Characteristics of Anticancer Drugs Approved Under the Accelerated Approval Program in the US: Success or Failure in Converting to Regular Approval

BACKGROUND

Accelerated approval (AA) program expedites access to promising drugs for life-threatening conditions, particularly in oncology. However, challenges arise from the trade-off between faster access and the certainty of clinical benefits. We examined the differences between the indications for successful conversion of AA to regular approval (RA) and those withdrawn from the perspective of whether the confirmatory trial was appropriately designed and conducted to verify the efficacy estimated in the pivotal trial for AA (AA trial).

METHODS

All the anticancer drugs approved by the United States (US) Food and Drug Administration (FDA) between January 2016 and December 2019 were identified on the FDA website. From these, we selected drugs granted AA for solid tumors based on single-arm trials. We compared the characteristics of the AA and confirmatory trials between products that were successfully converted to RA and those that were withdrawn.

RESULTS

Twenty-four AA indications were identified, of which 11 were converted to RA and 6 were withdrawn. The magnitude of the objective response rate (ORR) in both the AA and confirmatory trials was not a factor that clearly determined the conversion or withdrawal of AA. However, if the experimental arm did not achieve a certain level of ORR over the control arm in the confirmatory trial, it was thought to increase the uncertainty of successful conversion to RA.

CONCLUSION

A relatively high ORR compared with that of the control arm in the confirmatory trial, after AA, is important for successfully obtaining RA.

Impact of the US Accelerated Approval for New Anticancer Drugs on Time to Verification of Benefit and Regulatory Approval in the EU and Japan

The accelerated approval (AA) program in the USA has succeeded in expediting the regulatory approval of new cancer drugs based on surrogate endpoint data. It is unclear whether the AA program promotes overall drug development, including verification of the clinical benefit, as the verification of drugs granted AA often takes long time. To determine the impact of the AA program on overall drug development, the time required for verification of clinical benefits was compared between anticancer drugs that initially received AA and those that received regular approval (RA). It was found that anticancer drugs that were approved under the AA program took longer time for verification, suggesting that the program may delay the start of a confirmatory study, and there may be room for speeding up the process. In addition, discordance was found in the pivotal study between the USA and the EU and the USA and Japan for obtaining the indication for which AA was granted in the USA and a delay in the start of the confirmatory study for the AA indication was considered to lead to a delay in approval in the EU and Japan. Early initiation of confirmatory studies for AA indications is recommended to reduce the time that patients receive drugs with unproven benefit in the USA, as well as to deliver innovative new drugs to patients earlier in the EU and Japan.

Takeaways from the Recarbrio Conundrum: Has the FDA Jumped the Gun?

Recarbrio is a novel antibiotic approved by US-FDA. It was initially found to be useful in treating various resistant gram negative infections. A recent investigation revealed lack of methodological and scientific integrity behind the process of FDA approval for this drug. This incident is a lesson for us that we shall not consider FDA clearance as the gold standard before approving any drug in the Indian market or start using it before having adequate data from our own clinical settings.

Special FDA designations for drug development: orphan, fast track, accelerated approval, priority review, and breakthrough therapy

BACKGROUND

Over the past decades, US Congress enabled the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to facilitate and expedite drug development for serious conditions filling unmet medical needs with five special designations and review pathways: orphan, fast track, accelerated approval, priority review, and breakthrough therapy.

OBJECTIVES

This study reviews the FDA's five special designations for drug development regarding their safety, efficacy/clinical benefit, clinical trials, innovation, economic incentives, development timelines, and price.

METHODS

We conducted a keyword search to identify studies analyzing the impact of the FDA's special designations (orphan, fast track, accelerated approval, priority review, and breakthrough therapy) on the safety, efficacy/clinical benefit, trials, innovativeness, economic incentives, development times, and pricing of new drugs. Results were summarized in a narrative overview.

RESULTS

Expedited approval reduces new drugs' time to market. However, faster drug development and regulatory review are associated with more unrecognized adverse events and post-marketing safety revisions. Clinical trials supporting special FDA approvals frequently use small, non-randomized, open-label designs. Required post-approval trials to monitor unknown adverse events are often delayed or not even initiated. Evidence suggests that drugs approved under special review pathways, marketed as "breakthroughs", are more innovative and deliver a higher clinical benefit than those receiving standard FDA approval. Special designations are an economically viable strategy for investors and pharmaceutical companies to develop drugs for rare diseases with unmet medical needs, due to financial incentives, expedited development timelines, higher clinical trial success rates, alongside greater prices. Nonetheless, patients, physicians, and insurers are concerned about spending money on drugs without a proven benefit or even on drugs that turn out to be ineffective. While European countries established performance- and financial-based managed entry agreements to account for this uncertainty in clinical trial evidence and cost-effectiveness, the pricing and reimbursement of these drugs remain largely unregulated in the US.

CONCLUSION

Special FDA designations shorten clinical development and FDA approval times for new drugs treating rare and severe diseases with unmet medical needs. Special-designated drugs offer a greater clinical benefit to patients. However, physicians, patients, and insurers must be aware that special-designated drugs are often approved based on non-robust trials, associated with more unrecognized side effects, and sold for higher prices.

Case study using RWD in the context of a pivotal trial for regulatory approval in a rare disease

Rare disorders impact millions of children worldwide, and developing new medicines in this setting is associated with multiple challenges. In this paper, we share a successful story of how real-world data (RWD) were leveraged to accelerate evidence generation and patient access to a life-changing therapy in patients with severe manifestations of PIK3CA-related overgrowth spectrum who require systemic therapy. Despite all the existing regulatory guidelines considering real-world evidence (RWE), there is limited regulatory precedent of the use of this framework in support of a new indication. Thus, our case study illustrates design innovations based on the use of a compassionate use program, primarily in children, as a RWD source for approval of a new therapy in a rare disorder. We highlight the systematic considerations and mitigation of potential sources of bias in order to transform the data into actionable evidence. Our experience shows that RWE can be successfully used with appropriate study planning and mitigation in the context of a rare disorder with a high unmet medical need. Some lessons learned from this case study can benefit therapeutic development in rare disorders.

Evidence of pre-approval clinical trial supporting the granted conditional approval for novel cancer drugs in China between 2015 and 2022

Background

Accelerated approval (AA) of novel anticancer drugs based on surrogacy has attracted considerable concern globally. China National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) also established a similar conditional approval (CA) program to accelerate the approval of novel drugs to address unmet medical needs. This cross-sectional study aimed to evaluate the pre-approval clinical trial evidence and potential challenge of cancer drugs receiving CA in China from policy implementation to 2022.

Methods

The cancer drugs (initial and supplemental indications) granted CA between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2022 using the public database of the NMPA were analyzed. The characteristics of the cancer drugs received CA were described. Primary efficacy endpoints and safety derived from the pre-approval clinical trial, including response rates (RR), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), treatment-related serious adverse events (SAE) and Grade ≥3 adverse events (AEs) were quantitatively estimated by meta-analysis. Besides, the correlation between the surrogate endpoints and OS was estimated by the reported trial-level correlation analysis.

Findings

The NMPA approved 72 cancer indications (56 new molecular entities) with CA between 2015 and 2022. 34 indications (47%) were also approved by the FDA or EMA. 74% (53/72) of cancer indications were based on a single-arm trial design while 26% (19/72) for randomized controlled trials. The pooled RR was 0.50 (95% CI: 0.45-0.55, I2 = 96%) with significant differences across cancer types and targets while the pooled hazard risk was 0.39 (95% CI: 0.28-0.53, I2 = 89%) for PFS and 0.67 (95% CI: 0.61-0.73, I2 = 0%) for OS. The pooled treatment-related SAE and Grade ≥3 AEs from single-arm designs resulted in 15% and 25%, respectively. In randomized controlled trials, the pooled treatment-related SAE and Grade ≥3 AEs observed in CA drugs and the control groups were comparable. Surrogate endpoints were widely used as the primary efficacy endpoints in the pre-approval pivotal clinical trials with 75% (54/72) for RR, 10% (7/72) for PFS, and 4% (3/72) for others. Of these, 27% (17/63) of the surrogate endpoints reported a trial-level correlation with OS; three reported high correlation (r ≥ 0.85), two reported moderate correlation (0.70 ≤ r < 0.85) and 12 reported low correlation (r < 0.70).

Interpretation

The majority of novel cancer drugs that received CA were based on RR designed for single-arm trials. The reported correlations of treatment effect between the surrogate endpoints and OS used for CA were limited. Our findings highlighted that the introduction of OS or quality of life based on RCT in confirmatory clinical trials as much as feasible was essential to ensure the clinical benefits for patients.

Funding

This study was supported by postdoctoral fellowship from Tsinghua-Peking Joint Centers for Life Sciences (CLS).

Framing the statistical criteria for accelerated approval of oncology drugs: A pathway for front runners

FDA has recently proposed a one-trial approach in Project FrontRunner for both accelerated approval and regular approval in the same trial. The goal of this short communication is to make the regulatory criteria for decision-making on accelerated approval based on the interim analysis more explicit. Two related high-level statistical issues are addressed under simplified yet representative scenarios. The first is at what Type I error level should the interim analysis be tested? To conform with the conventional two-trial approach, it may be tested at the 1.0% level without paying penalty for regular approval. This criterion is more relaxed than current practice. The second is what may be considered as adequate totality of evidence for accelerated approval. It turns out that, with the first criterion met, the observed treatment effect of the clinical endpoint intended for regular approval needs to be close to the target effect for the study. The criterion helps make the regulatory decision more transparent and objective.

Increasing FDA-accelerated approval of single-arm trials in oncology (1992 to 2020)

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to map the characteristics of single-arm trials (SAT), report the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) transparency in presenting historical control, and to assess the confirmatory randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

This metaresearch included a review of all oncology indication approved using SAT by FDA-AA (FDA-Accelerated Approval) from 1992 to 2020. Two independent reviewers identified SAT, extracted data from FDA full medical reviews for historical controls reported and MEDLINE for searching for confirmatory RCT published.

RESULTS

Of 254 FDA-AA approvals, 119 (47%) were approved for oncologic indications using SAT. Fifty-four drugs for 72 oncology indications were for leukemia, lymphoma, lung cancer, urothelial cancer, multiple myeloma, and thyroid cancer. Overall, 37 (52%) treatments were converted into regular approval. Of these, 17 (46%) were based on confirmatory RCTs using overall survival (OS) as an outcome. Five indications were withdrawn from the market. Most trials outcomes were blindly assessed by independent research committees. Median trial sample size was 105 patients (min:8 to max:532). The FDA did not fully specify historical control selection in 75% of cases.

CONCLUSION

The granting of FDA-AAs based on SAT in oncology is increasing with more target drugs approved over time. Transparency in historical control reporting is necessary.

An Accelerated Access Pathway for Innovative High-risk Medical Devices under the new European Union Medical Devices and Health Technology Assessment Regulations? Analysis and Recommendations

INTRODUCTION

The new European Union (EU) Regulations for medical devices (MDs) and health technology assessment (HTA) are welcome developments that will hopefully increase the quality of clinical evidence for MDs and reduce fragmentation in the EU market access process. To fully exploit anticipated benefits, their respective assessment processes should be closely coordinated, particularly for promising, highly innovative MDs. Accelerated approval is worth exploring for certain categories of high-risk MDs to keep the EU regulatory process competitive compared to ad-hoc accelerated MD approval processes elsewhere (e.g., US).

AREAS COVERED

Problems observed in worldwide accelerated drug and MD regulatory approval programs are reviewed, including greater uncertainty in pre-market clinical evidence generation and lack of oversight for post-approval evidence requirements. Implications for MD approval, HTA and coverage are explored.

EXPERT OPINION

Through analysis of two decades of drug and MD accelerated approval programs worldwide, recommendations for an Accelerated Access Pathway for select innovative, high-risk MDs are proposed that can fit the EU context, leverage the two new regulations, increase opportunities for Expert Panels to provide timely advice regarding manufacturers' evidence generation plans along the MD lifecycle (pre-, post-market), and safely speed patient access while promoting increased collaboration among Member States on coverage decisions.

Analysis of FDA's Accelerated Approval Program Performance December 1992-December 2021

The accelerated approval pathway has been criticized recently for employing lower regulatory standards than traditional drug approval, undue delays in withdrawing approvals of drugs for which studies have not confirmed clinical benefit, and confirmatory trials not being pursued with due diligence. This article examines the status of confirmatory studies of drugs approved under the US Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA’s) accelerated approval program between December 1992 and December 2021. It includes background on the program and provides broader context about the program’s performance to date over its 30-year history. Our analysis demonstrates that the accelerated approval program has been largely successful, with half of accelerated approvals converted to traditional approval in a median time of 3.2 years. Furthermore, recent FDA actions show that the agency is appropriately managing the program when a drug approved under accelerated approval fails to confirm a clinical benefit. Any proposed changes to the program should be based on cumulative experience with the program, rather than outliers.

New Drugs Approved in 2021

In 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved 50 novel drugs. Thirty-seven of the 50 (74%) novel drug approvals were reviewed and approved through an expedited review pathway, and 26 of the 50 (52%) were approved for treatment of a rare disease. This review includes a summary of the novel drugs approved by the FDA in 2021.

Initial and supplementary indication approval of new targeted cancer drugs by the FDA, EMA, Health Canada, and TGA

Background. Previous research focused on the clinical evidence supporting new cancer drugs’ initial US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. However, targeted drugs are increasingly approved for supplementary indications of unknown evidence and benefit. Objectives. To examine the clinical trial evidence supporting new targeted cancer drugs’ initial and supplementary indication approval in the US, EU, Canada, and Australia. Data and Methods. 25 cancer drugs across 100 indications were identified with FDA approval between 2009–2019. Data on regulatory approval and clinical trials were extracted from the FDA, European Medicines Agency (EMA), Health Canada (HC), Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), and clinicaltrials.gov. Regional variations were compared with χ²-tests. Multivariate logistic regressions compared characteristics of initial and supplementary indication approvals, reporting adjusted odds ratios (AOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results. Out of 100 considered cancer indications, the FDA approved 96, the EMA 92, HC 86, and the TGA 83 (83%, p < 0.05). The FDA more frequently granted priority review, conditional approval, and orphan designations than other agencies. Initial approvals were more likely to receive conditional / accelerated approval (AOR: 2.69, 95%CI [1.07–6.77], p < 0.05), an orphan designation (AOR: 3.32, 95%CI [1.38–8.00], p < 0.01), be under priority review (AOR: 2.60, 95%CI [1.17–5.78], p < 0.05), and be monotherapies (AOR: 5.91, 95%CI [1.14–30.65], p < 0.05) than supplementary indications. Initial indications’ pivotal trials tended to be shorter (AOR per month: 0.96, 95%CI [0.93–0.99], p < 0.05), of lower phase design (AOR per clinical phase: 0.28, 95%CI [0.09–0.85], p < 0.05), and enroll more patients (AOR per 100 patients: 1.19, 95%CI [1.01–1.39], p < 0.05). Conclusions. Targeted cancer drugs are increasingly approved for multiple indications of varying clinical benefit. Drugs are first approved as monotherapies in rare diseases with a high unmet need. Whilst expedited regulatory review incentivizes this prioritization, indication-specific safety, efficacy, and pricing policies are necessary to reflect each indication’s differential clinical and economic value.

A comparison of the Food and Drug Administration's and Health Canada's regulatory decisions about failed confirmatory trials for oncology drugs: an observational study

Background

Oncology drugs are frequently approved on the basis of surrogate outcomes that require further trials to confirm the benefits, but at times these trials fail and regulators need to decide whether to withdraw approval for the indication and/or to remove the drug from the market. This study compares decisions by the Food and Drug Administration and Health Canada about oncology drugs that were approved using either Accelerated Approval (FDA) or Notice of Compliance with conditions (NOC/c, Health Canada) and that failed confirmatory trials.

Methods

Drug/indications approved by the FDA through its Accelerated Approval Pathway and that later failed confirmatory studies were identified from a published study and additional information on these drugs was collected from Drugs@FDA. Health Canada websites were searched on September 11, 2021 for the same group of drugs to determine if they were approved in Canada under the NOC/c pathway for the same indication as in the US. Information from both the FDA and Health Canada about these products was entered into an Excel spreadsheet. Decisions about whether to withdraw the drugs or remove the failed indication for the drug and requirements for confirmatory studies were compared. In addition, the dates of decisions by the two agencies were compared.

Results

Ten drug/indications were available for comparison. Regulatory decisions were similar in 4 cases, different in 1 case and could not be determined in the remaining 5, in 1 case because decisions were pending in both countries and in the other 4, because the NOC/c had not been fulfilled in Canada. The requirements for the confirmatory studies were similar in both countries. Decisions were made earlier in the United States.

Conclusions

This study shows that decisions made by Health Canada and the FDA about whether to withdraw a drug or remove a failed indication when drug/indications fail a confirmatory trial are usually similar, although the sample size on which this conclusion is made is small. The clinical implications of these similarities and differences should be explored.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s40545-021-00375-y.

New Drugs Approved in 2020

In 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration approved 53 novel drugs. Thirty-six of the 53 (68%) drugs were reviewed and approved through an expedited review pathway, and 31 of the 53 (58%) were approved for treatment of a rare disease. This review includes a summary of the novel drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2020.

Progression-free survival is a suboptimal predictor for overall survival among metastatic solid tumour clinical trials

BACKGROUND

The use of overall survival (OS) as the gold standard primary end-point (PEP) in metastatic oncologic randomised controlled trials (RCTs) has declined in favour of progression-free survival (PFS) without a complete understanding of the degree to which PFS reliably predicts for OS.

METHODS

Using ClinicalTrials.gov, we identified 1239 phase III oncologic RCTs, 260 of which were metastatic solid tumour trials with a superiority-design investigating a therapeutic intervention by using either a PFS or OS PEP. Each individual trial was reviewed to quantify RCT design factors and disease-related outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 172,133 patients were enrolled from the year 1999 to 2015 in RCTs that used PFS (56.2%, 146/260) or OS (43.8%, 114/260) as the PEP. PFS trials were more likely to restrict patient eligibility by using molecular criteria (15.1% versus 4.4%, p = 0.005) use targeted therapy (80.1% versus 67.5%, p = 0.048), accrue fewer patients (median 495 versus 619, p = 0.03), and successfully meet the trial PEP (66.9% versus 33.3%, p < 0.0001). On multiple binary logistic regression analysis, factors that predicted for PFS or OS PEP trial success included choice of PFS PEP (p < 0.0001), molecular profile restriction (p = 0.02) and single agent therapy (p = 0.02). Notably, there was only a 38% (31/82) conversion rate of positive PFS-to-OS benefit; lack of industry sponsorship predicted for PFS-to-OS signal conversion (80.0% without industry sponsorship versus 35.1% with industry sponsorship, p = 0.045).

CONCLUSIONS

A PFS PEP has suboptimal positive predictive value for OS among phase III metastatic solid tumour RCTs. Regulatory agency decisions should be judicious in using PFS results as the primary basis for approval.

Novel systemic therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma

Systemic therapy for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) used to be limited to patients with advanced diseases and multi-kinase inhibitors targeting tumor angiogenesis the major approach of developing new treatment options. In the past 3 years, new data from trials of both molecular targeted therapy and immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) provided many new options of first- and second-line treatment for advanced HCC. Most notably, combination of ICI targeting the program cell death-1 (PD-1) pathway with other novel agents or conventional anti-cancer therapy may further improve treatment efficacy in different clinical settings. In this paper updated data of clinical trials of systemic therapy in the first- and second-line settings for advanced HCC were reviewed and the following issues were discussed: (1) lessons of trial design learned from positive and negative trials; (2) the balance between efficacy and safety in clinical practice; and (3) impact on future multi-disciplinary management of HCC.

Factors Related to Conversion from Accelerated to Full Approval for Drugs Approved in the United States Between 2000 and 2016

BACKGROUND

Accelerated approval (AA) is a program that grants approval to drugs based on clinical trial data for a surrogate endpoint or an intermediate clinical endpoint. Pharmaceutical companies are required to conduct a confirmatory trial to demonstrate true clinical benefit of the drug to obtain full approval (FA) for the AA. This study aimed at clarifying the points that should be considered by examining the characteristics of AA indications in all disease areas and the factors related to the status of conversion from AA to FA.

METHODS

AA indications granted from January 1, 2000, to June 30, 2016, were investigated from the aspects of the characteristics of AAs and the status of conversion from AA to FA.

RESULTS

Eighty-nine AAs were examined, of which 65 were converted to FA and 24 were not. A significant association was found between the FA status and period in which AA was granted, disease area, availability of IA data of a confirmatory trial for FA at the time of AA, and sales ranking of the company.

CONCLUSIONS

To successfully convert from AA to FA, a development plan that focuses not only on AA but also on future FA needs to be considered and implemented from the early stage of development in line with the FDA guidance. In particular, for companies with insufficient experience in the development of AA indications and for products/indications without an established endpoint, more active discussion with the regulatory authorities from an early stage of development should be encouraged.

New Drugs Approved in 2019

In 2019, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved 48 novel drugs. Thirty of the 48 (62.5%) novel drug approvals were reviewed and approved through an expedited review pathway while 20 of the 48 (41.7%) were approved for treatment of a rare disease. This review includes a summary of the novel drugs approved by the FDA in 2019.

FDA Accelerated Approval of Pembrolizumab for Recurrent Locally Advanced or Metastatic Merkel Cell Carcinoma

On December 19, 2018, the Food and Drug Administration granted accelerated approval to pembrolizumab (KEYTRUDA, Merck & Co. Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ) for adult and pediatric patients with recurrent locally advanced or metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma (MCC). Approval was based on Cancer Immunotherapy Trials Network protocol 9, also known as KEYNOTE-017 (NCT02267603), a multicenter, nonrandomized, open-label trial that enrolled 50 patients with recurrent locally advanced or metastatic MCC who had not received prior systemic therapy for their advanced disease. The major efficacy outcome measures were overall response rate (ORR) and response duration assessed by blinded independent central review per RECIST 1.1. The ORR was 56% (95% confidence interval: 41, 70) with a complete response rate of 24%. The median response duration was not reached. Among the 28 patients with responses, 96% had response durations of greater than 6 months and 54% had response durations of greater than 12 months. The most common adverse reactions of pembrolizumab reported in at least 20% of patients who received pembrolizumab as a single agent were fatigue, musculoskeletal pain, decreased appetite, pruritus, diarrhea, nausea, rash, pyrexia, cough, dyspnea, constipation, pain, and abdominal pain. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: This report presents key information on the basis for the Food and Drug Administration's accelerated approval of pembrolizumab for the treatment of recurrent locally advanced or metastatic Merkel cell carcinoma, including efficacy and safety information. This approval provides patients and physicians with an additional treatment option for this aggressive and life-threatening carcinoma.

The year's new drugs and biologics 2019

Highlights of our annual review of new approvals and launches on global drug markets include the approval and launch of Trikafta, the most widely applicable treatment to date for cystic fibrosis; approval of the first Ebola vaccine for general (rather than emergency) use; the pilot rollout in three African countries of the world's first malaria vaccine; approval of a new treatment option for multidrug-resistant bacterial infections; and the approval and launch in China of the first new drug to treat Alzheimer's disease in more than a decade. Several new immune checkpoint inhibitors and antibody-drug conjugates were approved for cancer indications, confirming continued industry enthusiasm for cancer immunotherapy. The most notable trend of 2019 was the granting by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) of a record number of accelerated approvals, many of which were issued several months ahead of the expected action date.

Evaluation of Serious Postmarket Safety Signals Within 2 Years of FDA Approval for New Cancer Drugs

BACKGROUND

We examined how often new serious safety signals were identified by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration within the first 2 years after approval for new molecular entities (NMEs) for treatment of cancer that required specific regulatory actions described here.

METHODS

We identified, for all NMEs approved for treatment of cancer or malignant hematology indications between 2010 and 2016, substantial safety-related changes within the first 2 years after approval, which included a new Boxed Warning or Warning and Precaution; requirement for (or modification of existing) Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS); and withdrawal from the market because of safety concerns.

RESULTS

Fifty-five NMEs were approved between 2010 and 2016: 32 (58%) under regular approval (RA) and 23 (42%) under accelerated approval (AA). Of these 55 NMEs, 9 (16%) had substantial safety-related changes after approval. Across all 55 NMEs, one was temporarily withdrawn from the market for safety reasons (1.8%); one (1.8%) required a new REMS; nine required labeling revisions-new Boxed Warnings were required for two NMEs (3.6%), and new Warnings and Precautions subsections were required for eight (14.6%). One drug (ponatinib) was responsible for several of the substantial safety-related changes (withdrawal, REMS, Boxed Warnings). One of 32 NMEs approved under RA required a new Warning and Precaution, whereas 7 of 23 NMEs approved under AA had substantial safety-related changes in the first 2 years after approval.

CONCLUSION

Based on our analysis we conclude that although there was a greater incidence of substantial safety-related changes to AA drugs versus RA drugs, the majority of these were changes to the Warnings and Precautions and did not substantially alter the benefit-risk profile of the drug.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE

The majority of new cancer drugs (84%) approved in the U.S. do not have new substantial safety information being added to the label within the first 2 years of approval. Unprecedented efficacy seen in contemporary cancer drug development has led to early availability of effective cancer therapies based on large effects in smaller populations. More limited premarket safety data require diligent postmarketing safety surveillance as we continue to learn and update drug labeling throughout the product lifecycle.

New Drug Approvals in 2018 - Another Record Year!

In 2018, the US Food and Drug Administration approved 59 novel drugs. This all-time record was due primarily to the expedited review pathways; 43 of the 59 (73%) novel drug approvals were designated in an expedited review pathway, and 34 of the 59 (58%) were approved for treatment of rare diseases. A review of these novel drugs is summarized.

2017 Is Banner Year for Drug Approvals by the Food and Drug Administration

In 2017, the US Food and Drug Administration approved 46 novel drugs, and 29 drugs received newly approved indications. This record setting year was due in part to the new expedited review pathways. A review of these drugs is summarized.

FDA Approval Summary: Pembrolizumab for Recurrent Locally Advanced or Metastatic Gastric or Gastroesophageal Junction Adenocarcinoma Expressing PD-L1

This report presents evidence for FDA approval of pembrolizumab for the treatment of adult and pediatric patients with either unresectable or metastatic, microsatellite instability‐high (MSI‐H) or mismatch repair deficient (dMMR) solid tumors that have progressed following prior treatment, and who have no satisfactory alternative treatment options, or who have metastatic, MSI‐H or dMMR colorectal cancer that has progressed following treatment with a fluoropyrimidine, oxaliplatin, and irinotecan.

On September 22, 2017, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted accelerated approval for pembrolizumab (Keytruda, Merck & Co., Inc., Whitehouse Station, NJ) for the treatment of patients with recurrent, locally advanced or metastatic, gastric or gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma with disease progression on or after two or more systemic therapies, including fluoropyrimidine‐ and platinum‐containing chemotherapy and, if appropriate, HER2/neu‐targeted therapy, and whose tumors express programmed death‐ligand 1 (PD‐L1), as determined by an FDA‐approved test. Approval was based on demonstration of durable overall response rate (ORR) in a multicenter, open‐label, multicohort trial (KEYNOTE‐059/Cohort 1) that enrolled 259 patients with locally advanced or metastatic gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma. Among the 55% (n = 143) of patients whose tumors expressed PD‐L1 based on a combined positive score ≥1 and either were microsatellite stable or had undetermined microsatellite instability or mismatch repair status, the confirmed ORR as determined by blinded independent central review was 13.3% (95% CI, 8.2–20.0); 1.4% had complete responses. Response durations ranged from 2.8+ to 19.4+ months; 11 patients (58%) had response durations of 6 months or longer, and 5 patients (26%) had response durations of 12 months or longer. The most common (≥20%) adverse reactions of pembrolizumab observed in KEYNOTE‐059/Cohort 1 were fatigue, decreased appetite, nausea, and constipation. The most frequent (≥2%) serious adverse drug reactions were pleural effusion, pneumonia, dyspnea, pulmonary embolism, and pneumonitis. Pembrolizumab was approved concurrently with the PD‐L1 immunohistochemistry 22C3 pharmDx test (Dako, Agilent, Santa Clara, CA) for selection of patients with gastric cancer for treatment with pembrolizumab based on PD‐L1 tumor expression.

Implications for Practice.

This report presents key information on the basis for Food and Drug Administration approval of pembrolizumab for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic gastric or GEJ adenocarcinoma whose tumors express PD‐L1. The report discusses the basis for limiting the indication to patients with PD‐L1‐expressing tumors and the basis for recommending that PD‐L1 status be assessed using a fresh tumor specimen if PD‐L1 expression is not detected in an archival gastric or GEJ cancer specimen.