Postmarketing requirements for drugs approved by the Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of solid tumor cancers, 2010-2019.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e13597-e13597
Author(s):  
Yolaine Jeune-Smith ◽  
Marjorie E. Zettler ◽  
Stephanie Fortier ◽  
Skyler Rupard ◽  
Ajeet Gajra ◽  
...  

e13597 Background: In recent years, efforts to improve the efficiency and speed of drug development and approval have driven a surge of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals for cancer drugs. For many cancer therapies, the serious or life-threatening nature of the condition and unmet medical need confers eligibility for expedited programs. Many cancers are also rare diseases, and the increasing use of precision medicine principles to define cancer types further contributes to smaller trial sizes. With limited clinical evidence at the time of approval, cancer drugs may be subject to a greater burden of postmarketing requirements (PMRs). We analyzed PMRs for solid tumor therapies approved by the FDA over the past decade. Methods: The FDA’s novel drug approvals (2010-2019) were reviewed to identify drugs receiving primary approval for solid tumor indications. Approval letters were accessed via the Drugs@FDA database and analyzed for PMRs required under accelerated approval (AA), the Pediatric Research Equity Act (PREA) and the FDA Amendments Act of 2007 Section 505(o) (505(o)). Data are presented using descriptive statistics. Results: A total of 60 drugs received primary approval from the FDA for solid tumor indications between 2010 and 2019 (20 [33.3%] received AA, 33 [55.0%] received orphan designation, and 45 [75.0%] received Fast Track or Breakthrough Therapy designation). The proportion of drugs receiving AA doubled between the period 2010-2014 and 2015-2019 (Table). Of the 60 drugs approved, 52 (86.7%) received a total of 180 PMRs. All 20 drugs approved under AA received PMRs, with a total of 25 PMRs issued under AA. Data from new clinical trials were required for 22 (88.0%) of the 25 PMRs. No PMRs were issued under PREA. Additional safety data required under 505(o) comprised the largest proportion of PMRs; 155 total PMRs (86.1% of all PMRs) were issued for 45 (75.0%) of the drug approvals. Pharmacokinetic or other clinical safety data were required for 96 (61.9%) of the 155 PMRs. Conclusions: More than three-quarters of the cancer drugs approved for the treatment of solid tumors in the past 10 years were issued PMRs, with the majority requiring new safety data. The results of this study indicate that PMRs represent a critical mechanism by which FDA collects safety and efficacy for solid tumor therapies, and underscore the importance of PMR fulfillment. Post-marketing requirements (PMRs) for solid tumor drugs approved 2010-2019.[Table: see text]

2020 ◽  
Vol 0 ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
C. B. Sindhu ◽  
Sandhya George ◽  
Anita Sankar ◽  
Valsa Stephen

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and its related drug, chloroquine, have been under use for malaria for the past 75 years. Its use for malaria, rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus are Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved. These drugs have immunomodulatory and antiviral actions. More and more indications for this drug are being explored. These drugs are still under study as possible treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 but at present FDA has revoked its emergency use authorization for these two drugs. However, in many other indications, HCQ is a valuable drug but monitoring for adverse effects is mandatory.


2020 ◽  
Vol 173 (4) ◽  
pp. 320-322 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samer Al Hadidi ◽  
Martha Mims ◽  
Courtney Nicole Miller-Chism ◽  
Rammurti Kamble

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (11) ◽  
pp. e2024406
Author(s):  
Aviv Ladanie ◽  
Andreas M. Schmitt ◽  
Benjamin Speich ◽  
Florian Naudet ◽  
Arnav Agarwal ◽  
...  

2018 ◽  
Vol 36 (18) ◽  
pp. 1805-1812 ◽  
Author(s):  
Thomas J. Hwang ◽  
Jessica M. Franklin ◽  
Christopher T. Chen ◽  
Julie C. Lauffenburger ◽  
Bishal Gyawali ◽  
...  

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.


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.


2018 ◽  
Vol 56 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elitza S. Theel ◽  
D. Jane Hata

ABSTRACT Since the emergence and dissemination of Zika virus (ZIKV) in late 2015, our understanding of the biology, transmission, clinical disease, and potential sequelae associated with infection has markedly expanded. Over the past 2 years, the number of diagnostic assays for ZIKV has increased from none in 2015 to 5 serological assays and 14 molecular assays in 2017, all with emergency use authorization granted through the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Here we provide an update on ZIKV, addressing what we have collectively learned since the outbreak began, including a summary of currently available diagnostic assays for this virus.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document