Regulatory Challenges: Is a Surrogate End Point Instead of Overall Survival Enough for Regulatory Approval of (Neo)Adjuvant Cancer Treatment? The Swissmedic Perspective

Surrogate end point only is not enough—the Swiss regulator`s perspective on (neo)adjuvant trials.

Decision-Making at Swissmedic, the Swiss Regulatory Agency, with a Focus on (Neo)adjuvant Cancer Treatments

INTRODUCTION

Additional considerations are required for the benefit-risk assessment of new drugs or indications in the setting of (neo)adjuvant cancer treatment as compared to the metastatic/advanced setting, possibly leading to different decision patterns for the (neo)adjuvant versus the metastatic and advanced setting within a health authority but also among different health authorities.

METHODS

We analyzed regulatory decisions at the Swiss Agency for Therapeutic Products Swissmedic (SMC) for all oncology indications (mostly metastatic indications) and indications in the (neo)adjuvant setting and compared these to decisions taken by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

RESULTS

Comparing the positive and negative decisions within SMC between July 2017 and December 2021, the approval rates were with 66.7% lower for (neo)adjuvant indications versus 88.4% in the metastatic and advanced indications. While the approval rates for metastatic and advanced new active substances (NAS) applications were similar at SMC as compared to the EMA and the FDA, they were lower for (neo)adjuvant applications at SMC as compared to the EMA and the FDA. The underlying reason in all cases with divergent decisions at SMC as compared to EMA and FDA was that no overall survival benefit as compared to control arm has been observed in the submitted data package.

CONCLUSION

Approval and consensus decision rates at SMC in comparison to EMA and FDA were lower for (neo)adjuvant indications but not for advanced and metastastic NAS oncology indications.

A decade comparison of regulatory decision patterns for oncology products to all other non-oncology products among Swissmedic, European Medicines Agency, and US Food and Drug Administration

Consensus of regulatory decisions on the same Marketing Authorization Application (MAA) are critical for stakeholders. In this context, regulatory decision patterns from the Swissmedic (SMC), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) were analyzed for hemato-oncology products (OP) and non-oncology products (NOP). We compared 336 SMC regulatory decisions between 2009 and 2018 on new active substances with the EMA and the FDA for OP (n = 77) and NOP (n = 259) regarding approval rates, consensus, and divergent decisions. For OP MAA, we analyzed the underlying reasons for divergent decisions; for consensus decisions, the similarity and strictness of labeling. For OP, the approval rate for the SMC was 88.4%, the EMA 91.3%, and the FDA 95.7%. For NOP, the SMC had an approval rate of 86.2%, the EMA of 93.8%, and the FDA of 88.8%. The consensus decision rate among agencies was 88.4% for OP and 84.4% for NOP. The main clinical driver for divergent decisions for OP was nonrandomized trial design and low patient numbers. Comparing the approved indication wordings, the highest similarity was between the SMC and the EMA, and lowest for the FDA and the EMA. Investigating label strictness, the FDA numerically had the highest but not-statistically significant number of strict labels. The approval rate stratified by disease area (OP and NOP) differed among the SMC, the EMA, and the FDA. High concordance in regulatory decisions was observed between agencies for OP as well as NOP. Reasons for divergent decisions regarding OP were mainly due to scientific uncertainties. Comparing strictness of indications, numerical but no statistically significant differences were observed between agencies.