scholarly journals 1509MO Adherence to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance for the co-development of two or more investigational new drugs in phase 1/2 cancer trials

2021 ◽  
Vol 32 ◽  
pp. S1105-S1106
Author(s):  
J.T. Moyers ◽  
D. Nguyen ◽  
D.S. Hong ◽  
E.E. Ileana Dumbrava ◽  
S. Fu ◽  
...  
Author(s):  
Himalee S. Sabnis ◽  
David S. Shulman ◽  
Benjamin Mizukawa ◽  
Nancy Bouvier ◽  
Ahmet Zehir ◽  
...  

PURPOSE The US Food and Drug Administration–expanded access program (EAP) uses a single patient use (SPU) mechanism to provide patient access to investigational agents in situations where no satisfactory or comparable therapy is available. Genomic profiling of de novo and relapsed or refractory childhood cancer has led to increased identification of new drug targets in the last decade. The aim of this study is to examine the SPU experience for genomically targeted therapies in patients with pediatric cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS All genomically targeted therapeutic SPUs obtained over a 5-year period were evaluated at four large pediatric cancer programs. Data were collected on the type of neoplasm, agents requested, corresponding molecularly informed targets, and clinical outcomes. RESULTS A total of 45 SPUs in 44 patients were identified. Requests were predominantly made for CNS and solid tumors (84.4%) compared with hematologic malignancies (15.6%). Lack of an available clinical trial was the main reason for SPU initiation (64.4%). The median time from US Food and Drug Administration submission to approval was 3 days (range, 0-12 days) and from Institutional Review Board submission to approval was 5 days (range, 0-50 days). Objective tumor response was seen in 39.5% (15 of 38) of all evaluable SPUs. Disease progression was the primary reason for discontinuation of drug (66.7%) followed by toxicity (13.3%). CONCLUSION SPU requests remain an important mechanism for pediatric access to genomically targeted agents given the limited availability of targeted clinical trials for children with high-risk neoplasms. Furthermore, this subset of SPUs resulted in a substantial number of objective tumor responses. The development of a multi-institutional data registry of SPUs may enable systematic review of toxicity and clinical outcomes and provide evidence-based access to new drugs in rare pediatric cancers.


2003 ◽  
Vol 15 (S1) ◽  
pp. 277-281
Author(s):  
Peter Whitehouse

The development of new drugs to treat vascular dementia and other conditions in which cognitive impairment is due at least in part to vascular pathology will require future interaction among academic, industry, and government regulatory clinicians and scientists. This article offers the author's perspective on the positive involvement of the Food and Drug Administration in development of conceptual frameworks and practical approaches to treatment of conditions characterized by vascular burden of the brain.


2004 ◽  
Vol 22 (22) ◽  
pp. 4626-4631 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lilia Talarico ◽  
Gang Chen ◽  
Richard Pazdur

Purpose To analyze the age-related enrollment of cancer patients onto registration trials of new drugs or new indications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration from 1995 to 2002. Patients and Methods This study involved retrospective analyses of demographic data of cancer patients enrolled onto registration trials. The data on 28,766 cancer patients from 55 registration trials were analyzed according to age distributions of ≥ 65, ≥ 70, and ≥ 75 years. The rates of enrollment in each age group for each cancer were compared with the corresponding rates in the US cancer population. The age distributions of the US cancer population were derived from the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Program of the National Cancer Institute for the period 1995 to 1999 based on the 2000 US Census. Results The proportions of the overall patient populations aged ≥ 65, ≥ 70, and ≥ 75 years were 36%, 20%, and 9% compared with 60%, 46%, and 31%, respectively, in the US cancer population. Statistically significant under-representation of the elderly (P < .001) was noted in registration trials for all cancer treatment except for breast cancer hormonal therapies. Patients aged ≥ 70 years accounted for most of the under-representation. Conclusion Elderly were under-represented in the registration trials of new cancer therapies. Various strategies may be needed to evaluate cancer therapies for the elderly in prospective clinical trials and to improve cancer care in the elderly population.


2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (29_suppl) ◽  
pp. 280-280
Author(s):  
Bhakti Arondekar ◽  
Mei Sheng Duh ◽  
Rachel Bhak ◽  
Maral DerSarkissian ◽  
Lynn Huynh ◽  
...  

280 Background: Since the 21st Century Cures Act, there has been growing interest in using real-world evidence (RWE) to support regulatory filings for new drugs and indications. The goal of this study was to provide a comprehensive source of RWE use cases of U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals for oncology products. Methods: A systematic review of FDA new drug applications (NDAs) and biologics license applications (BLAs) from 1/2015-2/2020 for approved oncology products was performed. Data on the RWE study were extracted (data source, study design, statistical methods, results), and corresponding FDA comments were synthesized to identify patterns of the FDA’s review. Results: We identified 102 NDAs and BLAs, 8 (8%) of which included RWE, all post-Cures Act (see Table). RWE supporting avelumab, axicabtagene ciloleucel, and avapritinib were received positively and used by the FDA in their approval decision. RWE results were used to provide contextualization to the pivotal trial, rather than statistical comparison. Common data sources included Flatiron (38%) and chart reviews (38%). FDA critiques included lack of a priori study protocol, incomparability with the pivotal trial population and endpoints, and uncontrolled confounding. Conclusions: There have been few examples of RWE in oncology submissions, and most served to complement clinical trial results. To meet FDA standards, RWE studies should be clearly designed and discussed with the FDA and include robust methods to minimize bias. [Table: see text]


Author(s):  
Tatiane Bomfim Ribeiro ◽  
Adalton Ribeiro ◽  
Luíza de Oliveira Rodrigues ◽  
Guilherme Harada ◽  
Moacyr Roberto Cuce Nobre

ObjectiveThis paper aims to describe the clinical and regulatory aspects of new drugs and indications that were approved for lung, breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer, from 2016 to 2018, in order to provide health technology assessment trends in oncology.MethodsData were collected from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) online database for new medications and indications approved for the above-mentioned types of cancer. Data regarding clinical study characteristics and regulatory information were collected.ResultsFrom 2016 to 2018, 53 percent of the FDA approvals of new drugs and indications for the most incident cancers were for oral protein kinase inhibitor monotherapy for advanced lung cancer. Since 2018, four drugs were approved as tumor-agnostic therapies. A biomarker was included in 72 percent of indications, and 58 percent of approvals were for targeted therapies, potentially heralding an end to research into conventional cytotoxic agents. A special designation for faster approval was granted in 78 percent of new approvals. The majority of the studies were open label randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (44 percent), followed by blind RCTs, single-arm clinical trials, and cohort studies. Only 14 percent of studies used overall survival as the primary end point; the vast majority used surrogate end points, and did not use patient-important outcomes. Three biosimilars were approved in the period.ConclusionAdvanced lung cancer therapy, mainly targeted drugs, accounted for 53 percent of approvals. Special designations for faster approval were used in 78 percent of FDA approvals, and four drugs were approved for tumor-agnostic treatment—a new form of approval.


1993 ◽  
Vol 329 (4) ◽  
pp. 292-296 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth B. Merkatz ◽  
Robert Temple ◽  
Solomon Sobel ◽  
Karyn Feiden ◽  
David A. Kessler

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document