate Endpoints: Ongoing Opportunities for Validation

Surrogate endpoints are a common application of biomarkers to estimate clinical benefit in clinical trials, despite questions about reliability. This article discusses ongoing opportunities for their validation, in the context of a regulatory environment in which they are increasingly championed.

Pharmaceutical Drugs of Uncertain Value, Lifecycle Regulation at the US Food and Drug Administration, and Institutional Incumbency

Policy Points The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has in recent years allowed onto the market several drugs with limited evidence of safety and effectiveness, provided that manufacturers agree to carry out additional studies while the drugs are in clinical use. Studies suggest that these postmarketing requirements (PMRs) frequently lack transparency, are subject to delays, and fail to answer the questions of greatest clinical importance. Yet, none of the literature speaks directly to the challenges that the FDA-as a regulatory institution-encounters in enforcing PMRs. Through a series of interviews with FDA leadership, this article analyzes and situates those challenges in the midst of political threats to the FDA's public health mandate.

CONTEXT

Modern pharmaceutical regulation is premised on a rigorous examination of a drug's safety and effectiveness prior to its lawful sale. However, since the 1990s, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has gradually shifted to a model of "lifecycle" regulation that increasingly relies on postmarketing requirements (PMRs) to encourage studies of drug safety and effectiveness following regulatory approval. This article examines the range of legal, institutional, and political challenges that FDA faces in the context of lifecycle regulation.

METHODS

Document-based legal and policy analysis was combined with a set of semistructured interviews of current and former FDA officials (n = 23) in order to explore the implications of the FDA's use of PMRs. The median interview time per official was 61 minutes, with a range of 24 to 227 minutes. All of the officials interviewed occupied positions of leadership and influence within the FDA, such as directors of an FDA center or office, key legal counsel on agency-wide policy initiatives, and the commissioner of the FDA.

FINDINGS

Insufficient resources and coordination within the FDA, inadequate legal authorities, and the political economy of withdrawing an approved indication in the face of opposition from companies and patients all contribute to the observed shortcomings in the FDA's use and enforcement of PMRs. Further, the FDA is fully aware of these challenges, yet is seemingly resigned to and resistant to criticism of its use of PMRs.

CONCLUSIONS

This study of the FDA's shift toward lifecycle regulation reveals not simply an agency in transition, but rather an agency on guard against a set of larger political threats to its mandate. This can be characterized as a state of institutional incumbency in which the agency is engaged in an effort to reproduce key features of the regulatory system-in concert with regulated industries and others-while simultaneously sanctioning significant changes to the regulatory standards the FDA has long applied, to the detriment of public health.

Analysis of Postapproval Clinical Trials of Therapeutics Approved by the US Food and Drug Administration Without Clinical Postmarketing Requirements or Commitments

Importance

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) can use postmarketing requirements to mandate pharmaceutical companies to conduct clinical trials after the approval of novel therapeutics. Pharmaceutical companies can also agree to conduct nonmandated clinical trials as postmarketing commitments. However, when therapeutics are approved by the FDA without postmarketing requirements or postmarketing commitments, it is not well known how often pharmaceutical companies voluntarily conduct trials and report results monitoring safety or efficacy after approval.

Objective

To characterize postapproval clinical trials sponsored by pharmaceutical companies of therapeutics initially approved by the FDA without clinical postmarketing requirements or commitments.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This cross-sectional analysis included postapproval clinical trials conducted with at least 1 site in the United States sponsored by pharmaceutical companies of therapeutics first approved by the FDA from 2009 through 2012. Analyses were conducted June 11, 2018, to November 30, 2018.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Postapproval clinical trials registered on ClinicalTrials.gov generating safety or efficacy data, characteristics including whether trials focused on approved or unapproved indications, study design elements, and rates of study completion and results reporting.

Results

From 2009 through 2012, the FDA approved 110 novel therapeutics for 120 indications, of which 37 novel therapeutics for 39 indications did not have postmarketing requirements or commitments for new clinical studies at the time of first approval. For 31 therapeutics (83.8%), there were 600 postapproval clinical trials sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. Most trials investigated therapeutics for new indications (363 [60.5%]) or expanded populations of the originally indicated disease (122 [20.3%]). Trials were often small (median [interquartile range] enrollment, 44 [21-131] participants), nonrandomized (359 [59.8%]), unblinded (455 [75.8%]), and lacked comparators (381 [63.5%]). Approximately half of the trials (311 [51.8%]) assessed at least 1 clinical outcome. Of 300 terminated or completed trials, 204 trials (68.0%) had reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov a median (interquartile range) 16 (13-25) months after their primary completion date. For the 96 trials (32.0%) without reported results, a median (interquartile range) 35 (13-62) months had passed since their primary completion date.

Conclusions and Relevance

Pharmaceutical companies frequently conducted clinical trials after approval, even when there were no clinical postmarketing requirements or commitments at approval. However, most of these trials evaluated new indications or expanded patient populations rather than monitored approved uses, and nearly half of the trials remained incomplete more than 5 years after original therapeutic approval.

Physicians' Perspectives on FDA Approval Standards and Off-label Drug Marketing

This nationwide survey of US primary care internists and medical specialists evaluates physicians’ attitudes about the US Food and Drug Administration’s drug approval standards and off-label drug marketing.