Physician Perceptions of the FDA's Breakthrough Therapy Designation: An Update.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Paquin RS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8842303 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Feb
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Physician Perceptions of the FDA's Breakthrough Therapy Designation: An Update.
Paquin Ryan S RS Boudewyns Vanessa V O'Donoghue Amie C AC Aikin Kathryn J KJ
The oncologist 20220201 1
The US Food and Drug Administration developed the Breakthrough Therapy designation to expedite the development and review of drugs that show a clear advantage over available therapy for serious conditions. Prior research has shown that physicians tend to misunderstand that a drug may receive a Breakthrough Therapy designation based on preliminary clinical evidence (eg, effect on a surrogate endpoint or intermediate clinical endpoint that is likely to predict clinical benefit). The objective of t ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:In July 2012, Congress passed the Food and Drug Administration Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA). The Advancing Breakthrough Therapies for Patients Act was incorporated into a Title of FDASIA to expedite clinical development of new, potential "breakthrough" drugs or treatments that show dramatic responses in early-phase studies. Using this regulatory pathway, once a promising new drug candidate is designated as a "Breakthrough Therapy", the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and sponsor would collaborate to determine the best path forward to abbreviate the traditional three-phase approach to drug development. The breakthrough legislation requires that an FDA guidance be drafted that details specific requirements of the bill to aid FDA in implementing requirements of the Act. In this article, we have proposed criteria to define a product as a Breakthrough Therapy, and discussed critical components of the development process that would require flexibility in order to enable expedited development of a Breakthrough Therapy.
| S-EPMC3745545 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe US Food and Drug Administration's Breakthrough Therapy Designation (BTD) program is intended to facilitate and expedite development of investigational drugs to address unmet medical needs. The objective of this study is to provide an update on FDA's process for review of BTD requests.MethodsWe reviewed Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) decisions to grant or deny breakthrough therapy designation requests for non-oncology drugs or biological products ("drugs") from January 1, 2017, through December 31, 2019. Data collection included characteristics of the corresponding drug and condition, reasons for granting or denying breakthrough therapy status, reasons for rescinding or withdrawing breakthrough therapy status after a request was granted (if applicable), and subsequent marketing approval status through 2022.ResultsAmong 240 requests, 93 (39%) requests were granted and 147 (61%) requests were denied. Granting of requests was more common for conditions where no therapy was available or for orphan diseases. Common reasons for denial included data-related issues, insufficient treatment effect, inadequate study design, endpoint attributes, safety issues, and reliance on post hoc analyses. Among 28 drugs receiving marketing approval as of the end of 2022 for the indication for which BTD was previously granted, 21 (75%) involved a first-in-class mechanism of action.ConclusionsThis analysis describes CDER's decision-making process related to review of requests for breakthrough therapy designations and enhances public awareness regarding efforts to expedite drug development.
| S-EPMC10764372 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRegulatory pathways adopted by the United States Food Drug and Administration (FDA) and Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) enable expedited approval of medicines that are thought to offer significant clinical advantage over existing options for severe diseases.ObjectivesTo review Australian accessibility to medicines approved through the FDA breakthrough therapy designation (BTD) process including timelines and approvals by the TGA and Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee (PBAC) for listing on the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS).MethodsRetrospective review of published reports from the FDA, TGA, PBAC and PBS for BTDs from 1 January 2013-31 August 2023. Uniform data about BTD and milestone dates were collected. Analysis included all BTDs approved by FDA until 31-August-2022. Main outcome measures: Rates of approval by TGA and PBAC, and PBS-listing; and median (interquartile range, IQR) time from FDA submission to FDA approval, and FDA approval to TGA approval, PBAC approval and PBS listing for cancer and non-cancer medicines.ResultsOf 237 BTDs across 156 medicines, 68% were approved by the TGA, and 37% were listed on the PBS. Median (IQR) time from FDA submission to FDA approval was shorter for cancer compared to non-cancer; 179 days (140-210) vs 232 days (181-245), p < 0.02. Time from FDA approval to PBS listing was similar for cancer and non-cancer; median 744 days (IQR, 549-1136) and 733 days (IQR 440-960) respectively, with improvements for cancer BTDs noted for 2018-2022 compared to 2013-2017; 566 days (IQR 319-831) vs 880 days (IQR 620-1362), p < 0.02 but not for non-cancer BTDs.ConclusionBTD medicines are accessible in Australia approximately 2 years after FDA approval. Since 2018, time to PBS listing for cancer therapies improved, mirroring shorter FDA approval times for this category. Further understanding of clinical studies and context by therapeutic area may improve timely and safe access to life-saving medicines.
| S-EPMC11340226 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe China National Drug Administration (NMPA) established the breakthrough therapy designation (BTD) in 2020 to encourage the accelerated development of drugs for the prevention and treatment of diseases that are life-threatening. However, the differences between BTD and non-BTD cancer drugs regarding clinical benefit, regulatory approval, and price are unclear.ObjectivesTo compare BTD and non-BTD cancer drugs in clinical benefit (defined as efficacy and safety), novelty, time to approval, and average monthly treatment price.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study analyzes the original indication of BTD and non-BTD novel cancer drugs approved by the NMPA between July 8, 2020, and July 8, 2024. Data on efficacy, safety, regulatory approval, and price of cancer drugs were extracted from pivotal clinical trials based on review reports published by the NMPA, peer-reviewed articles or meeting reports, and winning bid prices for cancer drugs in the Chinese provincial-level centralized procurement process.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcome was the efficacy and safety associated with BTD vs non-BTD cancer drugs, including progression-free survival (PFS), response rate (RR), duration of response, serious adverse events, grade 3 or higher adverse events, and treatment-related deaths. In addition, the time to approval, novelty, and initial and latest average monthly treatment prices were evaluated, as well as the average annual reduction rate (AARR; the sum of the reduction rates divided by the number of years for the monthly treatment price) for these cancer drugs.ResultsBetween July 2020 and July 2024, 18 BTD (36%) and 32 non-BTD (64%) cancer drugs were approved by the NMPA. The median (IQR) clinical development time for BTD drugs was significantly shorter than for non-BTD drugs (5.6 [95% CI, 4.3-7.3] vs 6.6 [95% CI, 6.0-8.5] years; P = .02). No significant differences were observed in PFS (HR, 0.44 [95% CI, 0.38-0.52] vs HR, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.40-0.65]; P = .20), PFS gained (median [IQR], 5.4 [3.9-7.0] vs 2.7 [2.6-5.9] months; P = .77), RR (58% [95% CI, 45%-74%] vs 59% [95% CI, 51%-69%]; P = .85), and duration of response (median [IQR], 18.0 [15.0-21.6] vs 11.1 [7.4-17.4] months; P = .09) between BTD and non-BTD drugs. The rates of serious adverse events (37% [95% CI, 26%-52%] vs 32% [95% CI, 27%-36%]; P = .45), adverse events grade 3 or higher (64% [95% CI, 53%-77%] vs 55% [95% CI, 45%-68%]; P = .31), and treatment-related deaths (2% [95% CI, 1%-4%] vs 1% [95% CI, 1%-2%]; P = .10) were similar between BTD and non-BTD drugs. BTD drugs are more likely to be first-in-class drugs (5 of 18 [28%] vs 1 of 32 [3%]; P = .02). Differences in the median (IQR) initial ($5665 [$3542-$9321] vs $3361 [$2604-$5474]; P = .06) and latest ($5665 [$1553-$9321] vs $2145 [$1318-$4276]; P = .18) average monthly treatment prices for BTD drugs and non-BTD drugs were not significant. The median (IQR) AARRs for BTD drugs and non-BTD drugs were 15.2% (0%-46.9%) and 19.8% (1.0%-42.9%), respectively.Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this cross-sectional study suggest that BTD has facilitated faster time to market for cancer drugs and improved novelty, but the price of treatment is relatively higher. There was no significant difference on comparative efficacy and safety.
| S-EPMC11581593 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The breakthrough therapy designation (BTD) process was created to expedite clinical development timelines for drugs intended to treat serious conditions and preliminary clinical evidence indicates the drug may demonstrate substantial improvement over existing therapies. This analysis demonstrates that BTD is a valuable tool for expediting approval of promising therapies in oncology. By comparing drugs indicated to treat non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) approved with BTD or without BTD between January 2013 and October 2021, BTD drugs reduced the risk of death by a median of 31% and progression by a median of 48%, while drugs never receiving BTD reduced the risk of death and progression by a median of 15% and 41.9%, respectively. These findings show that BTD criteria accurately identify drugs that improve long-term outcomes for patients with cancer and warrant coordinated efforts to ensure timely coverage decisions and access for patients.
| S-EPMC10324637 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionOn October 12, 2021, the FDA issued its first marketing granted orders for Vuse, the e-cigarette product by R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company. The public perceptions and reactions to the FDA's Vuse authorization are prevalent on social media platforms such as Twitter/X. We aim to understand public perceptions of the FDA's Vuse authorization in the US using Twitter/X data.MethodsThrough the Twitter/X streaming API (Application Programming Interface), 3,852 tweets between October 12, 2021, and October 23, 2021, were downloaded using the keyword of Vuse. With the elimination of retweets, irrelevant tweets, and tweets from other countries, the final dataset consisted of 523 relevant tweets from the US. Based on their attitudes toward the FDA authorization on Vuse, these tweets were coded into three major categories: positive, negative, and neutral. These tweets were further manually classified into different categories based on their contents.ResultsThere was a large peak on Twitter/X mentioning FDA's Vuse authorization on October 13, 2021, just after the authorization was announced. Of the 523 US tweets related to FDA's Vuse authorization, 6.12% (n=32) were positive, 26.77% (n=140) were negative, and 67.11% (n=351) were neutral. In positive tweets, the dominant subcategory was Cessation Claims (n=18, 56.25%). In negative tweets, the topics Health Risk (n=43, 30.71%), Criticize Authorization (n=42, 30.00%), and Big Tobacco (n=40, 38.57%) were the major topics. News (n=271, 77.21%) was the most prevalent topic among neutral tweets. In addition, tweets with a positive attitude tend to have more likes.DiscussionPublic perceptions and discussions on Twitter/X regarding the FDA's Vuse authorization in the US showed that Twitter/X users were more likely to show a negative than a positive attitude with a major concern about health risks.
| S-EPMC10654997 | biostudies-literature
Project description:While the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has had regulatory authority over tobacco products since 2009, public awareness of this authority remains limited. This research examines several broad types of information about FDA tobacco regulatory mission that may improve the perceptions of FDA as a tobacco regulator. Using Amazon Mechanical Turk, 1766 adults, smokers and non-smokers, were randomly assigned to view a statement about FDA regulatory authority that varied three information types in a 2 × 2 × 2 between subjects experimental design: (1) FDA's roles in regulating tobacco (yes/no); (2) The scientific basis of regulations (yes/no); and (3) A potential protective function of regulations (yes/no). Using factorial ANOVA, we estimated the main and interactive effects of all three types of information and of smoking status on the perceptions of FDA. Participants that were exposed to information on FDA roles reported higher FDA credibility and a greater perceived knowledge of FDA than those who did not. Exposure to information about the scientific basis of regulations led to more negative views of the tobacco industry. Participants who learned of the FDA's commitment to protecting the public reported higher FDA credibility and more positive attitudes toward regulations than those who did not learn of this commitment. We observed no significant interaction effects. The findings suggest that providing information about the regulatory roles and protective characterization of the FDA's tobacco regulatory mission positively influence public perceptions of FDA and tobacco regulations.
| S-EPMC5923795 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The LGBTQ+ community experiences cancer disparities due to increased risk factors and lower screening rates, attributable to health literacy gaps and systemic barriers. We sought to understand the experiences, perceptions, and knowledge base of healthcare providers regarding cancer screening for LGBTQ+ patients. A 20-item IRB-approved survey was distributed to physicians through professional organizations. The survey assessed experiences and education regarding the LGBTQ+ community and perceptions of patient concerns with different cancer screenings on a 5-point Likert scale. Complete responses were collected from 355 providers. Only 100 (28%) reported past LGBTQ+-related training and were more likely to be female (p = 0.020), have under ten years of practice (p = 0.014), or practice family/internal medicine (p < 0.001). Most (85%) recognized that LGBTQ+ subpopulations experience nuanced health issues, but only 46% confidently understood them, and 71% agreed their clinics would benefit from training. Family/internal medicine practitioners affirmed the clinical relevance of patients' sexual orientation (94%; 62% for medical/radiation oncology). Prior training affected belief in the importance of sexual orientation (p < 0.001), confidence in understanding LGBTQ+ health concerns (p < 0.001), and willingness to be listed as "LGBTQ+-friendly" (p = 0.005). Our study suggests that despite a paucity of formal training, most providers acknowledge that LGBTQ+ patients have unique health needs. Respondents had a lack of consensus regarding cancer screenings for lesbian and transgender patients, indicating the need for clearer screening standards for LGBTQ+ subpopulations and educational programs for providers.
| S-EPMC10252104 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Few data are available on physician perceptions of osteoporosis medication adherence. This study compared physician-estimated medication adherence with adherence calculated from their patients' pharmacy claims. Women aged ≥45 years, with an osteoporosis-related pharmacy claim between January 1, 2005 and August 31, 2008, and continuous coverage for ≥12 months before and after first (index) claim, were identified from a commercial health plan population. Prescribing physicians treating ≥5 of these patients were invited to complete a survey on their perception of medication adherence and factors affecting adherence in their patients. Pharmacy claims-based medication possession ratio (MPR) was calculated for the 12-month post-index period for each patient. Physicians who overestimated the percentage of adherent (MPR ≥0.8) patients by ≥10 points were considered "optimistic". Logistic regression assessed physician characteristics associated with optimistic perception of adherence. A total of 376 (17.2%) physicians responded to the survey; 62.0% were male, 58.2% were aged 45 to 60 years, 55.3% had ≥20 years of practice, and 35.4% practiced in an academic setting. Participating physicians prescribed osteoporosis medications for 2748 patients with claims data (mean [SD] age of 62.0 [10.6] years). On average, physicians estimated 67.2% of their patients to be adherent; however, only 40% of patients were actually adherent based on pharmacy data. Optimistic physicians (73.4%) estimated 71.9% of patients to be adherent while only 32.2% of their patients were adherent based on claims data. Physicians in academic settings were more likely to be optimistic than community-based physicians (odds ratio 1.69, 95% CI: 1.01, 2.85). Overestimation of medication adherence may impede physicians' ability to provide high quality care for their osteoporosis patients.
| S-EPMC3777338 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionThe Emergency Department (ED) has seen increased patient attendance and difficulty meeting demands. New healthcare professions such as Physician Associates (PAs) are being utilised to complement the existing medical workforce. Despite the growth of their professions in the United Kingdom, little evidence is available about the perceptions of their roles.ObjectiveThis study aims to provide evidence of doctors', PAs' and patients' perceptions of the PA role in the UK ED.MethodsA mixed methods approach consisted of the following: 1. An online exploratory survey of ED doctors at one English ED over 1 month (February-March 2022). 2. Post consultation semi-structured patient questionnaires over 2 weeks (April 2022). 3. Semi-structured virtual interviews with ED consultants across the four regions of the United Kingdom (3 months in 2022). 4. Semi-structured virtual interviews with ED PAs across the four regions of the United Kingdom (3 months in 2022). The analysis methods that were used included frequency counts and percentages from closed questions, and hybrid thematic analysis of free text and interview transcripts.ResultsFour ED consultants and four ED PAs across the United Kingdom were interviewed. Twenty-eight ED doctors participated in the online survey. Fifty-seven patients completed the post consultation questionnaire. Four main themes (PAs being fit for purpose; patient recognition of PAs, PAs providing continuity of care, and future PAs and regulation) were deduced as per the General Medical Council, Good Medical Practice domains (knowledge, skills and development; patients, partnership and communication; colleagues, culture and safety; and trust and professionalism). Other subthemes were induced via hybrid thematic analysis. In this study, doctors and patients had mixed comments about the role of PAs. Most of them were positive as doctor participants perceived PAs to be knowledgeable, highly skilled, with mostly good communication skills, team players, providing continuity of care and overall being fit for purpose. However, some doctor participants commented negatively about PAs for providing little quality healthcare and being inexperienced. There was a desire for career progression among the PA participants and a need to work to their full potential. Although the clinicians of this study displayed a clear understanding of the PA role in the ED, a high frequency of surveyed patients mistook PAs for doctors. It was suggested that future PAs could complete a postqualification programme in emergency medicine, combine roles, be paid on an alternative scale and be formally regulated.ConclusionIn this study, mixed views were expressed by ED consultants, ED junior doctors and patients regarding the role of the PA in the ED. Stakeholders can use the information presented to develop a better understanding of the perceptions of the PA role within the UK ED.Patient or public contributionThe Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) group, led by Healthwatch, made significant contributions to the study's design by providing valuable feedback on the information sheets and consent forms utilised. The patients' responses helped guide the study's direction and shape its future work. As part of the dissemination activities, the study findings was shared with both the PPIE team and Healthwatch media production team.
| S-EPMC11233990 | biostudies-literature