Real-World Evidence in Support of Oncology Product Registration: A Systematic Review of New Drug Application and Biologics License Application Approvals from 2015-2020

被引:33
作者
Arondekar, Bhakti [1 ]
Duh, Mei Sheng [2 ]
Bhak, Rachel H. [2 ]
DerSarkissian, Maral [2 ,3 ]
Huynh, Lynn [2 ]
Wang, Kelsey [2 ]
Wojciehowski, John [2 ]
Wu, Melody
Wornson, Bryon [1 ]
Niyazov, Alexander [4 ]
Demetri, George D. [5 ,6 ]
机构
[1] Pfizer Inc, 500 Arcola Rd, Collegeville, PA 19426 USA
[2] Anal Grp Inc, Boston, MA USA
[3] Univ Calif Los Angeles, Fielding Sch Publ Hlth, Los Angeles, CA USA
[4] Pfizer Inc, New York, NY USA
[5] Harvard Med Sch, Dana Farber Canc Inst, Boston, MA 02115 USA
[6] Harvard Med Sch, Ludwig Ctr Harvard, Boston, MA 02115 USA
关键词
D O I
10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-21-2639
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Real-world evidence (RWE) has garnered great interest to support registration of new therapies and label expansions by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Currently, practical insights on the design and analysis of regulatory-grade RWE are lacking. This study aimed to analyze attributes of real-world studies in FDA's decision-making and characteristics of full versus accelerated approvals through a systematic review of oncology product approvals. Oncology approvals from 2015 to 2020 were reviewed from FDA.gov . Applications were screened for inclusion of RWE, and variables related to regulatory designations of the application, pivotal clinical trial, and real-world studies were extracted. FDA feedback was reviewed to identify takeaways and best practices for adequate RWE. Among 133 original and 573 supplemental approvals for oncology, 11 and 2, respectively, included RWE; none predated 2017. All real-world studies were retrospective in nature; the most common data source was chart review, and the most common primary endpoint was overall response rate, as in the pivotal trial. The FDA critiqued the lack of the following: a prespecified study protocol, inclusion/exclusion criteria matching to the trial, comparability of endpoint definitions, methods to minimize confounding and address unmeasured confounding, and plans to handle missing data. All full (versus accelerated) approvals shared the following characteristics: high magnitude of efficacy in the pivotal trial; designations of orphan disease, breakthrough therapy, and priority review; and no advisory committee meeting held. This study found that findings from external control real-world studies complemented efficacy data from single-arm trials in successful oncology product approvals.
引用
收藏
页码:27 / 35
页数:9
相关论文
共 15 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2013, Best practices for conducting and reporting pharmacoepidemiologic safety studies using electronic healthcare data sets
[2]  
Duke University Margolis Center for Health Policy, 2017, FRAMEWORK REGULATORY
[3]   Efficacy, Safety, and Regulatory Approval of Food and Drug Administration-Designated Breakthrough and Nonbreakthrough Cancer Medicines [J].
Hwang, Thomas J. ;
Franklin, Jessica M. ;
Chen, Christopher T. ;
Lauffenburger, Julie C. ;
Gyawali, Bishal ;
Kesselheim, Aaron S. ;
Darrow, Jonathan J. .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2018, 36 (18) :1805-+
[4]  
United States Food & Drug Administration, 2020, DRUGS FDA FDA APPR D
[5]  
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 2019, SUBM DOC US REALW DA
[6]  
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 2018, FRAM FDAS REALWORLD
[7]  
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 2020, BIOL APPR YEAR
[8]  
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 2019, DRUG APPR PACK ROZLY
[9]  
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 2018, US EL HLTH REC DAT C
[10]  
US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), 2019, NDA BLA CAL YEAR APP