FDA should re­assess post­mar­ket tri­als for can­cer drugs ap­proved via ac­cel­er­at­ed path­way, re­searchers say

The FDA may need to re­assess how con­fir­ma­to­ry tri­als are con­duct­ed af­ter just one-fifth of such tri­als for can­cer drug in­di­ca­tions ap­proved via the FDA’s ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval path­way have demon­strat­ed im­prove­ments in over­all sur­vival (OS), re­searchers re­port­ed Tues­day in JA­MA In­ter­nal Med­i­cine re­search.

The re­searchers looked at 93 can­cer drug in­di­ca­tions grant­ed ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval by the FDA from 1992 through May 2017, find­ing con­fir­ma­to­ry tri­als re­port­ed that 20% had im­prove­ment in over­all sur­vival, 21% had im­prove­ment in a dif­fer­ent sur­ro­gate mea­sure and 20% had im­prove­ment in the same sur­ro­gate mea­sure used in con­fir­ma­to­ry tri­als and preap­proval tri­als.

“Ap­pro­pri­ate use of sur­ro­gates for ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval re­quires an ap­pre­ci­a­tion for how the va­lid­i­ty of a sur­ro­gate can vary from one in­di­ca­tion to an­oth­er. One strat­e­gy for cap­tur­ing this vari­abil­i­ty would be to have a con­tin­u­al­ly up­dat­ed data­base of strengths of sur­ro­gate val­i­da­tion across tu­mor types as re­sults from new­er tri­als be­come avail­able,” the re­searchers from the Pro­gram on Reg­u­la­tion, Ther­a­peu­tics, and Law (POR­TAL), Di­vi­sion of Phar­ma­coepi­demi­ol­o­gy and Phar­ma­coeco­nom­ics at Brigham and Women’s Hos­pi­tal and Har­vard Med­ical School said.

They al­so called to adapt the FDA’s re­cent­ly pub­lished list of sur­ro­gate mea­sures to in­clude the strengths of sur­ro­ga­cy val­i­da­tion. “Con­firm­ing the clin­i­cal ben­e­fit of a can­cer drug us­ing the same sur­ro­gate mea­sure as the one used in its preap­proval tri­al should be re­served for when the sur­ro­gate mea­sure for a giv­en in­di­ca­tion has been val­i­dat­ed,” they added.

In ad­di­tion, the re­searchers ad­dressed po­ten­tial crit­ics who may dis­agree that it is im­por­tant to demon­strate an OS ben­e­fit to ver­i­fy a clin­i­cal ben­e­fit. They use the ex­am­ple of ima­tinib for chron­ic myeloid leukemia (CML), which was ap­proved with­out the need to re­port OS ben­e­fit in tri­als.

“How­ev­er, ima­tinib for CML is an atyp­i­cal ex­am­ple of a drug with such huge ben­e­fits that it is con­sid­ered life­sav­ing rather than life pro­long­ing,” they wrote. “Most ap­proved can­cer drugs fall in­to the lat­ter cat­e­go­ry, and as a re­sult, even im­pres­sive ef­fects on sur­ro­gate mea­sures may not trans­late to ex­tend­ed sur­vival ben­e­fits. Thus, al­though im­prove­ment in sur­ro­gate mea­sures alone may be ac­cept­able for ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval, the con­fir­ma­to­ry tri­als should ver­i­fy the clin­i­cal ben­e­fit in terms of ben­e­fits in OS, qual­i­ty of life, or a valid sur­ro­gate of ei­ther.

“Re­assess­ment of the re­quire­ments for con­fir­ma­to­ry tri­als may be nec­es­sary to ob­tain more clin­i­cal­ly mean­ing­ful in­for­ma­tion,” they added. “FDA should adopt a con­sis­tent ap­proach re­gard­ing the re­sults of con­fir­ma­to­ry tri­als to help physi­cians and pa­tients bet­ter un­der­stand what con­sti­tutes ver­i­fi­ca­tion of ben­e­fit.”

Com­men­taries

In a com­men­tary ac­com­pa­ny­ing the study and a sec­ond study on can­cer drugs ap­proved based on re­sponse rates, pro­fes­sors from the Perel­man School of Med­i­cine at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Penn­syl­va­nia crit­i­cize the FDA for call­ing the ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval process a suc­cess be­cause on­ly 5% of con­fir­ma­to­ry tri­als failed.

“FDA is con­grat­u­lat­ing it­self, us­ing its own ‘sur­ro­gate’ end points, which it can al­ter to demon­strate that its poli­cies are suc­ceed­ing. This low rate of with­drawals is not a valid mea­sure of suc­cess. There is no good rea­son for the FDA to re­ly so heav­i­ly on ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval us­ing re­sponse rates or oth­er un­re­li­able sur­ro­gate end­points,” they write.

They al­so point to three nec­es­sary pol­i­cy changes: “First, the end­point for con­fir­ma­to­ry tri­als should nev­er be the same sur­ro­gate end­point used in the orig­i­nal study, and a new sur­ro­gate end­point should be used on­ly if there is a proven cor­re­la­tion be­tween that end­point and over­all sur­vival or im­proved qual­i­ty of life. Most con­fir­ma­to­ry tri­als should use over­all sur­vival and/or qual­i­ty-of-life end­points.

“Sec­ond, ap­proval of drugs should be rapid­ly with­drawn when con­fir­ma­to­ry tri­als re­port se­ri­ous tox­ic ef­fects or do not re­port mean­ing­ful clin­i­cal im­prove­ments. Fi­nal­ly, the con­fir­ma­to­ry tri­als must be con­duct­ed prompt­ly, with cred­i­ble threats of re­versed ap­proval. Hav­ing more than a quar­ter of tri­als in­com­plete years af­ter ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval is un­ac­cept­able,” they add.

An­oth­er com­men­tary from a pro­fes­sor at Yale School of Med­i­cine and a pro­fes­sor at the Uni­ver­si­ty of Birm­ing­ham in the UK ex­plain how the find­ings from the two stud­ies “build on a grow­ing body of work, which in ag­gre­gate, demon­strate a post­mar­ket­ing eval­u­a­tion process that is serv­ing nei­ther pa­tients nor so­ci­ety well.”

As­sess­ment of the Clin­i­cal Ben­e­fit of Can­cer Drugs Re­ceiv­ing Ac­cel­er­at­ed Ap­proval

An Overview of Can­cer Drugs Ap­proved by the US Food and Drug Ad­min­is­tra­tion Based on the Sur­ro­gate End Point of Re­sponse Rate

Ac­cel­er­at­ed Ap­proval of Can­cer Drugs—Right­ing the Ship of the US Food and Drug Ad­min­is­tra­tion

An In­ter­na­tion­al Per­spec­tive on Drugs for Can­cer


First pub­lished in Reg­u­la­to­ry Fo­cus™ by the Reg­u­la­to­ry Af­fairs Pro­fes­sion­als So­ci­ety, the largest glob­al or­ga­ni­za­tion of and for those in­volved with the reg­u­la­tion of health­care prod­ucts. Click here for more in­for­ma­tion.

Im­age: Jacque­lyn Mar­tin AP

Author

Zachary Brennan

managing editor, RAPS

It’s fi­nal­ly over: Bio­gen, Ei­sai scrap big Alzheimer’s PhI­I­Is af­ter a pre­dictable BACE cat­a­stro­phe rais­es safe­ty fears

Months after analysts and investors called on Biogen and Eisai to scrap their BACE drug for Alzheimer’s and move on in the wake of a string of late-stage failures and rising safety fears, the partners have called it quits. And they said they were dropping the drug — elenbecestat — after the independent monitoring board raised concerns about…safety.

We don’t know exactly what researchers found in this latest catastrophe, but the companies noted in their release that investigators had determined that the drug was flunking the risk/benefit analysis.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 59,700+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Lisa M. DeAngelis, MSKCC

MSK picks brain can­cer ex­pert Lisa DeAn­ge­lis as its next CMO — fol­low­ing José Basel­ga’s con­tro­ver­sial ex­it

It’s official. Memorial Sloan Kettering has picked a brain cancer expert as its new physician-in-chief and CMO, replacing José Baselga, who left under a cloud after being singled out by The New York Times and ProPublica for failing to properly air his lucrative industry ties.

His replacement, who now will be in charge of MSK’s cutting-edge research work as well as the cancer care delivered by hundreds of practitioners, is Lisa M. DeAngelis. DeAngelis had been chair of the neurology department and co-founder of MSK’s brain tumor center and was moved in to the acting CMO role in the wake of Baselga’s departure.

Penn team adapts CAR-T tech, reengi­neer­ing mouse cells to treat car­diac fi­bro­sis

After establishing itself as one of the pioneer research centers in the world for CAR-T cancer therapies, creating new attack vehicles to eradicate cancer cells, a team at Penn Medicine has begun the tricky transition of using the basic technology for heart repair work.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 59,700+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Tal Zaks. Moderna

The mR­NA uni­corn Mod­er­na has more ear­ly-stage hu­man da­ta it wants to show off — reach­ing new peaks in prov­ing the po­ten­tial

The whole messenger RNA field has attracted billions of dollars in public and private investor cash gambled on the prospect of getting in on the ground floor. And this morning Boston-based Moderna, one of the leaders in the field, wants to show off a few more of the cards it has to play to prove to you that they’re really in the game.

The whole hand, of course, has yet to be dealt. And there’s no telling who gets to walk with a share of the pot. But any cards on display at this point — especially after being accused of keeping its deck under lock and key — will attract plenty of attention from some very wary, and wired, observers.

“In terms of the complexity and unmet need,” says Tal Zaks, the chief medical officer, “this is peak for what we’ve accomplished.”

Moderna has two Phase I studies it wants to talk about now.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 59,700+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

It's not per­fect, but it's a good start: FDA pan­elists large­ly en­dorse Aim­mune's peanut al­ler­gy ther­a­py

Two days after a fairly benign review from FDA staff, an independent panel of experts largely endorsed the efficacy and safety of Aimmune’s peanut allergy therapy, laying the groundwork for approval with a risk evaluation and mitigation strategy (REMS).

Traditionally, peanut allergies are managed by avoidance, but the threat of accidental exposure cannot be nullified. Some allergists have devised a way to dose patients off-label with peanut protein derived from supermarket products to wean them off their allergies. But the idea behind Aimmune’s product was to standardize the peanut protein, and track the process of desensitization — so when accidental exposure in the real world invariably occurs, patients are less likely to experience a life-threatening allergic reaction.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 59,700+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Rit­ter bombs fi­nal PhI­II for sole lac­tose in­tol­er­ance drug — shares plum­met

More than two years ago Ritter Pharmaceuticals managed to find enough silver lining in its Phase IIb/III study — after missing the top-line mark — to propel its lactose intolerance toward a confirmatory trial. But as it turned out, the enthusiasm only set the biotech and its investors up to be sorely disappointed.

This time around there’s little left to salvage. Not only did RP-G28 fail to beat placebo in reducing lactose intolerance symptoms, patients in the treatment group actually averaged a smaller improvement. On a composite score measuring symptoms like abdominal pain, cramping, bloating and gas, patients given the drug had a mean reduction of 3.159 while the placebo cohort saw a 3.420 drop on average (one-sided p-value = 0.0106).

Ear­ly snap­shot of Ad­verum's eye gene ther­a­py sparks con­cern about vi­sion loss

An early-stage update on Adverum Biotechnologies’ intravitreal gene therapy has triggered investor concern, after patients with wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD) saw their vision deteriorate, despite signs that the treatment is improving retinal anatomy.

Adverum, on Wednesday, unveiled 24-week data from the OPTIC trial of its experimental therapy, ADVM-022, in six patients who have been administered with one dose of the therapy. On average, patients in the trial had severe disease with an average of 6.2 anti-VEGF injections in the eight months prior to screening and an average annualized injection frequency of 9.3 injections.

Alex Ar­faei trades his an­a­lyst's post for a new role as biotech VC; Sanofi vet heads to Vi­for

Too often, Alex Arfaei arrived too late. 

An analyst at BMO Capital Markets, he’d meet with biotech or pharmaceutical heads for their IPO or secondary funding and his brain, trained on a biology degree and six years at Merck and Endo, would spring with questions: Why this biomarker? Why this design? Why not this endpoint? Not that he could do anything about it. These execs were coming for clinical money; their decisions had been made and finalized long ago.

Arde­lyx bags its first FDA OK for IBS, set­ting up a show­down with Al­ler­gan, Iron­wood

In the first of what it hopes will be a couple of major regulatory milestones for its new drug, Ardelyx has bagged an FDA approval to market Ibsrela (tenapanor) for irritable bowel syndrome.

The drug’s first application will be for IBS with constipation (IBS-C), inhibiting sodium-hydrogen exchanger NHE3 in the GI tract in such a way as to increase bowel movements and decrease abdominal pain. This comes on the heels of two successful Phase III trials.