Explore the vast range of titles available.

The FDA Accelerated Approval pathway, which has been pivotal in enabling early access to new oncology drugs over the past three decades, has recently come under increased scrutiny. New draft guidance published in March 2023 offers several possible solutions to improve this pathway, with the ultimate goal of improving outcomes for patients with cancer, but might also have important limitations.

This qualitative improvement study investigates COVID-19 vaccine approvals at 3 medicine regulatory agencies in the US, EU, and Canada, characterizing and contrasting regulatory review times, and analyzing the clinical evidence supporting authorization.

The departure of the UK from the European Union (EU) and affiliated European regulatory bodies, including the European Medicines Agency, on Dec 31, 2020, has resulted in the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency becoming an independent national regulator. This change has required a fundamental transformation of the UK drug regulatory landscape, creating both opportunities and challenges for future development of oncology drugs. New UK pharmaceutical policies have sought to make the UK an attractive market for drug development and regulatory review, by offering expedited review pathways coupled to strong collaborative relations with other leading international medicines regulators, outside of Europe. Oncology is a key global therapy area for both drug development and regulatory approval, and the UK Government has been keen to show regulatory innovation and international collaboration through approval of new cancer medicines. In this Policy Review, we examine the new UK regulatory frameworks, policies, and global collaborations affecting new oncology drug approvals after departure from the EU. We explore some of the challenges that might lie ahead as the UK creates new and independent regulatory review and approval processes for the next generation of cancer medicines.

Ensuring patients have access to safe and efficacious medicines in a timely manner is an essential goal for regulatory agencies, one which has particular importance in oncology because of the substantial unmet need for new therapies. The 2 largest regulatory agencies, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA), have pivotal global roles, and their recommendations and approvals are frequently followed by other national regulators. To compare market authorization dates for new oncology therapies approved in the US and Europe over the past decade and to examine and contrast the regulatory activities of the FDA and EMA in the approval of new cancer medicines. This cross-sectional study reviewed the FDA and EMA regulatory databases to identify new oncology therapies approved in both the US and Europe from 2010 to 2019, and characterization of the timings of regulatory activities. Statistical analysis was performed from January to April 2022. Regulatory approval date, review time, submission of market authorization application, accelerated approval or conditional marketing authorization status and proportion of approvals prior to peer-reviewed publication of pivotal trial results. In total, 89 new concomitant oncology therapies were approved in the US and Europe from 2010 to 2019. The FDA approved 85 oncology therapies (95%) before European authorization and 4 therapies (5%) after. The median (IQR) delay in market authorization for new oncology therapies in Europe was 241 (150-370) days compared with the US. The median (IQR) review time was 200 (155-277) days for the FDA and 426 (358-480) days for the EMA. Sixty-four new licensing applications (72%) were submitted to the FDA first, compared with 21 (23%) to the EMA. Thirty-five oncology therapies (39%) were approved by the FDA prior to pivotal study publication, whereas only 8 (9%) by the EMA. In this cross-sectional study, new oncology therapies were approved earlier in the US than Europe. The FDA received licensing applications sooner and had shorter review times. However, more therapies were approved prior to licensing study publication, leaving uncertainty for practitioners regarding clinical utility and safety of newly approved therapies.

Canakinumab is an anti-interleukin-1β monoclonal antibody approved for use in a range of immune-related disorders. During the clinical investigation (CANTOS trial) for prevention of cardiovascular complications, therapy was linked to a reduction in both the occurrence and mortality of lung cancer. This unexpected observation fuelled the rapid initiation of four large clinical trials to evaluate potential anticancer efficacy (in combination with chemotherapy and/or immunotherapy), before fully validating these observations in a dedicated study. The first two trials (CANOPY-1 and 2) have now been reported and have both have failed to meet their primary efficacy endpoints. In this article, we explore the scientific and clinical rationale behind the development of canakinumab in oncology, the repurposing approach utilised and implications this may have for the wider drug repurposing field in the development of new cancer medicines.

BackgroundCOVID-19 continues to pose a significant healthcare challenge throughout the world. Comorbidities including diabetes and hypertension are associated with a significantly higher mortality risk. However, the effect of cirrhosis on COVID-19 outcomes has yet to be systematically assessed.ObjectivesTo assess the reported clinical outcomes of patients with cirrhosis who develop COVID-19 infection.Design/MethodPubMed and EMBASE databases were searched for studies included up to 3 February 2021. All English language primary research articles that reported clinical outcomes in patients with cirrhosis and COVID-19 were included. The study was conducted and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The risk of bias was assessed using the Quality In Prognostic Score (QUIPS) risk-of-bias assessment instrument for prognostic factor studies template. Meta-analysis was performed using Cochrane RevMan V.5.4 software using a random effects model.Results63 studies were identified reporting clinical outcomes in patients with cirrhosis and concomitant COVID-19. Meta-analysis of cohort studies which report a non-cirrhotic comparator yielded a pooled mortality OR of 2.48 (95% CI: 2.02 to 3.04). Analysis of a subgroup of studies reporting OR for mortality in hospitalised patients adjusted for significant confounders found a pooled adjusted OR 1.81 (CI: 1.36 to 2.42).ConclusionCirrhosis is associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality in COVID-19 infection compared to non-cirrhotic patients. Patients with cirrhosis should be considered for targeted public health interventions to prevent COVID-19 infection, such as shielding and prioritisation of vaccination.

Around 5% of colorectal cancers are due to mutations within DNA mismatch repair genes, resulting in Lynch syndrome (LS). These mutations have a high penetrance with early onset of colorectal cancer at a mean age of 45 years. The mainstay of surgical management is either a segmental or extensive colectomy. Currently there is no unified agreement as to which management strategy is superior due to limited conclusive empirical evidence available. A systematic review and meta- analysis to evaluate the risk of metachronous colorectal cancer (MCC) and mortality in LS following segmental and extensive colectomy. A systematic review of the PubMed database was conducted. Studies were included/ excluded based on pre-specified criteria. To assess the risk of MCC and mortality attributed to segmental or extensive colectomies, relative risks (RR) were calculated and corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CI). Publication bias was investigated using funnel plots. Data about mortality, as well as patient ascertainment [Amsterdam criteria (AC), germline mutation (GM)] were also extracted. Statistical analysis was conducted using the R program (version 3.2.3). The literature search identified 85 studies. After further analysis ten studies were eligible for inclusion in data synthesis. Pooled data identified 1389 patients followed up for a mean of 100.7 months with a mean age of onset of 45.5 years of age. A total 1119 patients underwent segmental colectomies with an absolute risk of MCC in this group of 22.4% at the end of follow-up. The 270 patients who had extensive colectomies had a MCC absolute risk of 4.7% (0% in those with a panproctocolecomy). Segmental colectomy was significantly associated with an increased relative risk of MCC (RR = 5.12; 95% CI 2.88–9.11; Fig. 1), although no significant association with mortality was identified (RR = 1.65; 95% CI 0.90–3.02). There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of MCC between AC and GM cohorts (p = 0.5, Chi-squared test). In LS, segmental colectomy results in a significant increased risk of developing MCC. Despite the choice of segmental or extensive colectomies having no statistically significant impact on mortality, the choice of initial surgical management can impact a patient’s requirement for further surgery. An extensive colectomy can result in decreased need for further surgery; reduced hospital stays and associated costs. The significant difference in the risk of MCC, following segmental or extensive colectomies should be discussed with patients when deciding appropriate management. An individualised approach should be utilised, taking into account the patient’s age, co-morbidities and genotype. In order to determine likely germline-specific effects, or a difference in survival, larger and more comprehensive studies are required.

FDA’s accelerated approval is a controversial outlier