Expedited development and review pathways for novel oncology drugs.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e13578-e13578
Author(s):  
Lisa Ambrosini Vadola ◽  
Ann Winter-Vann ◽  
Miriam Knoll ◽  
Robin Whitsell

e13578 Background: Following approval of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Safety and Innovation Act in 2012, the FDA launched a 3-year plan to promote innovation, increase stakeholder involvement, secure the drug supply chain, and fund these endeavors by collecting user fees. The FDA created its fourth expedited pathway, Breakthrough Therapy Designation (BTD) to focus on the development and approval of therapies to treat serious and life-threatening conditions that lack adequate therapies. Our 2017 study (ASCO abstract #e18270) identified a trend of increased use of these approaches with oncology drugs, particularly the BTD, which was a nascent pathway at the time. We aimed to reexamine FDA pathway and approval trends in oncology interventions. Methods: We analyzed publicly available data on novel drug approvals by the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) from 2012-2020 and the 4 expedited pathways (BTD, Accelerated Approval, Fast Track Designation [FTD], and Priority Review). Results: Between 2012 and 2020, CDER approved 380 new chemical entities, including 101 oncology drugs. Due to data limitations, 3 novel oncology biologics (approved by the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research) and 4 diagnostics were excluded from the analyses. Oncology drugs comprised a mean 27% (range 14-34%) of all approvals from 2012-2020, including 25% from 2012–2016 and 28% from 2017-2020. Of all approved oncology drugs from 2012-2020, 94% (range 82-100%) utilized at least one expedited pathway. Oncology approvals were more likely than non-oncology approvals to have used one or more expedited pathways. Use of these pathways for oncology approvals increased from 2012-2016 to 2017-2020: ≥2 (65% vs 78%) and ≥3 (35% vs 50%) pathways. BTD usage for oncology drugs increased from 35% in 2012-2016 to 57% in 2017-2020, though for 2012-2016, the time interval between awarding the (new) designation and the remainder of development activities must be considered. Presumably because BTD grants additional benefits over FTD, generally the use of FTD for oncology drugs has declined over time. The use of Priority Review and Accelerated Approval has remained the same. Despite the pandemic, for oncology and non-oncology drugs alike, approvals using pathways remained consistent between 2019 and 2020. Conclusions: Efficient FDA review plays an important role in oncology drug development. Since its inception in 2012, BTD has been adopted and expeditiously used, comprising more than half of all novel oncology drug approvals from 2017-2020. Our data show a gradual increase in approvals of drugs granted BTD, which, given the duration of drug development, likely reflects the time between the acceptance of the BTD request and remainder of the pre-submission development activities. As BTD was expressly developed to increase stakeholder interaction and prioritize innovation, the speed-to-adoption and use of this pathway among oncology interventions is promising.

2019 ◽  
Vol 143 (1) ◽  
pp. 73-77
Author(s):  
Anat Gafter-Gvili ◽  
Ariadna Tibau ◽  
Pia Raanani ◽  
Daniel Shepshelovich

The prevalence of safety-related postmarketing label modifications of medications for hematological malignancies is unknown. We identified 35 new drugs indicated for hematological malignancies approved by the US Food and Drug Administration between January 1999 and December 2014. Characteristics of supporting trials and safety-related label modifications from approval to December 2017 were collected from drug labels. Regulatory review and approval pathways were also collected. New drug approvals were supported by trials with a median of 167 patients (interquartile range 115–316). All drugs were approved based on surrogate endpoints. Twenty-seven drug approvals (77%) were not supported by randomized controlled trials. All drugs received orphan drug designation, and most were granted fast track designation, priority review, and accelerated approval (83, 74, and 60%, respectively). A total of 28 drugs (80%) had postmarketing safety-related label modifications. Additions to black box warnings, contraindications, warnings and precautions, and common adverse reactions were identified in 31, 11, 77, and 46% of drugs, respectively. Five drugs (14%) were permanently or temporarily withdrawn from the US market. Drugs for hematological malignancies are often approved based on limited evidence through expedited regulatory pathways with incomplete safety profiles. Hematologists should be vigilant for unrecognized side effects when prescribing newly approved drugs.


2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (14) ◽  
pp. e226-e227 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael L. Lanthier ◽  
Rajeshwari Sridhara ◽  
John R. Johnson ◽  
Ann Farrell ◽  
Patricia Keegan ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 19 (16) ◽  
pp. 4305-4308 ◽  
Author(s):  
James C. Yao ◽  
Funda Meric-Bernstam ◽  
J. Jack Lee ◽  
S. Gail Eckhardt

2017 ◽  
Vol 35 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e18270-e18270
Author(s):  
Lisa Ambrosini Vadola ◽  
Monique A Pond ◽  
Ann Winter-Vann ◽  
Robin Whitsell

e18270 Background: With the importance of speed-to-market and addressing unmet needs, pharmaceutical companies have sought accelerated approvals through the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Introduced with the FDA Safety and Innovation Act (FDASIA) of 2012, Breakthrough Therapy Designation (BTD) has become an important mechanism for approval of serious and life-threatening conditions that do not have adequate therapies. Notably, these pathways have been ill-understood by both pharmaceutical companies and health care providers. This study assessed how BTD and other FDA designations have played a role in the approval of oncology drug marketing applications and evaluated trends in the use of these regulatory pathways. Methods: We analyzed publicly available data on novel oncology drug approvals by the FDA from 2012-2016, including the 4 expedited programs for serious conditions (BTD, Accelerated Approval, Fast Track, and Priority Review). Results: Of the 43 novel oncology drugs approved by the FDA between 2012-2016, 42 used at least 1 of the expedited approval programs, including 65% that used ≥2 programs and 35% that used ≥3 programs. The BTD has been used by 15 of the 43 (35%) approved novel oncology drugs since 2012. The use of the BTD, Accelerated Approval pathway, and Priority Review designation among approved oncology drugs has generally increased each year from 2012-2016, while the use of the Fast Track designation has decreased over the same time period. Conclusions: Companies seeking oncology approvals often use more than one expediting strategy. Alone or in combinations, the BTD, Accelerated Approval, and Priority Review have been shown to play an increasingly important role in oncology drug development. Data collected between 2012-2016 suggest that use of BTD is growing more common, while use of the Fast Track designation has decreased among approved oncology drugs. Additional expedited approval programs have remained steady or increased since the FDA introduced BTD. Based on these observations, we anticipate use of the BTD, Accelerated Approval, and Priority Review designation will grow in future oncology drug applications.


2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S637-S637
Author(s):  
Cem Atillasoy ◽  
Panagiotis Gourlias

Abstract Background The FDA has developed expedited review programs and pathways to increase drug development for products that have a major clinical benefit. These programs include: Fast Track, Orphan Drug Status, Accelerated Approval, Priority Review, Breakthrough Therapy (BTD) and Qualified Infectious Disease Products (QIPD). Given the heightened awareness of infectious diseases--and emerging global threats, such as resistant bacteria and Ebola—academia and industry have developed and received approval for 88 new infectious disease agents. The objective of this study was to assess the use of expedited review pathways for the 88 anti-infective agents that were approved between 2001-2020. FDA Expedited Drug Development Programs Methods We analyzed the FDA Drug Approval Database entitled, “Compilation of CDER New Molecular Entity (NME) Drug and New Biologic Approvals” for anti-infective therapies that were approved after 2000. Anti-infective therapies were defined as agents that were used to treat or prevent infectious diseases and include antibiotics, antivirals and antifungals. Our analysis focused on a comparison of the percentage of approved anti-infective agents that used each of the aforementioned designations across 2 decades (2001-2010 & 2011-2020). A drug may have one, none, or multiple of these designations. Results There were significant differences in the percentage of anti-infective agents approved with priority review, fast track and accelerated approval in 2001-2010 compared to 2011-2020 (See Results Figure 1) BTD and QIDP did not exist until 2012, thus preventing comparisons between decades. QIDP • Between 2012-2020, 16 anti-infectives have been approved with QIDP. From 2017-2020, 40% (n=10) of approved anti-infectives had QIDP. Orphan Drug Status: • Between 2017-2020, 32% of anti-infectives approved have the orphan drug designation. Comparison of FDA Expedited Drug Development Programs use between 2001-2010 and 2011-2020 Conclusion Our findings indicate Priority Review and Fast Track use has increased since 2010 among anti-infective products. Additionally, our analyses indicate that since 2017 there has been increased use of Orphan Drug Status and QIDP. However, there has been limited use of Breakthrough Therapy and Accelerated Approvals. These two pathways should be increasingly considered by academia, industry and the FDA to further expedite innovative anti-infective development. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures


2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joseph A. DiMasi ◽  
Henry G. Grabowski

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.


2009 ◽  
Vol 6 (5) ◽  
pp. 259-265 ◽  
Author(s):  
Martin E. Gutierrez ◽  
Shivaani Kummar ◽  
Giuseppe Giaccone

2012 ◽  
Vol 9 (6) ◽  
pp. 338-350 ◽  
Author(s):  
John J. Tentler ◽  
Aik Choon Tan ◽  
Colin D. Weekes ◽  
Antonio Jimeno ◽  
Stephen Leong ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document