Dataset Information

Analysis of US Food and Drug Administration Oncology Approvals on the Characterization of Hepatic Impairment Effect and Dosing Recommendations.

ABSTRACT: Patients with cancer and advanced hepatic impairment (HI) (i.e., moderate and severe impairment) are often excluded from first-in-patient, phase II, and phase III studies. Thus, dose recommendations for this subgroup of patients are often derived using a combination of dedicated phase I studies conducted in participants without cancer and a population pharmacokinetic (PK) modeling approach. A standardized risk-based approach to guide the evaluation of HI in patients with cancer is needed. In this review, we evaluated available oncology drug approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) from 1999 to 2019, identified strategies utilized by sponsors to characterize the effect of HI on the PK of oncology drugs, and assessed regulatory expectations for each strategy. Finally, we constructed a decision tree that complements current FDA guidance to enable efficient evaluation of the effect of HI on PK and provide guidance for dose recommendations.

SUBMITTER: Yang DZ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9540487 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Analysis of US Food and Drug Administration Oncology Approvals on the Characterization of Hepatic Impairment Effect and Dosing Recommendations.

Yang Derek Z DZ Alhadab Ali A Parivar Kourosh K Wang Diane D DD Elmeliegy Mohamed M

Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics 20211230 4

Patients with cancer and advanced hepatic impairment (HI) (i.e., moderate and severe impairment) are often excluded from first-in-patient, phase II, and phase III studies. Thus, dose recommendations for this subgroup of patients are often derived using a combination of dedicated phase I studies conducted in participants without cancer and a population pharmacokinetic (PK) modeling approach. A standardized risk-based approach to guide the evaluation of HI in patients with cancer is needed. In thi ...[more]

PMID: 34870845

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe growth of cancer drug spending in the US has outpaced spending in nearly all other sectors, and an increasing proportion of the drug development pipeline is devoted to oncology. In 2018, there was a record number of drugs entering the US market.ObjectiveTo estimate the number of patients with cancer who are eligible for the newly approved drug-indication pairs, and project potential spending and use of the approvals in the US.Design, setting, participantsThis is a retrospective review of 2018 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) oncology drug approvals with estimation of the eligible population. The cost of new therapy was estimated, and savings from displaced therapies were subtracted. Two-way sensitivity analysis explored uncertainty in pricing and market diffusion. Data were collected between March 1, 2019, and September 30, 2019.ExposuresData related to the cancer drug approval (ie, indications, approval pathway, basis for approval), cancer incidence, and drug price were extracted from publicly available sources, including the FDA, National Cancer Institute, and American Cancer Society websites, as well as the RED BOOK database.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was the projected net expenditure in the US associated with the new therapies. The secondary outcome described how variable market diffusion and pricing permit expected levels of spending.ResultsA total of 46 oncology approvals were included in the analysis, with 17 novel drugs and 29 new indications. The average price per patient per treatment course was $150 384. From a national perspective and with 100% market diffusion, the projected net expenditure for newly approved drugs was $39.5 billion per year. To maintain the recent trend of cancer drug spending, the 2018 cancer drug approvals need to be used in fewer than 20% of eligible patients.Conclusions and relevanceNew cancer drugs approved by the FDA in 2018 would drastically increase cancer drug spending in the US if used widely. Alternatively, only low-level use of the new drugs is consistent with market forecasting.

Project description:ImportanceWhile there have been multiple assessments of clinical trials leading to anticancer drug approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the cumulative percentage of approvals based on trials with a limitation remains uncertain.ObjectiveTo assess the percentage of clinical trials with limitations in 4 domains-lack of randomization, lack of significant overall survival advantage, inappropriate use of crossover, and use of suboptimal control arms-that led to FDA approvals from June 30, 2014, to July 31, 2019.Design, setting, and participantsThis observational analysis included all anticancer drug indications approved by the FDA from June 30, 2014, through July 31, 2019. All indications were investigated, and each clinical trial was evaluated for design, enrollment period, primary end points, and presence of a limitation in the domains of interest. The standard-of-care therapy was determined by evaluating the literature and published guidelines 1 year prior to the start of clinical trial enrollment. Crossover was examined and evaluated for optimal use. The percentage of approvals based on clinical trials with any or all limitations of interest was then calculated.Main outcomes and measuresEstimated percentage of clinical trials with limitations of interest that led to an anticancer drug marketing authorization by the FDA.ResultsA total of 187 trials leading to 176 approvals for 75 distinct novel anticancer drugs by the FDA were evaluated. Sixty-four (34%) were single-arm clinical trials, and 123 (63%) were randomized clinical trials. A total of 125 (67%) had at least 1 limitation in the domains of interest; 60 of the 125 trials (48%) were randomized clinical trials. Of all 123 randomized clinical trials, 37 (30%) lacked overall survival benefit, 31 (25%) had a suboptimal control, and 17 (14%) used crossover inappropriately.Conclusions and relevanceTwo-thirds of cancer drugs are approved based on clinical trials with limitations in at least 1 of 4 essential domains. Efforts to minimize these limitations at the time of clinical trial design are essential to ensure that new anticancer drugs truly improve patient outcomes over current standards.

Project description:ImportanceDiverse, representative enrollment in pivotal clinical trials is vital to sufficiently power subgroup analyses and ensure equity and validity of trial results.ObjectiveTo evaluate the racial/ethnic representation, trends, and disparities in clinical trials leading to US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ophthalmology drug approvals from 2000 to 2020.Design, setting, and participantsThis cohort study used data from participants in clinical trials of drugs for neovascular age-related macular degeneration (AMD), open-angle glaucoma (OAG), and expanded indications for diabetic retinopathy (DR) from January 1, 2000, to December 31, 2020. Trial data were sourced from FDA reviews, ClinicalTrials.gov, and relevant linked studies. National expected racial/ethnic proportions were sourced from public National Eye Institute prevalence data as well as published rates scaled using US Census Bureau data.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome measures were the distribution of and change over time in the racial/ethnic proportion of participants in clinical trials leading to FDA approval of drugs for AMD, OAG, and DR.ResultsDuring the 20-year period, 31 clinical trials were identified for 13 medications with 18 410 participants. The distribution of trial participants was different from the expected trial distribution for most approvals with regard to race/ethnicity (12 drugs) and sex (10 drugs). Compared with the first decade (2000-2010), trials conducted in the second decade (2011-2020) showed increases in enrollment of Asian (odds ratio [OR], 2.30; 95% CI, 1.97-2.68; P < .001) and Hispanic or Latinx participants (OR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.49-2.03; P < .001) for AMD, Asian participants (OR, 2.21; 95% CI, 1.46-3.42; P < .001) for DR, and Black (OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.43-1.78; P < .001) and Hispanic or Latinx participants (OR, 10.31; 95% CI, 8.05-13.35; P < .001) for OAG. There was a decrease in Black participants in DR trials (OR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.42-0.79; P < .001). Based on these trends, the enrollment incidence ratio is expected to worsen by 2050, with overrepresentation of white participants vs underrepresentation of Black and Hispanic or Latinx participants in trials of drugs for AMD (1.08 vs 0.04 vs 0.77), DR (1.83 vs 0.87 vs 0.59), and OAG (1.62 vs 0.90 vs 0.37).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study, Black, Hispanic or Latinx, and other non-White participants were underrepresented in clinical trials leading to FDA ophthalmology drug approvals compared with the expected disease burden and racial/ethnic distribution in the US. Although there was meaningful improvement from 2000 to 2020, further efforts to increase minority enrollment in clinical trials seem to be warranted.

Dataset Information

Analysis of US Food and Drug Administration Oncology Approvals on the Characterization of Hepatic Impairment Effect and Dosing Recommendations.

Publications

Analysis of US Food and Drug Administration Oncology Approvals on the Characterization of Hepatic Impairment Effect and Dosing Recommendations.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets