Approval of Cancer Drugs With Uncertain Therapeutic Value: A Comparison of Regulatory Decisions in Europe and the United States

Abstract

r Regulatory agencies may have limited evidence on the clinical benefits and harms of new drugs when deciding whether new therapeutic agents are allowed to enter the market and under which conditions, including whether approval is granted under special regulatory pathways and obligations to address knowledge gaps through postmarketing studies are imposed. r In a matched comparison of marketing applications for cancer drugs of uncertain therapeutic value reviewed by both the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA), we found frequent discordance between the two agencies on regulatory outcomes and the use of special regulatory pathways. Both agencies often granted regular approval, even when the other agency judged there to be substantial uncertainty about drug benefits and risks that needed to be resolved through additional studies in the postmarketing period. r Postmarketing studies imposed by regulators under special approval pathways to address remaining questions of efficacy and safety may not be suited to deliver timely, confirmatory evidence due to shortcomings in study design and delays, raising questions over the suitability of the FDA's Accelerated Approval and the EMA's Conditional Marketing Authorization as tools for allowing early market access for cancer drugs while maintaining rigorous regulatory standards.

Shaping EU medicines regulation in the post COVID-19 era

“…The CMA approval route remains the most appropriate tool for fast approval of medicines with demonstrated positive benefit-risk when obtaining comprehensive data would significantly delay benefits to patients in case of unmet medical needs [6] . This remains the case despite some perceived shortcomings of the CMA approval route [ 7 , 8 ]. In the case of COVID-19 vaccines, waiting longer for a full data package would have significantly delayed the dramatic reduction in deaths and hospitalisations already observed after vaccination [9] .…”

Regulators, Pivotal Clinical Trials, and Drug Regulation in the Age of COVID-19

“…21 The second study did not find any data showing that the FDA took more risks, but did conclude that the 2 agencies approached risk differently. 22 Both studies illustrate that informal factors, while secondary to the data in driving decisions, play an important role in the drugregulation process.…”

An urgent call to raise the bar in oncology

“…Expedited drug approval pathways require post-approval studies to address evidence gaps. These are often delayed, and if performed, tend to have the same inappropriate characteristics as the pre-approval trials [ 6 , 43 , 44 , 99 – 101 ]. A recent overview of 25 years of accelerated approvals of oncology products (all based on surrogate endpoints) showed 51 of 93 initial approvals to confirm benefit in the ensuing years.…”