PNS43 Have NMPA Priority Review Designations Supported Accelerated Regulatory Approval and Patient Access?

6545 Background: Drugs in the USA become available from the moment of FDA approval. Access to oncology therapies outside of the USA may be delayed by regulatory and additional payer HTA processes. This study aimed to examine the time from regulatory approval to an HTA reimbursement decision in countries with mandatory HTA. Methods: Oncology HTAs (N=569) for medicines approved by the EMA, Health Canada, and the Therapeutic Goods Administration (Australia) were matched on indication with HTAs from France, Germany, Canada, England, Scotland, and Australia. Resubmissions were excluded. The date of the first reimbursement decision was subtracted from the date of the regulatory approval to determine the time taken to complete HTA and to issue reimbursement decision. Trends by country were examined. Results: Time between regulatory approval and HTA reimbursement required a mean of 321 days (Median=214 days; Std.Dev. 330 days). Access in England took the longest, on average, (547 days) to issue a decision compared to the other countries. This time was two to three times longer than any other country. Australia had the shortest time to issue a reimbursement decision, which was approximately 6 months. Conclusions: Approximately one additional year is required after regulatory approval for oncology medicines to complete HTA and receive a reimbursement decision, potentially delaying patient access to oncology medicines outside the USA. The large variability in time to a reimbursement decision by country is likely due to varying processes. Additional research is needed to clarify the impact of these delays on access to care and patient outcomes. [Table: see text]

Download Full-text

Economics of New Oncology Drug Development

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2006.09.0803 ◽

2007 ◽

Vol 25 (2) ◽

pp. 209-216 ◽

Cited By ~ 243

Author(s):

Joseph A. DiMasi ◽

Henry G. Grabowski

Keyword(s):

Drug Development ◽

Basic Research ◽

The United States ◽

Global Market ◽

Regulatory Approval ◽

Priority Review ◽

Success Rates ◽

Oncology Drug ◽

Market Diffusion ◽

Oncology Drug Development

Purpose Review existing studies and provide new results on the development, regulatory, and market aspects of new oncology drug development. Methods We utilized data from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), company surveys, and publicly available commercial business intelligence databases on new oncology drugs approved in the United States and on investigational oncology drugs to estimate average development and regulatory approval times, clinical approval success rates, first-in-class status, and global market diffusion. Results We found that approved new oncology drugs to have a disproportionately high share of FDA priority review ratings, of orphan drug designations at approval, and of drugs that were granted inclusion in at least one of the FDA's expedited access programs. US regulatory approval times were shorter, on average, for oncology drugs (0.5 years), but US clinical development times were longer on average (1.5 years). Clinical approval success rates were similar for oncology and other drugs, but proportionately more of the oncology failures reached expensive late-stage clinical testing before being abandoned. In relation to other drugs, new oncology drug approvals were more often first-in-class and diffused more widely across important international markets. Conclusion The market success of oncology drugs has induced a substantial amount of investment in oncology drug development in the last decade or so. However, given the great need for further progress, the extent to which efforts to develop new oncology drugs will grow depends on future public-sector investment in basic research, developments in translational medicine, and regulatory reforms that advance drug-development science.

Download Full-text

An exploration of how a countries' HTA process can affect patient access.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2017.35.15_suppl.e18052 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽

pp. e18052-e18052 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Ashley Jaksa ◽

Anson Pontynen ◽

Alexander Bastian

Keyword(s):

Solid State ◽

Unmet Need ◽

Regulatory Approval ◽

Reimbursement Decision ◽

Patient Access ◽

Related Factors ◽

Fda Approval ◽

The Usa ◽

The Moment ◽

Health Canada

e18052 Background: Drugs in the USA become available from the moment of FDA approval. Access to oncology therapies outside of the USA may be delayed by regulatory and additional payer HTA processes. This study aimed to examine differences in oncology conditions that may impact time from regulatory approval to an HTA reimbursement decision in countries with mandatory HTA. Methods: Oncology HTAs (N = 569) for medicines approved by the EMA, Health Canada, and the Therapeutic Goods Administration (Australia) were matched on indication with HTAs from France, Germany, Canada, England, Scotland, and Australia. Resubmissions were excluded. The date of the first reimbursement decision was subtracted from the date of the regulatory approval to determine the time to issue a reimbursement decision. Trends by disease were examined. Results: The time between regulatory approval and reimbursement decision was significantly longer for solid-state oncology drugs than for hematology oncology drugs (mean 344 days vs. 280 days, respectively; p = 0.03). Within hematology oncology, Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma had the shortest time to a decision (229 days; n = 37) while Myelofibrosis had the longest (411 days; n = 3). For solid-state diseases, Sarcoma had the shortest time (5 days; n = 2) and Small-cell Lung Cancer had the longest (752 days; n = 5) time to a decision. Conclusions: Time to patient access to oncology medications varies by disease condition, which may reflect disease-related factors that impact assessment. The time to a decision for a hematology medicine was approximately two months shorter than the time to a decision for a solid-state medicine. It is possible that unmet need, budget impact, or competitive features within hematology conditions are driving the speed of assessments in these medicines. Further research is needed to determine why there are differences in time to decisions by oncology disease conditions.

Download Full-text

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI): An analysis of FDA’s and EMA’s decision patterns and times for initial approvals and extensions of indication.

Journal of Clinical Oncology ◽

10.1200/jco.2019.37.15_suppl.e14062 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽

pp. e14062-e14062 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Christine Mayer-Nicolai ◽

Elmar Schmitt ◽

Markus Hartmann ◽

Philippe Serrano

Keyword(s):

Checkpoint Inhibitors ◽

Regulatory Approval ◽

European Medicines Agency ◽

Priority Review ◽

Marketing Approval ◽

Cancer Drugs ◽

Line Extensions ◽

The Us ◽

The Usa ◽

Us Fda

e14062 Background: In certain clinical settings ICI have demonstrated unprecedented patterns of efficacy, resulting since 2011 in regulatory approvals worldwide in a variety of cancer indications. As immuno-oncology (IO) drugs constitute today an intense area of oncology drug development, we sought to analyze and compare the regulatory approval decisions for ICI, issued until end of 2018 by the US FDA and the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Methods: We reviewed the biological license applications (BLA) of the 7 (EU: 6) ICI, for which marketing approval decisions for were granted so far. Together with parallel and extension of indication applications, 43 (FDA) respectively 23 (EMA) approval procedures were finalized between March 2011 and December 2018. We analyzed agency decision outcomes and timeline patterns; approval decisions issued for novel non-IO cancer drugs served as benchmarks. The primary variable for analysis was median approval time (MAT). Results: MAT for initial BLA applications for ICI in the USA were with 189 days [Interquartile range (IQR) 154-209] shorter than MAT for BLA and NDA approvals for non-IO drugs: for the 51 novel oncology drugs approved 2011-2018 by the FDA, MAT was 227 days [IQR 159-303]. With 181 days [IQR 155-184], FDA’s MAT for ICI line extensions did not differ from MAT for initial ICI approvals. For the EU, MAT for initial ICI marketing applications were with 373 days (IQR 326-413) also shorter than MAT for the 51 non-IO drugs approved 2011-18 (422 days [IQR 368-450]); for ICI line extensions, MAT was 254 days [IQR 187-293). Conclusions: For ICI as for novel non-IO cancer drugs, initial regulatory approvals are usually issued in the USA first. Regulatory approval times for initial approvals are shorter in the USA, compared to Europe, the same applies for ICI extensions of indication. FDA’s extensive granting of breakthrough therapy designations (BTD) helped to bring US MAT for initial ICI BLA down to 6 months – i.e. to the same time, FDA requires for its priority review of extensions of indication. For some ICI extensions of indication, the granting of BTD supported approval decisions within 3 months, supporting patients’ rapid access to novel therapies.

Download Full-text