Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Investigational New Drugs 4/2022

Open Access 07-04-2022 | PHASE III STUDIES

Initial and supplementary indication approval of new targeted cancer drugs by the FDA, EMA, Health Canada, and TGA

Authors: Daniel Tobias Michaeli, Mackenzie Mills, Thomas Michaeli, Aurelio Miracolo, Panos Kanavos

Published in: Investigational New Drugs | Issue 4/2022

Login to get access

Summary

Background. Previous research focused on the clinical evidence supporting new cancer drugs’ initial US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval. However, targeted drugs are increasingly approved for supplementary indications of unknown evidence and benefit. Objectives. To examine the clinical trial evidence supporting new targeted cancer drugs’ initial and supplementary indication approval in the US, EU, Canada, and Australia. Data and Methods. 25 cancer drugs across 100 indications were identified with FDA approval between 2009–2019. Data on regulatory approval and clinical trials were extracted from the FDA, European Medicines Agency (EMA), Health Canada (HC), Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), and clinicaltrials.gov. Regional variations were compared with χ2-tests. Multivariate logistic regressions compared characteristics of initial and supplementary indication approvals, reporting adjusted odds ratios (AOR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Results. Out of 100 considered cancer indications, the FDA approved 96, the EMA 92, HC 86, and the TGA 83 (83%, p < 0.05). The FDA more frequently granted priority review, conditional approval, and orphan designations than other agencies. Initial approvals were more likely to receive conditional / accelerated approval (AOR: 2.69, 95%CI [1.07–6.77], p < 0.05), an orphan designation (AOR: 3.32, 95%CI [1.38–8.00], p < 0.01), be under priority review (AOR: 2.60, 95%CI [1.17–5.78], p < 0.05), and be monotherapies (AOR: 5.91, 95%CI [1.14–30.65], p < 0.05) than supplementary indications. Initial indications’ pivotal trials tended to be shorter (AOR per month: 0.96, 95%CI [0.93–0.99], p < 0.05), of lower phase design (AOR per clinical phase: 0.28, 95%CI [0.09–0.85], p < 0.05), and enroll more patients (AOR per 100 patients: 1.19, 95%CI [1.01–1.39], p < 0.05). Conclusions. Targeted cancer drugs are increasingly approved for multiple indications of varying clinical benefit. Drugs are first approved as monotherapies in rare diseases with a high unmet need. Whilst expedited regulatory review incentivizes this prioritization, indication-specific safety, efficacy, and pricing policies are necessary to reflect each indication’s differential clinical and economic value.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference IQVIA (2018) Global Oncology Trends 2018: Innovation, Expansion and Disruption. IQVIA (2018) Global Oncology Trends 2018: Innovation, Expansion and Disruption.
2.
go back to reference Hui L, von Keudell G, Wang R, Zeidan AM, Gore SD, Ma X, Davidoff AJ, Huntington SF (2017) Cost-effectiveness analysis of consolidation with brentuximab vedotin for high-risk Hodgkin lymphoma after autologous stem cell transplantation. Cancer 123:3763-3771CrossRef Hui L, von Keudell G, Wang R, Zeidan AM, Gore SD, Ma X, Davidoff AJ, Huntington SF (2017) Cost-effectiveness analysis of consolidation with brentuximab vedotin for high-risk Hodgkin lymphoma after autologous stem cell transplantation. Cancer 123:3763-3771CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Darrow JJ, Avorn J, Kesselheim AS (2020) FDA Approval and Regulation of Pharmaceuticals, 1983–2018. JAMA 323:164–176CrossRef Darrow JJ, Avorn J, Kesselheim AS (2020) FDA Approval and Regulation of Pharmaceuticals, 1983–2018. JAMA 323:164–176CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Franco P (2013) Orphan drugs: the regulatory environment. Drug Discov Today 18:163–172CrossRef Franco P (2013) Orphan drugs: the regulatory environment. Drug Discov Today 18:163–172CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Gammie T, Lu CY, Babar ZU-D (2015) Access to Orphan Drugs: A Comprehensive Review of Legislations, Regulations and Policies in 35 Countries. PloS One 10:e0140002 Gammie T, Lu CY, Babar ZU-D (2015) Access to Orphan Drugs: A Comprehensive Review of Legislations, Regulations and Policies in 35 Countries. PloS One 10:e0140002
8.
go back to reference Boucaud-Maitre D, Altman J-J (2016) Do the EMA accelerated assessment procedure and the FDA priority review ensure a therapeutic added value? 2006–2015: a cohort study. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 72:1275–1281CrossRef Boucaud-Maitre D, Altman J-J (2016) Do the EMA accelerated assessment procedure and the FDA priority review ensure a therapeutic added value? 2006–2015: a cohort study. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 72:1275–1281CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Côté A, Keating B (2012) What Is Wrong with Orphan Drug Policies? Value Health 15:1185–1191CrossRef Côté A, Keating B (2012) What Is Wrong with Orphan Drug Policies? Value Health 15:1185–1191CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Michaeli DT, Yagmur HB, Achmadeev T, Michaeli T (2022) Valuation and Returns of Drug Development Companies: Lessons for Bioentrepreneurs and Investors. Ther Innov Regul Sci 56:313–322CrossRef Michaeli DT, Yagmur HB, Achmadeev T, Michaeli T (2022) Valuation and Returns of Drug Development Companies: Lessons for Bioentrepreneurs and Investors. Ther Innov Regul Sci 56:313–322CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Cole A, Towse A, Lorgelly P, Sullivan R (2018) Economics of Innovative Payment Models Compared with Single Pricing of Pharmaceuticals. Office of Health Economics, London Cole A, Towse A, Lorgelly P, Sullivan R (2018) Economics of Innovative Payment Models Compared with Single Pricing of Pharmaceuticals. Office of Health Economics, London
13.
go back to reference Mestre-Ferrandiz J, Towse A, Dellamano R, Pistollato M (2015) Multi-indication Pricing: Pros, Cons and Applicability to the UK. Office of Health Economics, London Mestre-Ferrandiz J, Towse A, Dellamano R, Pistollato M (2015) Multi-indication Pricing: Pros, Cons and Applicability to the UK. Office of Health Economics, London
14.
go back to reference Chandra A, Garthwaite C (2017) The Economics of Indication-Based Drug Pricing. N Engl J Med 377:103–106CrossRef Chandra A, Garthwaite C (2017) The Economics of Indication-Based Drug Pricing. N Engl J Med 377:103–106CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Pearson SD, Dreitlein WB, Henshall C, Towse A (2017) Indication-specific pricing of pharmaceuticals in the US healthcare system. J Comp Eff Res 6:397–404CrossRef Pearson SD, Dreitlein WB, Henshall C, Towse A (2017) Indication-specific pricing of pharmaceuticals in the US healthcare system. J Comp Eff Res 6:397–404CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Campillo-Artero C, Puig-Junoy J, Segú-Tolsa JL, Trapero-Bertran M (2020) Price Models for Multi-indication Drugs: A Systematic Review. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 18:47–56CrossRef Campillo-Artero C, Puig-Junoy J, Segú-Tolsa JL, Trapero-Bertran M (2020) Price Models for Multi-indication Drugs: A Systematic Review. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 18:47–56CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Meher BR, Padhy BM (2020) Indication-specific pricing of drugs: a utopian idea, a pragmatic proposition or unrealistic in economically constrained settings? Trop Doct 50:157–159CrossRef Meher BR, Padhy BM (2020) Indication-specific pricing of drugs: a utopian idea, a pragmatic proposition or unrealistic in economically constrained settings? Trop Doct 50:157–159CrossRef
19.
go back to reference Mestre-Ferrandiz J, Zozaya N, Alcalá B, Hidalgo-Vega Á (2018) Multi-Indication Pricing: Nice in Theory but Can it Work in Practice? Pharmacoeconomics 36:1407–1420CrossRef Mestre-Ferrandiz J, Zozaya N, Alcalá B, Hidalgo-Vega Á (2018) Multi-Indication Pricing: Nice in Theory but Can it Work in Practice? Pharmacoeconomics 36:1407–1420CrossRef
20.
go back to reference Neri M, Towse A, Garau M (2018) Multi-Indication Pricing (MIP): Practical Solutions and Steps to Move Forward. Office of Health Economics, London Neri M, Towse A, Garau M (2018) Multi-Indication Pricing (MIP): Practical Solutions and Steps to Move Forward. Office of Health Economics, London
21.
go back to reference Towse A, Cole A, Zamora B (2018) The Debate on Indication-Based Pricing in the U.S. and Five Major European Countries. Office of Health Economics, London Towse A, Cole A, Zamora B (2018) The Debate on Indication-Based Pricing in the U.S. and Five Major European Countries. Office of Health Economics, London
22.
go back to reference Persson U, Norlin JM (2018) Multi-indication and Combination Pricing and Reimbursement of Pharmaceuticals: Opportunities for Improved Health Care through Faster Uptake of New Innovations. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 16:157–165CrossRef Persson U, Norlin JM (2018) Multi-indication and Combination Pricing and Reimbursement of Pharmaceuticals: Opportunities for Improved Health Care through Faster Uptake of New Innovations. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 16:157–165CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Yeung K, Li M, Carlson JJ (2017) Using Performance-Based Risk-Sharing Arrangements to Address Uncertainty in Indication-Based Pricing. J Manag Care Spec Pharm 23:1010–1015PubMed Yeung K, Li M, Carlson JJ (2017) Using Performance-Based Risk-Sharing Arrangements to Address Uncertainty in Indication-Based Pricing. J Manag Care Spec Pharm 23:1010–1015PubMed
24.
go back to reference Garrison LP, Veenstra DL (2009) The economic value of innovative treatments over the product life cycle: the case of targeted trastuzumab therapy for breast cancer. Value Health J Int Soc Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res 12:1118–1123CrossRef Garrison LP, Veenstra DL (2009) The economic value of innovative treatments over the product life cycle: the case of targeted trastuzumab therapy for breast cancer. Value Health J Int Soc Pharmacoeconomics Outcomes Res 12:1118–1123CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Bach PB (2014) Indication-Specific Pricing for Cancer Drugs. JAMA 312:1629–1630CrossRef Bach PB (2014) Indication-Specific Pricing for Cancer Drugs. JAMA 312:1629–1630CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Ladanie A, Schmitt AM, Speich B et al (2020) Clinical Trial Evidence Supporting US Food and Drug Administration Approval of Novel Cancer Therapies Between 2000 and 2016. JAMA Netw Open 3:e2024406 Ladanie A, Schmitt AM, Speich B et al (2020) Clinical Trial Evidence Supporting US Food and Drug Administration Approval of Novel Cancer Therapies Between 2000 and 2016. JAMA Netw Open 3:e2024406
27.
go back to reference Salas-Vega S, Iliopoulos O, Mossialos E (2017) Assessment of Overall Survival, Quality of Life, and Safety Benefits Associated With New Cancer Medicines. JAMA Oncol 3:382–390CrossRef Salas-Vega S, Iliopoulos O, Mossialos E (2017) Assessment of Overall Survival, Quality of Life, and Safety Benefits Associated With New Cancer Medicines. JAMA Oncol 3:382–390CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Pregibon D (1979) Data Analytic Methods for Generalized Linear Models. University of Toronto Pregibon D (1979) Data Analytic Methods for Generalized Linear Models. University of Toronto
33.
go back to reference Vokinger KN, Kesselheim AS (2019) Application of orphan drug designation to cancer treatments (2008–2017): a comprehensive and comparative analysis of the USA and EU. BMJ Open 9:e028634 Vokinger KN, Kesselheim AS (2019) Application of orphan drug designation to cancer treatments (2008–2017): a comprehensive and comparative analysis of the USA and EU. BMJ Open 9:e028634
34.
go back to reference Alqahtani S, Seoane-Vazquez E, Rodriguez-Monguio R, Eguale T (2015) Priority review drugs approved by the FDA and the EMA: time for international regulatory harmonization of pharmaceuticals? Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 24:709–715CrossRef Alqahtani S, Seoane-Vazquez E, Rodriguez-Monguio R, Eguale T (2015) Priority review drugs approved by the FDA and the EMA: time for international regulatory harmonization of pharmaceuticals? Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 24:709–715CrossRef
35.
go back to reference Herkes GK (2016) Orphan drugs in Australia. Expert Opin Orphan Drugs 4:1195–1197CrossRef Herkes GK (2016) Orphan drugs in Australia. Expert Opin Orphan Drugs 4:1195–1197CrossRef
37.
go back to reference Nguengang Wakap S, Lambert DM, Olry A, Rodwell C, Gueydan C, Lanneau V, Murphy D, Le Cam Y, Rath A (2020) Estimating cumulative point prevalence of rare diseases: analysis of the Orphanet database. Eur J Hum Genet 28:165–173CrossRef Nguengang Wakap S, Lambert DM, Olry A, Rodwell C, Gueydan C, Lanneau V, Murphy D, Le Cam Y, Rath A (2020) Estimating cumulative point prevalence of rare diseases: analysis of the Orphanet database. Eur J Hum Genet 28:165–173CrossRef
38.
go back to reference Seoane-Vazquez E, Rodriguez-Monguio R, Szeinbach SL, Visaria J (2008) Incentives for orphan drug research and development in the United States. Orphanet J Rare Dis 3:33CrossRef Seoane-Vazquez E, Rodriguez-Monguio R, Szeinbach SL, Visaria J (2008) Incentives for orphan drug research and development in the United States. Orphanet J Rare Dis 3:33CrossRef
39.
go back to reference Meekings KN, Williams CSM, Arrowsmith JE (2012) Orphan drug development: an economically viable strategy for biopharma R&D. Drug Discov Today 17:660–664CrossRef Meekings KN, Williams CSM, Arrowsmith JE (2012) Orphan drug development: an economically viable strategy for biopharma R&D. Drug Discov Today 17:660–664CrossRef
40.
go back to reference Mills M, Michaeli D, Miracolo A, Kanavos P (2020) HTA4 Clinical Development and HTA Approval of MULTI-Indication Oncology Products: Evidence from Germany, France, England, Scotland, the US, Canada, and Australia. Value Health 23:S403CrossRef Mills M, Michaeli D, Miracolo A, Kanavos P (2020) HTA4 Clinical Development and HTA Approval of MULTI-Indication Oncology Products: Evidence from Germany, France, England, Scotland, the US, Canada, and Australia. Value Health 23:S403CrossRef
41.
go back to reference Michaeli D, Mills M, Kanavos P (2020) PCN251 An Econometric Analysis of Launch Determinants for MULTI-Indication Oncology Products. Value Health 23:S467CrossRef Michaeli D, Mills M, Kanavos P (2020) PCN251 An Econometric Analysis of Launch Determinants for MULTI-Indication Oncology Products. Value Health 23:S467CrossRef
42.
go back to reference Simoens S (2011) Pricing and reimbursement of orphan drugs: the need for more transparency. Orphanet J Rare Dis 6:42CrossRef Simoens S (2011) Pricing and reimbursement of orphan drugs: the need for more transparency. Orphanet J Rare Dis 6:42CrossRef
43.
go back to reference Tordrup D, Tzouma V, Kanavos P (2014) Orphan drug considerations in Health Technology Assessment in eight European countries. Rare Dis Orphan Drugs 1 Tordrup D, Tzouma V, Kanavos P (2014) Orphan drug considerations in Health Technology Assessment in eight European countries. Rare Dis Orphan Drugs 1
44.
go back to reference Nicod E, Kanavos P (2016) Scientific and Social Value Judgements for Orphan Drugs in Health Technology Assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 32:218–232CrossRef Nicod E, Kanavos P (2016) Scientific and Social Value Judgements for Orphan Drugs in Health Technology Assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 32:218–232CrossRef
45.
go back to reference Tambuyzer E (2010) Rare diseases, orphan drugs and their regulation: questions and misconceptions. Nat Rev Drug Discov 9:921–929CrossRef Tambuyzer E (2010) Rare diseases, orphan drugs and their regulation: questions and misconceptions. Nat Rev Drug Discov 9:921–929CrossRef
46.
go back to reference Cherny NI, Sullivan R, Dafni U, Kerst JM, Sobrero A, Zielinski C, de Vries EGE, Piccart MJ (2015) A standardised, generic, validated approach to stratify the magnitude of clinical benefit that can be anticipated from anti-cancer therapies: the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). Ann Oncol 26:1547–1573CrossRef Cherny NI, Sullivan R, Dafni U, Kerst JM, Sobrero A, Zielinski C, de Vries EGE, Piccart MJ (2015) A standardised, generic, validated approach to stratify the magnitude of clinical benefit that can be anticipated from anti-cancer therapies: the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). Ann Oncol 26:1547–1573CrossRef
47.
go back to reference Paggio JCD (2017) Addressing the quality of the ESMO-MCBS. Ann Oncol 28:1406CrossRef Paggio JCD (2017) Addressing the quality of the ESMO-MCBS. Ann Oncol 28:1406CrossRef
48.
go back to reference Guo R-J, Lev B, Zhou N (2005) The Valuation of Biotech IPOs. J Account Audit Finance 20:423–459CrossRef Guo R-J, Lev B, Zhou N (2005) The Valuation of Biotech IPOs. J Account Audit Finance 20:423–459CrossRef
49.
go back to reference Mills M, Miracolo A, Michaeli D, Kanavos P (2020) PNS73 Payer Perspectives on Pricing of MULTI-Indication Products. Value Health 23:S655 Mills M, Miracolo A, Michaeli D, Kanavos P (2020) PNS73 Payer Perspectives on Pricing of MULTI-Indication Products. Value Health 23:S655
Metadata
Title
Initial and supplementary indication approval of new targeted cancer drugs by the FDA, EMA, Health Canada, and TGA
Authors
Daniel Tobias Michaeli
Mackenzie Mills
Thomas Michaeli
Aurelio Miracolo
Panos Kanavos
Publication date
07-04-2022
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Investigational New Drugs / Issue 4/2022
Print ISSN: 0167-6997
Electronic ISSN: 1573-0646
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10637-022-01227-5

Other articles of this Issue 4/2022

Investigational New Drugs 4/2022 Go to the issue
Webinar | 19-02-2024 | 17:30 (CET)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on antibody–drug conjugates in cancer

Antibody–drug conjugates (ADCs) are novel agents that have shown promise across multiple tumor types. Explore the current landscape of ADCs in breast and lung cancer with our experts, and gain insights into the mechanism of action, key clinical trials data, existing challenges, and future directions.

Dr. Véronique Diéras
Prof. Fabrice Barlesi
Developed by: Springer Medicine