Timing of first-in-child trials of FDA-approved oncology drugs.
ABSTRACT: AIM:The lag time between initial human studies of oncology agents and the first-in-child clinical trials of these agents has not been defined. METHODS:We conducted a systematic analysis of time from first-in-human trials to first-in-child trials (age of eligibility <18 years) of agents first approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for any oncology indication from 1997 to 2017. We used clinical trial registry data, published literature and oncology abstracts to identify relevant trials and start dates. RESULTS:From 1997 to 2017, 126 drugs received initial FDA approval for an oncology indication. Of these, 117 were non-hormonal agents used in subsequent analyses. Fifteen of 117 drugs (12.8%) did not yet have a paediatric trial, and six of 117 drugs (5.1%) had an initial approval that included children. The median time between the first-in-human trial and first-in-child trial was 6.5 years (range 0-27.7 years). The median time from initial FDA approval to the first-in-child clinical trial was -0.66 years (range -43 to +19 years). These values were stable regardless of year of initial FDA approval, drug class and initial approved disease indication. CONCLUSION:The median lag time from first-in-human to first-in-child trials of oncology agents that were ultimately approved by FDA was 6.5 years. These results provide a benchmark against which to evaluate recent initiatives designed to hasten drug development relevant to children with cancer.
Project description:BACKGROUND: Regulatory approval of oncology drugs is the cornerstone of the development process and approval characteristics shape eventual utilization. Approval trends and characteristics provide valuable information for drug developers and regulators and ultimately affect clinicians and patients. METHODS: Indication characteristics were tabulated for drugs approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for systemic therapy of malignancies from 1949 through October 2011. Variables included time to approval, initial/supplemental indication, tumor type, stage of disease, specification of protein expression or genetic information, drug class, trial design, concomitant agent, trial size, and endpoint. RESULTS: A total of 121 unique anticancer agents, including 242 unique indications, were approved. The number of trials for each indication has decreased; however, trial size has increased and more randomized controlled trials have been performed. Trial designs have increasingly used time-to-event endpoints and rarely have used symptom-based primary endpoints. Approvals have been primarily single agent, with less emphasis on palliative treatments and increasing emphasis on advanced disease stages and requirements for prior therapy. Molecular specifications in labels have increased, but they are present in less than 30% of recent indications and are not associated with shorter approval times. CONCLUSION: Approval of oncology agents is occurring in increasingly more challenging settings, suggesting gaps between eventual practice and development in potentially suboptimal indications. Molecular specifications promise to enhance development, yet widespread use in label indications has not yet been achieved.
Project description:Importance:Approximately one-third of cancer drugs are approved based on response rate (RR)-the percentage of patients whose tumors shrink beyond an arbitrary threshold-typically assessed in a single-arm study. Objective:To characterize RR end points used by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for cancer drug approval. Design, Setting, and Participants:A retrospective review of FDA-approved drug indications in oncology from 2006 to 2018. Exposures:Data related to cancer type, line of therapy (first-line, second-line, or third-or-later-line treatment for advanced/metastatic disease), type of FDA approval pathway, trial design, sample size, and level of innovation were extracted. Main Outcomes and Measures:The primary outcome was the RR used as the basis for FDA approval. The secondary outcome was rate of complete response. Results:Eighty-five indications for 59 cancer drugs were identified, 32 (38%) received regular approval, and 53 (62%) were granted accelerated approval. Twenty-nine (55%) accelerated approvals were later converted to regular approval. Of these, 6 (21%) approvals showed overall survival benefit, 16 (55%) later established progression-free survival benefit, and 7 (24%) continued to use RR but gained regular approval. The median RR among the 85 indications was 41% (interquartile range [IQR], 27%-58%). Among them, 14 of 85 (16%) had an RR less than 20%, 28 of 85 (33%) had an RR less than 30%, and 40 of 85 (47%) had an RR less than 40%. The median complete RR for 81 participants was 6% (IQR, 2%-22%). The median sample size among studies leading to approval was 117 (IQR, 76-182; range, 18-1052 participants). Drugs with accelerated approval pending confirmatory data had lower RR compared with drugs that have completed most postmarketing efficacy requirements (median, 28%; IQR, 15%-50% vs median, 42%; IQR, 31%-58%; P?=?.02). Conclusions and Relevance:Many cancer drugs approved on the basis of response rate offer numerically low or modest response rates. Most premarket studies accrue more than 100 patients. Some of these drugs could potentially be tested in premarket randomized clinical trials measuring directly end points that demonstrate clinical benefit.
Project description:Many patients and physicians assume that the safety and effectiveness of newly approved therapeutic agents is well understood; however, the strength of the clinical trial evidence supporting approval decisions by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not been evaluated.To characterize pivotal efficacy trials (clinical trials that serve as the basis of FDA approval) for newly approved novel therapeutic agents.Cross-sectional analysis using publicly available FDA documents for all novel therapeutic agents approved between 2005 and 2012.Pivotal efficacy trials were classified according to the following design features: randomization, blinding, comparator, and trial end point. Surrogate outcomes were defined as any end point using a biomarker expected to predict clinical benefit. The number of patients, trial duration, and trial completion rates were also determined.Between 2005 and 2012, the FDA approved 188 novel therapeutic agents for 206 indications on the basis of 448 pivotal efficacy trials. The median number of pivotal trials per indication was 2 (interquartile range, 1-2.5), although 74 indications (36.8%) were approved on the basis of a single pivotal trial. Nearly all trials were randomized (89.3% [95% CI, 86.4%-92.2%]), double-blinded (79.5% [95% CI, 75.7%-83.2%]), and used either an active or placebo comparator (87.1% [95% CI, 83.9%-90.2%]). The median number of patients enrolled per indication among all pivotal trials was 760 (interquartile range, 270-1550). At least 1 pivotal trial with a duration of 6 months or greater supported the approval of 68 indications (33.8% [95% CI, 27.2%-40.4%]). Pivotal trials using surrogate end points as their primary outcome formed the exclusive basis of approval for 91 indications (45.3% [95% CI, 38.3%-52.2%]), clinical outcomes for 67 (33.3% [95% CI, 26.8%-39.9%]), and clinical scales for 36 (17.9% [95% CI, 12.6%-23.3%]). Trial features differed by therapeutic and indication characteristics, such as therapeutic area, expected length of treatment, orphan status, and accelerated approval.The quality of clinical trial evidence used by the FDA as the basis for recent approvals of novel therapeutic agents varied widely across indications. This variation has important implications for patients and physicians as they make decisions about the use of newly approved therapeutic agents.
Project description:Trifluridine/tipiracil or TAS-102 (Taiho Oncology, Lonsurf®, Princeton, NJ, USA) is a combination tablet of trifluridine, a thymidine-based nucleoside analog, and tipiracil, a thymidine phosphorylase inhibitor, in a 1:0.5 molar ratio. This drug was first approved for use in metastatic colorectal cancer patients. Recently, the U S Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) have granted approval of trifluridine/tipiracil for treatment of metastatic gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma in patients following at least two lines of chemotherapy including fluoropyrimidine and platinum chemotherapy agents, as well as taxanes or irinotecan. This approval was granted after the findings from first a Phase II trial (EPOC1201) investigating trifluridine/tipiracil, and later a global Phase III trial (TAGS trial) that compared trifluridine/tipiracil vs placebo with best supportive care. Both trials primarily utilized trifluridine/tipiracil at a dose of 35 mg/m2 twice daily. In the EPOC1201 trial, the primary end point of disease control rate was greater than 50% after eight weeks of therapy. The most common grade three or four adverse event was neutropenia; additional toxicities included leukopenia, anemia, and anorexia. In the TAGS trial, overall survival in patients treated with trifluridine/tipiracil (5.7 months) was significantly improved as compared to the placebo-controlled group (3.6 months). Treatment with trifluridine/tipiracil not only did not impair quality of life but also tended to reduce the risk of deterioration of quality of life. The results of these studies along with the subsequent FDA and EMA approval have generated an important breakthrough in regard to treatment options for patients with refractory metastatic gastric or gastroesophageal junction adenocarcinoma.
Project description:OBJECTIVES:After regulatory approval, drug companies, public funding agencies and academic researchers often pursue trials aimed at extending the uses of a new drug by testing it in new non-approved indications. Patient burden and clinical impact of such research are not well understood. DESIGN AND SETTING:We conducted a retrospective cohort study of postapproval clinical trials launched within 5?years after the drug's first approval, testing anticancer drugs in monotherapy in indications that were first pursued after a drug's first Food and Drug Administration (FDA) license, for all 12 anticancer drugs approved between 2005 and 2007. FDA, Medline and Embase search date 2019 February 12. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:Our primary objective was to measure burden and clinical impact for patients enrolling in these trials. Each trial was sorted into a 'trajectory' defined by the drug and cancer indication. The risk was operationalised by proportions of grade 3-4 severe adverse events and deaths. The clinical impact was measured by estimating the proportion of patients participating in trajectories that resulted in FDA approval, uptake into National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) clinical practice guidelines or advancement to randomised controlled trials within 8?years. RESULTS:Our search captured 104 published trials exploring monotherapy, including 69 unique trajectories. In total, trials in our sample enrolled 4699 patients. Grade 3-4 adverse events were experienced by 19.6% of patients; grade 5 events were experienced by 2.8% of patients. None of the trajectories launched after initial drug approval received FDA approval. Five trajectories were recommended by the NCCN within 8?years of the first trial within that trajectory. Eleven trajectories were advanced to randomised controlled testing. CONCLUSIONS:The challenges associated with unlocking new applications for drugs that first received approval from 2005 to 2007 were similar to those for developing new drugs altogether. Our findings can help inform priority setting in research and provide a basis for calibrating expectations when considering enrolment in label-extending trials.
Project description:Objective To characterize the prospective controlled clinical studies for all novel drugs that were initially approved by the Food and Drug Administration on the basis of limited evidence.Design Systematic review.Data sources Drugs@FDA database and PubMed.Study inclusion All prospective controlled clinical studies published after approval for all novel drugs initially approved by the FDA between 2005 and 2012 on the basis of a single pivotal trial, pivotal trials that used surrogate markers of disease as primary endpoints, or both. Results Between 2005 and 2012 the FDA approved 117 novel drugs for 123 indications on the basis of a single pivotal trial, pivotal trials that used surrogate markers of disease, or both (single surrogate trials). We identified 758 published controlled studies over a median of 5.5 years (interquartile range 3.4-8.2) after approval, most of which (554 of 758; 73.1%) were studies for indications approved on the basis of surrogate markers of disease. Most postapproval studies used active comparators-67 of 77 (87.0%) indications approved on the basis of single pivotal trials, 365 of 554 (65.9%) approvals based on surrogate marker trials, and 100 of 127 (78.7%) approvals based on single surrogate trials-and examined surrogate markers of efficacy as primary endpoints-51 of 77 (66.2%), 512 of 554 (92.4%), and 110 of 127 (86.6%), respectively. Overall, no postapproval studies were identified for 43 of the 123 (35.0%) approved indications. The median total number of postapproval studies identified was 1 (interquartile range 0-2) for indications approved on the basis of a single pivotal trial, 3 (1-8) for indications approved on the basis of pivotal trials that used surrogate markers of disease as primary endpoints, and 1 (0-2) for single surrogate trial approvals, and the median aggregate number of patients enrolled in postapproval studies was 90 (0-509), 533 (122-3633), and 38 (0-666), respectively. The proportion of approved indications with one or more randomized, controlled, double blind study using a clinical outcome for the primary endpoint that was published after approval and showed superior efficacy was 18.2% (6 of 33), 2.0% (1 of 49), and 4.9% (2 of 41), respectively.Conclusions The quantity and quality of postapproval clinical evidence varied substantially for novel drugs first approved by the FDA on the basis of limited evidence, with few controlled studies published after approval that confirmed efficacy using clinical outcomes for the original FDA approved indication.
Project description:For oncology drugs that were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and required pharmacogenomic biomarker testing, we describe 1) the use of enrichment (biomarker-positive patients) and a randomized controlled design by pre-approval trials and 2) the treatment-by-biomarker interaction. From the 137 drugs included in the FDA table, we selected the 22 oncology drugs with required genetic testing in their labels. These drugs corresponded to 35 approvals supported by 80 clinical studies included in the FDA medical officer reviews of efficacy. For two thirds of approvals (24/35, 69%), all clinical studies were restricted to biomarker-positive patients (enriched). Among the 11 remaining approvals with at least one non-enriched trial, for five approvals, the non-enriched studies were non-randomized. The treatment-by-biomarker interaction was statistically significant for three approvals and missing for two. Among the six approvals with a non-enriched randomized controlled trial, three featured a statistically significant treatment-by-biomarker interaction (p?<?0.10), for an enhanced treatment effect in the biomarker-positive subgroup. For two thirds of FDA approvals of anticancer agents, the requirement for predictive biomarker testing was based on clinical development restricted to biomarker-positive patients. We found only few cases with clinical evidence that biomarker-negative patients would not benefit from treatment.
Project description:Importance:The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is increasing its pace of approvals for novel cancer therapeutics, including for immune checkpoint inhibitors of programmed cell death 1 protein (anti-PD-1 agents). However, little is known about how quickly anti-PD-1 agents agents reach eligible patients in practice or whether such patients differ from those studied in clinical trials that lead to FDA approval (pivotal clinical trials). Objectives:To assess the speed with which anti-PD-1 agents agents reached eligible patients in practice and to compare the ages of patients treated in clinical practice with the ages of those treated in pivotal clinical trials. Design, Setting, and Participants:This retrospective cohort study, performed from January 1, 2011, through August 31, 2016, included patients from the Flatiron Health Network who were eligible for anti-PD-1 agents treatment of selected cancer types, which included melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), and renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Main Outcomes and Measures:Cumulative proportions of eligible patients receiving anti-PD-1 agents treatment and their age distributions. Results:The study identified 3089 patients who were eligible for anti-PD-1 agents treatment (median age, 66 [interquartile range, 56-75] years for patients with melanoma, 66 [interquartile range, 58-72] years for patients with RCC, and 67 [interquartile range, 59-74] years for patients with NSCLC; 1742 male [56.4%] and 1347 [43.6%] female; 2066 [66.9%] white). Of these patients, 2123 (68.7%) received anti-PD-1 agents treatment, including 439 eligible patients with melanoma (79.1%), 1417 eligible patients with NSCLC (65.6%), and 267 eligible patients with RCC (71.2%). Within 4 months after FDA approval, greater than 60% of eligible patients in each cohort had received anti-PD-1 agents treatment. Overall, similar proportions of older and younger patients received anti-PD-1 agents treatment during the first 9 months after FDA approval. However, there were significant differences in age between clinical trial participants and patients receiving anti-PD-1 agents treatment in clinical practice, with more patients being older than 65 years in clinical practice (range, 327 of 1365 [60.6%] to 46 of 72 [63.9%]) than in pivotal clinical trials (range, 38 of 120 [31.7%] to 223 of 544 [41.0%]; all P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance:Anti-PD-1 agents rapidly reached patients in clinical practice, and patients treated in clinical practice differed significantly from patients treated in pivotal clinical trials. Future actions are needed to ensure that rapid adoption occurs on the basis of representative trial evidence.
Project description:For regulatory approval of a new medicine, the gold standard for demonstration of efficacy has traditionally been a minimum of two positive, adequate, and well-controlled clinical trials. Nevertheless, drugs to treat cancer and rare diseases are usually approved based on a single and often uncontrolled pivotal trial. In contrast, little is known about single pivotal trial approvals for non-orphan, non-oncology drugs. Between 2012 and 2016, 23 novel therapeutic drugs were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and/or the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for 27 non-orphan, non-oncology indications each based on a single pivotal trial. Although there was considerable variation in the nature and strength of the efficacy evidence supporting these drug approvals, the majority (85%) of the pivotal trials were randomized and controlled. For all superiority trials, the primary outcome was met with a statistical significance of P ≤ 0.005. Most approvals were supported by additional efficacy data from nonpivotal studies.