Abstract
This data analysis examines the fulfillment of postmarketing requirements associated with drugs granted accelerated approval for oncology indications in the past 6 years.
The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) attempts to strike a balance between approving newer therapies expeditiously while assuring that patients consuming these products are not harmed with unrecognized adverse events.1 The rapidity of approving novel agents in oncology allows patients access to potentially lifesaving therapies and incentivizes investigators in academic and pharmaceutical industries to continue clinical research efforts. The FDA strives to mitigate the risk of early market entry through the use of an accelerated approval (AA) program by requiring postmarketing studies.
The data used to support AA may rely on surrogate or intermediate clinical end points that have been determined to reasonably predict clinical benefit. We aimed to examine the fulfillment of postmarketing requirements (PMRs) associated with drugs granted AA for oncology indications in the past 6 years.
Methods
We reviewed the FDA’s published Novel New Drug Summaries for all new drug applications and biologic license applications approved between January 2011 and December 2016 to identify products approved for oncology indications. Our sample excluded generic drugs, reformulations, combination products composed of 2 or more non-novel agents, and diagnostic or contrast agents. The Novel New Drug Summary reports also provided information regarding the use of expedited programs. The FDA’s PMR and Commitments database was subsequently searched for those products granted AA to identify postmarketing clinical study requirements, their projected completion dates, and current status. Moreover, the ClinicalTrials.gov website and sponsor websites were searched for information regarding the status of studies matching the description of those outlined in the FDA’s database. In cases where information derived from ClinicalTrials.gov or sponsor websites did not align with the FDA database, the most recent data was presumed correct. Finally, the Drugs@FDA database (https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/daf/) was accessed to review drug approval packages and subsequent changes to labeling, where applicable.
Results
A total of 49 novel drugs were approved for oncology indications between January 2011 and December 2016, of which 23 (47%) were granted AA. Of these, 17 (74%) had PMRs including 34 clinical trials to complete (Table). Of these 34 clinical studies, 15 (44%) have been completed, 14 (41%) are ongoing, 2 (6%) have been terminated, and 3 (9%) are pending. Of the 15 completed trials, 3 (20%) have failed, all of which were intended as confirmatory trials (for atezolizumab, nivolumab, and pembrolizumab). The 2 terminated studies (both for idelalisib) were stopped owing to significant safety concerns. One product (ponatinib) was temporarily pulled from the market, with the FDA requiring further studies, and a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy; however, the PMR clinical study eventually resumed and was completed. One ongoing trial (for olaparib) was released as a PMR by the FDA. None of the pending or ongoing studies are behind their original schedules as posted in the FDA’s PMR database.
Table. Status of 34 Accelerated-Approval Postmarketing Requirement Studies for Novel Oncology Products Approved January 2011 to December 2016.
| Studiesa | No. |
|---|---|
| Completed | |
| Successful | 12 |
| Alectinib (ALK-positive ALCL; metastatic NSCLC) | |
| Belinostat (PTCL) | |
| Blinatumomab (ALL) | |
| Brentuximab vedotin (HL) | |
| Daratumumab (2 studies: both MM) | |
| Nivolumab (advanced melanoma) | |
| Olaparib (BRCA-mutated advanced ovarian cancer) | |
| Palbociclib (ER-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer) | |
| Pembrolizumab (metastatic nonsquamous NSCLC) | |
| Ponatinib (CML and Ph-positive ALL) | |
| Rucaparib (BRCA-mutated advanced ovarian cancer) | |
| Failed | 3 |
| Atezolizumab (locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer) | |
| Nivolumab (unresectable or metastatic melanoma) | |
| Pembrolizumab (metastatic squamous cell head and neck cancer) | |
| Ongoing | |
| Recruiting | 8 |
| Atezolizumab (locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer). | |
| Idelalisib (NHL) | |
| Nivolumab (locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer) | |
| Panobinostat (MM) | |
| Pembrolizumab (3 studies: 1, unresectable or metastatic microsatellite instability–high or mismatch repair–deficient solid tumors or colorectal cancer; 1, refractory classical HL; 1, locally advanced or metastatic urothelial cancer) | |
| Rucaparib (BRCA mutated–associated advanced ovarian cancer) | |
| Active, not recruiting | 5 |
| Brentuximab vedotin (systemic ALCL) | |
| Ibrutinib (2 studies: 1, MZL; 1, MCL) | |
| Olaratumab (SST) | |
| Venetoclax (CLL) | |
| Released | 1 |
| Olaparib (BRCA-mutated advanced ovarian cancer) | |
| Pending | |
| Belinostat (PTCL) | 3 |
| Nivolumab (classical HL) | |
| Panobinostat (MM) | |
| Terminated | |
| Idelalisib (2 studies: both NHL) | 2 |
Abbreviations: ALCL, anaplastic large-cell lymphoma; ALL, acute lymphoblastic leukemia; CLL, chronic lymphocytic leukemia; CML, chronic myeloid leukemia; ER, estrogen receptor; HL, Hodgkin lymphoma; MCL, mantle cell lymphoma; MM, multiple myeloma; MZL, marginal zone lymphoma; NHL, non-Hodgkin lymphoma; NSCLC, non–small-cell lung cancer; Ph, Philadelphia chromosome; PMR, postmarketing requirements; PTCL, peripheral T-cell lymphoma; SST, soft tissue sarcoma.
Studies are identified by the respective novel oncology agent and each agent’s intended indication(s) in parentheses.
Discussion
Recently, the FDA has been criticized for its oversight of PMR clinical studies.2,3 The agency has come under fire for failure to penalize sponsors for PMR clinical studies completed late. Our own review of PMR clinical studies for novel oncology drug products granted AA within the last 6 years found that no studies were behind their original schedules. However, PMR studies identified serious safety concerns in 2 incidents that resulted in changes to the labeling for both products (idelalisib and ponatinib). In addition, our analysis identified 3 instances (20%) where confirmatory PMR clinical studies for drugs granted AA failed to meet their primary efficacy end points. To date, none of these 3 drugs have been pulled from the market. These examples underscore the importance of collecting the additional clinical safety and efficacy data outlined in the PMRs and the need for collaborative efforts between the FDA, sponsors, and investigators.
References
- 1.Jena AB, Zhang J, Lakdawalla DN. The trade-off between speed and safety in drug approvals. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3(11):1465-1466. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2.Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, White B, Moore TJ. The fate of FDA postapproval studies. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(12):1114-1117. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.US Government Accountability Office DRUG SAFETY: FDA Expedites Many Applications, But Data for Postapproval Oversight Need Improvement (GAO-16-192: Published December 15, 2015. Publicly released January 14, 2016) https://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-16-192. Accessed February 27, 2018.
