Search

Aims: Cancer drugs are increasingly approved through expedited regulatory pathways including the European conditional marketing authorization (CMA). Whether, when taking CMA post-approval confirmatory trials into account, the level of evidence and clinical benefit between CMA and standard approved (SMA) drugs differs remains unknown. Methods: We identified all CMA cancer indications converted to SMA in 2006–2020 and compared these to similar SMA indications with regard to pivotal trial and CMA post-approval confirmatory trial design, outcomes and demonstrated clinical benefit (per the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale). We tested for differences in clinical benefit and whether substantial clinical benefit was demonstrated. To account for the clinical benefit of unconverted CMA indications, we performed sensitivity analyses. Results: We included 15 SMA and 15 converted CMA cancer indications (17 remained unconverted). Approval of 11 SMA (73%) and four CMA indications (27%) was supported by a controlled trial. Improved overall survival (OS) was demonstrated for four SMA indications (27%). Improved quality of life (QoL) was demonstrated for three SMA (20%) and one CMA indication(s) (7%). Of subsequent CMA post-approval confirmatory trials, 11 were controlled (79%), one demonstrated improved OS (7%) and five improved QoL (36%). After conversion, CMA indications were associated with similar clinical benefit (P =.31) and substantial clinical benefit as SMA indications (risk ratio 1.4, 95% confidence interval 0.57–3.4). Conclusion: While CMA cancer indications are initially associated with less comprehensive evidence than SMA indications, levels of evidence and clinical benefit are similar after conversion from CMA to SMA.

This study outlines the ways in which different health technology assessment (HTA) organizations deal with uncertainty in relative effectiveness assessments (REAs), using the GRADE framework as a common reference. Guidelines regarding REA and uncertainty assessment methods and three most recent HTA reports (as of April 2020) of seven HTA organizations in Germany, England and Wales, France, the Netherlands, Europe (EUnetHTA), the USA, and Canada were included. First, it was analyzed how each organization addressed uncertainty on the following levels of evidence: (i) individual studies, (ii) body of evidence for one outcome, (iii) body of evidence across all outcomes, and (iv) added net benefit. Second, the extent to which HTA organizations considered the eight domains of certainty of evidence defined by GRADE was assessed. For individual studies, checklists were the most common approach to express uncertainty (4/7 organizations). Uncertainty in the body of evidence for all outcomes and in added benefit was combined in a single conclusion by five organizations. All organizations reported on at least 4/5 downgrading domains of GRADE, while the three upgrading domains were reported less. The operationalization of the assessment of multiple domains was unclear due to vague or absent guidelines. HTA organizations consider most domains of the GRADE framework, but approaches to assess uncertainty within REAs on different levels of evidence differ substantially between organizations. More alignment and guidance on the best methods to deal with uncertainty within HTA could lead to more clarity for stakeholders and to more aligned reimbursement recommendations.

There is a growing trend for pharmaceutical companies to seek scientific advice on drug development from a Health Technology Assessment (HTA) perspective, to improve the efficiency of their studies, enable better trial design, and support the goals of positive HTA recommendation for reimbursement. This study uses information collected directly from companies on individual products to assess their strategies and practices for seeking HTA-related scientific advice in terms of which stakeholders to engage and for what purpose, when to seek scientific advice, and whether to implement that advice within global clinical development.

Additional file 1. Supplement – Impact of medicine shortages on patients: application on learning cases. This supplement provides details on the learning cases and the application of the framework.

Additional file 2. Framework for fostering the development, review and approval of medicines for rare and serious life-threatening conditions in the US and in the EU. Definitions: MA = Marketing Authorization, SMEs = small & medium-sized enterprises. At the time of marketing authorization LUM/IVA was withdrawn from the Community Register of designated Orphan Medicinal Products of the EU upon request of the sponsor [25]. In the EU, the designation to accelerated assessment - which shortens the review time from 210 to 150 days - was granted to IVA and LUM/IVA, while the EMA did not agree to the applicant’s request for TEZ/IVA being considered not of major public health interest [69]. The triple combination ELX/TEZ/IVA was initially reviewed under EMA’s accelerated assessment program, but since the applicant requested a 3-month clock stop during assessment - ultimately reduced to 2 months - the conditions for accelerated assessment could no longer be met [35].

Additional file 1. Algorithm adopted to classify the eligible mutations to CFTR modulators as approved by FDA and EMA. Complete phenotypic data comprehends: average sweat chloride (sweat test, ST) (mmol/L) and pancreatic insufficiency in percentage (PI%). Criteria for severe phenotype are ST ≥ 86 mmol/L, and PI% ≥ 50%. Definitions: * = if mentioned; WT-CFTR = wild-type CFTR protein; RF = residual function CFTR mutation; MF = minimal function CFTR mutation. Other: a = Uncomplete/missing phenotypic data; b = conflicting phenotypic; c = conflicting phenotypic/responsiveness data.

Aims: Cancer drugs are increasingly approved through expedited regulatory pathways including the European conditional marketing authorization (CMA). Whether, when taking CMA post-approval confirmatory trials into account, the level of evidence and clinical benefit between CMA and standard approved (SMA) drugs differs remains unknown. Methods: We identified all CMA cancer indications converted to SMA in 2006–2020 and compared these to similar SMA indications with regard to pivotal trial and CMA post-approval confirmatory trial design, outcomes and demonstrated clinical benefit (per the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale). We tested for differences in clinical benefit and whether substantial clinical benefit was demonstrated. To account for the clinical benefit of unconverted CMA indications, we performed sensitivity analyses. Results: We included 15 SMA and 15 converted CMA cancer indications (17 remained unconverted). Approval of 11 SMA (73%) and four CMA indications (27%) was supported by a controlled trial. Improved overall survival (OS) was demonstrated for four SMA indications (27%). Improved quality of life (QoL) was demonstrated for three SMA (20%) and one CMA indication(s) (7%). Of subsequent CMA post-approval confirmatory trials, 11 were controlled (79%), one demonstrated improved OS (7%) and five improved QoL (36%). After conversion, CMA indications were associated with similar clinical benefit (P =.31) and substantial clinical benefit as SMA indications (risk ratio 1.4, 95% confidence interval 0.57–3.4). Conclusion: While CMA cancer indications are initially associated with less comprehensive evidence than SMA indications, levels of evidence and clinical benefit are similar after conversion from CMA to SMA.

The summary of product characteristics (SmPCs) is an important information source that includes the adverse drug reactions (ADRs) associated with the drug. Drugs with the same mechanism of action are expected to have a similar ADR profile and thus a substantial overlap of the described ADRs in the SmPC. The objective of this study is to assess this overlap. We extracted all ADRs (excluding hypersensitivity and administration site reactions) that were described in the first and all subsequent versions of the SmPCs of all approved TNF-α inhibitors in the European Union. The Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities was used to characterize the ADRs. At the end of follow-up, 293 unique ADRs (at high level term level) were described in the SmPCs of the 5 TNF-α inhibitors. There was substantial variation in the number of ADRs described in the SmPC among the TNF-α inhibitors. Of the 293 ADRs, 133 (45%) were described in the SmPC of one TNF-α inhibitor and 39 (13%) in the SmPCs of all 5 TNF-α inhibitors. Serious ADRs and ADRs classified as important risks were described approximately four times more often in a second SmPC than ADRs not classified as such. In conclusion, the ADRs described in the SmPCs of the TNF-α inhibitors differ considerably in number and type. In order to adequately inform prescribers and patients, acquired knowledge of the safety profile of drugs with the same mechanism of action should increasingly be taken into account in the assessment of all drugs within the class.