Efficacy, Safety, and Regulatory Approval of Food and Drug Administration–Designated Breakthrough and Nonbreakthrough Cancer Medicines

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (18) ◽  
pp. 1805-1812 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas J. Hwang ◽  
Jessica M. Franklin ◽  
Christopher T. Chen ◽  
Julie C. Lauffenburger ◽  
Bishal Gyawali ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Solid Tumors ◽  
Drug Administration ◽  
Mechanism Of Action ◽  
Food And Drug Administration ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Cancer Drugs ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Hazard Ratios ◽  
Fda Approval

Purpose The breakthrough therapy program was established in 2012 to expedite the development and review of new medicines. We evaluated the times to approval, efficacy, and safety of breakthrough-designated versus non–breakthrough-designated cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Methods We studied all new cancer drugs approved by the FDA between January 2012 and December 2017. Regulatory and therapeutic characteristics (time to FDA approval, pivotal trial efficacy end point, novelty of mechanism of action) were compared between breakthrough-designated and non–breakthrough-designated cancer drugs. Random-effects meta-regression was used to assess the association between breakthrough therapy designation and hazard ratios for progression-free survival (PFS), response rates (RRs) for solid tumors, serious adverse events, and deaths not attributed to disease progression. Results Between 2012 and 2017, the FDA approved 58 new cancer drugs, 25 (43%) of which received breakthrough therapy designation. The median time to first FDA approval was 5.2 years for breakthrough-designated drugs versus 7.1 years for non–breakthrough-designated drugs (difference, 1.9 years; P = .01). There were no statistically significant differences between breakthrough-designated and non–breakthrough-designated drugs in median PFS gains (8.6 v 4.0 months; P = .11), hazard ratios for PFS (0.43 v 0.51; P = .28), or RRs for solid tumors (37% v 39%; P = .74). Breakthrough therapy–designated drugs were not more likely to act via a novel mechanism of action (36% v 39%; P = 1.00). Rates of deaths (6% v 4%; P = .99) and serious adverse events (38% v 36%; P = 0.93) were also similar in breakthrough-designated and non–breakthrough-designated drugs. Conclusion Breakthrough-designated cancer drugs were associated with faster times to approval, but there was no evidence that these drugs provide improvements in safety or novelty; nor was there a statistically significant efficacy advantage when compared with non–breakthrough-designated drugs.

scholarly journals Feasibility of onchocerciasis elimination using a “test-and-not-treat” strategy in Loa loa co-endemic areas

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
David J Blok ◽  
Joseph Kamgno ◽  
Sebastien D Pion ◽  
Hugues C Nana-Djeunga ◽  
Yannick Niamsi-Emalio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Drug Administration ◽  
Mass Drug Administration ◽  
Treatment Duration ◽  
Loa Loa ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Endemic Areas ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Main Strategy

Abstract Background Mass drug administration (MDA) with ivermectin is the main strategy for onchocerciasis elimination. Ivermectin is generally safe but associated with serious adverse events in individuals with high Loa loa microfilarial densities (MFD). Therefore, ivermectin MDA is not recommended in areas where onchocerciasis is hypo-endemic and L. loa is co-endemic. To eliminate onchocerciasis in those areas, a test-and-not-treat (TaNT) strategy has been proposed. We investigated whether onchocerciasis elimination can be achieved using TaNT and the required duration. Methods We used the individual-based model ONCHOSIM to predict the impact of TaNT on onchocerciasis microfilarial (mf) prevalence. We simulated pre-control mf prevalence levels from 2-40%. The impact of TaNT was simulated under varying levels of participation, systematic non-participation and exclusion from ivermectin due to high L. loa MFD. For each scenario, we assessed the time to elimination, defined as bringing onchocerciasis mf prevalence below 1.4%. Results In areas with 30-40% pre-control mf prevalence, the model predicted that it would take between 14 and 16 years to bring the mf prevalence below 1.4% using conventional MDA, assuming 65% participation. TaNT would increase the time to elimination by up to 1.5 years, depending on the level of systematic non-participation and the exclusion rate. At lower exclusion rates (≤2.5%), the delay would be less than six months. Conclusions Our model predicts that onchocerciasis can be eliminated using TaNT in L. loa co-endemic areas. The required treatment duration using TaNT would be only slightly longer than in areas with conventional MDA, provided that participation is good.

Sequential monitoring of PD-L1 on circulating stromal cells in blood predicts PFS in NSCLC patients undergoing immunotherapy after definitive chemoradiation.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 8534-8534
Author(s):  
Daniel L Adams ◽  
Alexander Augustyn ◽  
Jianzhong He ◽  
Yawei Qiao ◽  
Ting Xu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Stromal Cells ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Free Survival ◽  
Hazard Ratios ◽  
Fda Approval ◽  
Inflammatory State ◽  
Nsclc Patients ◽  
Tumor Biopsies ◽  
Relationship Of ◽  
The Relationship

8534 Background: Cancer Associated Macrophage-Like cells (CAMLs) are circulating stromal cells in the blood of patients (pts) with solid tumors that are phagocytic macrophages that may represent the inflammatory state of the tumor microenvironment. Previously, we demonstrated CAMLs ≥50µm after chemo-radiation therapy (CRT) in NSCLC is associated with worse progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). We also showed that PDL1 expression in CAMLs is dynamic & can change with CRT, difficult to assess with repeat biopsies, but possible with liquid biopsy. For this study we evaluated whether CAML properties can predict response to CRT with/without immunotherapy (IMT) agents in unresectable NSCLC. Methods: A single blind multi-year prospective study was undertaken to test the relationship of PDL1 expression and ≥50µm CAML size to PFS/OS in NSCLC, pre and post CRT with (n = 96) and without (n = 72) anti-PDL1/PD1 IMT. This included atezolizumab (prospective single arm NCT02525757) n = 39, durvalumab n = 52 or pembrolizumab n = 5 both after 2018 FDA approval. We recruited 168 pts with pathologically confirmed unresectable NSCLC prior to CRT. Blood samples 15 mL were taken at baseline (BL), CRT completion (T1), and ̃1 month after CRT (T2) (with n = 96 or without n = 72 IMT). Blood was filtered by CellSieve filtration and CAMLs quantified for size ( < 49 µm or ≥50 µm) and PDL1 expression to evaluate PFS and OS hazard ratios (HRs) by censored univariate and multivariate analysis at 24 months. Results: CAMLs were found in 90% of all samples, average 5.8 CAMLs/15mL. At BL, ≥50µm CAMLs did not predict PFS in CRT/IMT pts (HR 1.6, p = 0.220) nor CRT alone (HR 1.3, p = 0.593). However, after completion of CRT (T1) ≥50µm CAMLs predicted PFS in CRT/IMT pts (HR 2.7, p = 0.003) and CRT alone (HR 2.5, p = 0.015). In primary tumor biopsies, PDL1 expression > 1% did not predict CRT/IMT response (PFS HR 1.8, p = 0.262 & OS HR 2.3, p = 0.158). At BL, high CAML PDL1 did not predict PFS in CRT/IMT pts (HR 1.4, p = 0.427) nor CRT alone (HR 1.1, p = 0.982). Further, at CRT completion (T1), high CAML PDL1 only trended for better PFS in CRT/IMT pts (HR 1.7, p = 0.137), but not CRT alone (HR 1.1, p = 0.972). At T2, however, pts with continuously high CAML PDL1 had significantly better PFS with IMT (HR 3.2, p = 0.002) vs CRT alone (HR 1.4, p = 0.616). While ≥50µm CAMLs at BL did not predict 24 month progression, ≥50 µm CAMLs after CRT (with or without 1 cycle of anti-PDL1 IMT) was 84% accurate at predicting progression. Further subtyping and analysis is ongoing to evaluate OS and PDL1 in the CAML populations. Conclusions: Our data suggests that in unresectable NSCLC, ≥50 µm CAMLs after completion of CRT is prognostic regardless of IMT use. PDL1 expression in CAMLs also appears to predict for response to consolidated IMT after CRT. Additional studies are needed to validate these findings.

Biosimilar epoetin for cancer and chemotherapy-induced anaemia in the US

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 122-122
Author(s):  
Charles L Bennett
Keyword(s):  
Advisory Committee ◽  
Drug Administration ◽  
Food And Drug Administration ◽  
Pharmacokinetics And Pharmacodynamics ◽  
Safety And Efficacy ◽  
Biological Drug ◽  
Drug Products ◽  
Fda Approval ◽  
The Us ◽  
Approval Letter

Biosimilars are biological drug products that are highly similar to reference products in analytic features, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, immunogenicity, safety and efficacy. Biosimilar epoetin received US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval in 2018 [1]. The manufacturer received an FDA non-approval letter in 2017, despite receiving a favourable review by the FDA’s Oncologic Drugs Advisory Committee (ODAC) and an FDA non-approval letter in 2015 for an earlier formulation.

Efficacy and Safety of PEGPH20 in Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2021 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Vinod Solipuram ◽  
Harish Gopalakrishna ◽  
Gayatri Naira ◽  
Akhila Mohan
Keyword(s):  
Pancreatic Cancer ◽  
Placebo Group ◽  
Febrile Neutropenia ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Thromboembolic Events ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Significant Difference

Introduction: Pancreatic cancer is an aggressive tumor that had an estimated 57,600 new cases and 47,050 deaths in 2020 in the US alone. Recent studies have targeted tumor microenvironment (TME) for better delivery of systemic chemotherapy like PEGPH20, which degrades hyaluronic acid in the extracellular matrix (ECM). A meta-analysis of these Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to test the efficacy of PEGPH20 was performed. Methods: A systematic search was performed using PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane library without language limitations from inception to July 30, 2020. A total of 59 articles was identified, and 3 RCTs were included in the final analysis. The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS), and secondary outcomes were overall survival (OS), deaths from adverse events, thromboembolic events, serious adverse events (SAE), and febrile neutropenia. Results: There was no statistically significant improvement in PFS (HR= 0.94; 95%CI (0.79, 1.11)) in the PEGPH20 group when compared to the standard treatment/placebo group. There was no significant difference among OS (HR= 0.99, 95%CI (0.83, 1.17), deaths from adverse events (RR=0.97; 95%CI (0.54, 1.73)), thromboembolic events (RR= 1.49; 95%CI (0.92, 2.44)), and febrile neutropenia (RR= 0.88; 95%CI (0.45, 1.72), however, there was statistically significant increase in SAE (RR = 1.59; 95%CI (1.01, 2.52) in the PEGPH20 group compared to the placebo group. Conclusion: This meta-analysis showed that PEGPH20 did not improve the PFS or OS. Moreover, there is an increased incidence of serious adverse events with the use of PEGPH20 compared to standard therapies.

Participation of African American Persons in Clinical Trials Supporting U.S. Food and Drug Administration Approval of Cancer Drugs

2020 ◽  
Vol 173 (4) ◽  
pp. 320-322 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samer Al Hadidi ◽  
Martha Mims ◽  
Courtney Nicole Miller-Chism ◽  
Rammurti Kamble
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
African American ◽  
Drug Administration ◽  
Food And Drug Administration ◽  
Cancer Drugs

Unusual Distributions of Body Fat in AIDS Patients: A Review of Adverse Events Reported to the Food and Drug Administration

1999 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 287-295 ◽  
Author(s):  
MARIANNE MANN ◽  
TONI PIAZZA-HEPP ◽  
ELIZABETH KOLLER ◽  
KIMBERLY STRUBLE ◽  
JEFF MURRAY
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Events ◽  
Body Fat ◽  
Drug Administration ◽  
Food And Drug Administration ◽  
Aids Patients
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document