Search

To address unresolved questions about drug safety and efficacy at the time of approval, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) may require that manufacturers conduct additional studies during the postmarketing period. As a growing proportion of new cancer drugs are approved on the basis of limited evidence of clinical benefit, timely completion of postmarketing requirements is important. We used publicly available regulatory documents to evaluate key characteristics of pivotal studies supporting EMA-approved cancer drugs from 2004-2014 and assessed completion rates of postmarketing data collection requirements after a minimum of 5 years. From 2004-2014, 79% (45/57) of EMA-approved cancer drugs had to fulfill postmarketing requirements. Pivotal trials supporting the approval of cancer drugs with postmarketing requirements were less likely to have randomized designs (41/61, 67% vs. 11/11, 100%), include an active comparator (20/61, 33% vs. 10/11, 91%), or measure overall survival as the primary study end point (18/61, 30% vs. 6/11, 55%) compared with pivotal trials for drugs without postmarketing requirements. Among 200 postmarketing requirements, almost half were designed to assess drug safety. After a minimum of 5 years, 60% (121/200) of requirements were completed, 10% (19/200) were ongoing, and 30% (60/200) were delayed. About half (40/75, 53%) of postmarketing requirements for new clinical studies were completed on time. Delays in the completion of postmarketing requirements often did not impact the likelihood of drugs receiving permanent marketing authorization (87%, 39/45) after 5 years. Our findings highlight the need for EMA to better enforce its authority to require timely completion of postmarketing requirements and studies.

The Priority Medicines (PRIME) scheme was launched by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in 2016 to expedite the development and approval of promising products targeting conditions with high unmet medical need. Manufacturers of PRIME drugs receive extensive regulatory advice on their trial designs. Until June 2018, the EMA granted PRIME status to 39 agents, evaluated in 138 studies (102 initiated before and 36 after PRIME eligibility). A third of the studies forming the basis of PRIME designation were randomized controlled trials, and a quarter of the studies were blinded. There was no statistically significant difference between trials initiated before and after PRIME designation in terms of randomized design and use of blinding. However, significantly more efficacy studies included a clinical end point after PRIME designation than before, and significantly fewer included surrogate measures alone. There were no statistically significant differences between the trial designs of PRIME and non-PRIME-designated products.

Policy Points: Randomized trials—the gold standard of evaluating effectiveness—constitute a small minority of existing evidence on agents given accelerated approval. One-third of randomized trials are in therapeutic areas outside of FDA approval and less than half evaluate the therapeutic benefits of these agents but use them instead as common backbone treatments. Agents receiving accelerated approval are often tested concurrently in several therapeutic areas. For most agents, no substantial time lag is apparent between the average start dates of randomized trials evaluating their effectiveness and those using them as part of background therapies. There appears to be a tendency for therapeutic agents receiving accelerated approval to quickly become an integral component of standard treatment, despite potential shortcomings in their evidence base. Context Therapeutic agents treating serious conditions are eligible for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) accelerated approval. The clinical evidence accrued on agents receiving accelerated approval has not been systematically evaluated. Our objective was to assess the timing and characteristics of available studies. Methods We first identified clinical studies of novel therapeutic agents receiving accelerated approval. We then (1) categorized those studies as randomized or nonrandomized, (2) explored whether they evaluated the FDA-approved indications, and (3) documented the available treatment comparisons. We also meta-analyzed the difference in start times between randomized studies that (1) did or did not evaluate approved indications and (2) were or were not designed to evaluate the agent's effectiveness. Findings In total, 37 novel therapeutic agents received accelerated approval between 2000 and 2013. Our search of ClinicalTrials.gov identified 7,757 studies, which included 1,258,315 participants. Only one-third of identified studies were randomized controlled trials. Of 1,631 randomized trials with advanced recruitment status, 906 were conducted in therapeutic areas for which agents received initial accelerated approval, 202 were in supplemental indications, and 523 were outside approved indications. Only 411 out of 906 (45.4%) trials were designed to test the effectiveness of agents that received accelerated approval (“evaluation” trials); others used these agents as common background treatment in both arms (“background” trials). There was no detectable lag between average start times of trials conducted within and outside initially approved indications. Evaluation trials started on average 1.52 years (95% CI: 0.87 to 2.17) earlier than background trials. Conclusions Cumulative evidence on agents with accelerated approvals has major limitations. Most clinical studies including these agents are small and nonrandomized, and about a third are conducted in unapproved areas, typically concurrently with those conducted in approved areas. Most randomized trials including these therapeutic agents are not designed to directly evaluate their clinical benefits but to incorporate them as standard treatment.

Rationale, aims and objectives Second-generation antipsychotic agents have varying propensities to cause weight gain, elevated lipid levels and associated long-term complications. This study evaluates the cost-effectiveness of four second-generation antipsychotic agents used in Canada for the treatment of schizophrenia (ziprasidone, olanzapine, quetiapine, risperidone) with a focus on their long-term metabolic consequences. Method Using data from the Clinical Antipsychotic Trials of Intervention Effectiveness Study, a semi-Markov model was developed to predict the incidence and associated costs of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular complications (e.g. angina, myocardial infarction, stroke, cardiovascular disease death), and acute psychiatric hospitalizations in patients with chronic schizophrenia treated over 5 years. Incremental costs per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained were calculated from the perspective of the Canadian provincial ministries of health. Scenario and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed. Results The total average cost of treatment with ziprasidone was $25 301 versus $28 563 with olanzapine, $26 233 with quetiapine and $21 831 with risperidone. Ziprasidone had the lowest predicted number of type 2 diabetes cases and cardiovascular disease events, and the highest QALY gains. Patients receiving quetiapine had the highest predicted number of hospitalizations. Ziprasidone was less costly and resulted in more QALYs compared with olanzapine and quetiapine. Compared with risperidone, ziprasidone was more costly and had higher QALYs, with an incremental cost per QALY gained of $218 060. Conclusion Compared with olanzapine and quetiapine, ziprasidone produced savings to the health care system. Although ziprasidone generated incremental expenditures versus risperidone, it resulted in more QALYs. Based on this analysis, ziprasidone treatment possesses cost and therapeutic advantages compared with olanzapine and quetiapine.