Explore the vast range of titles available.

Objective To determine the availability of data on overall survival and quality of life benefits of cancer drugs approved in Europe.Design Retrospective cohort study.Setting Publicly accessible regulatory and scientific reports on cancer approvals by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) from 2009 to 2013.Main outcome measures Pivotal and postmarketing trials of cancer drugs according to their design features (randomisation, crossover, blinding), comparators, and endpoints. Availability and magnitude of benefit on overall survival or quality of life determined at time of approval and after market entry. Validated European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS) used to assess the clinical value of the reported gains in published studies of cancer drugs.Results From 2009 to 2013, the EMA approved the use of 48 cancer drugs for 68 indications. Of these, eight indications (12%) were approved on the basis of a single arm study. At the time of market approval, there was significant prolongation of survival in 24 of the 68 (35%). The magnitude of the benefit on overall survival ranged from 1.0 to 5.8 months (median 2.7 months). At the time of market approval, there was an improvement in quality of life in seven of 68 indications (10%). Out of 44 indications for which there was no evidence of a survival gain at the time of market authorisation, in the subsequent postmarketing period there was evidence for extension of life in three (7%) and reported benefit on quality of life in five (11%). Of the 68 cancer indications with EMA approval, and with a median of 5.4 years’ follow-up (minimum 3.3 years, maximum 8.1 years), only 35 (51%) had shown a significant improvement in survival or quality of life, while 33 (49%) remained uncertain. Of 23 indications associated with a survival benefit that could be scored with the ESMO-MCBS tool, the benefit was judged to be clinically meaningful in less than half (11/23, 48%).Conclusions This systematic evaluation of oncology approvals by the EMA in 2009-13 shows that most drugs entered the market without evidence of benefit on survival or quality of life. At a minimum of 3.3 years after market entry, there was still no conclusive evidence that these drugs either extended or improved life for most cancer indications. When there were survival gains over existing treatment options or placebo, they were often marginal.

The FDA approved 53 novel drugs in 2020, the second highest count in over 20 years.The FDA approved 53 novel drugs in 2020, the second highest count in over 20 years.

The substantial investments in human genetics and genomics made over the past three decades were anticipated to result in many innovative therapies. Here we investigate the extent to which these expectations have been met, excluding cancer treatments. In our search, we identified 40 germline genetic observations that led directly to new targets and subsequently to novel approved therapies for 36 rare and 4 common conditions. The median time between genetic target discovery and drug approval was 25 years. Most of the genetically driven therapies for rare diseases compensate for disease-causing loss-of-function mutations. The therapies approved for common conditions are all inhibitors designed to pharmacologically mimic the natural, disease-protective effects of rare loss-of-function variants. Large biobank-based genetic studies have the power to identify and validate a large number of new drug targets. Genetics can also assist in the clinical development phase of drugs—for example, by selecting individuals who are most likely to respond to investigational therapies. This approach to drug development requires investments into large, diverse cohorts of deeply phenotyped individuals with appropriate consent for genetically assisted trials. A robust framework that facilitates responsible, sustainable benefit sharing will be required to capture the full potential of human genetics and genomics and bring effective and safe innovative therapies to patients quickly. This Review provides a perspective on the development of non-cancer therapies based on human genetics studies and suggests measures that can be taken to streamline the pipeline from initial genetic discovery to approved therapy.

Biologic therapies have revolutionized treatment of a number of diseases. Patents and exclusivity for a number of biologics are expiring. This has created the opportunity for the development and approval of biosimilars. Biosimilars are biologic products developed using a step-wise approach to result in a biologic that demonstrates no clinically meaningful differences in terms of quality attributes, efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity compared with an existing licensed, originator biologic. As more biosimilars receive regulatory approval and reach the market, it is increasingly important for healthcare providers to understand the terminology about biosimilars. To help support healthcare providers, the aim of this manuscript is to (i) support understanding of the language of biosimilars, (ii) review the regulatory and manufacturing processes employed in developing a biosimilar, and (iii) provide information for clinical decisions about the use of biosimilars. Because biologics are large, structurally complex proteins, biosimilars cannot be considered generic equivalents to the originator. Biosimilars are developed and evaluated using rigorous processes involving detailed analytical and functional studies, nonclinical assessments, and clinical trials. Clinical studies evaluating the potential biosimilar are designed differently than those for approval of a novel biologic since the aim is merely to confirm similar efficacy and safety and not to demonstrate clinical benefit per se. Extrapolation of data may be used to grant approval of biosimilars in indications not directly evaluated in clinical studies using the biosimilar.

The FDA has granted accelerated approval to aducanumab (Aduhelm) for the treatment of Alzheimer disease with an overly broad label. The decision disregarded key aspects of scientific process and risks eroding public trust in research, regulatory science and the FDA.

Recent rapid biotechnological breakthroughs have led to the identification of complex and unique molecular features that drive malignancies. Precision medicine has exploited next-generation sequencing and matched targeted therapy/immunotherapy deployment to successfully transform the outlook for several fatal cancers. Tumor and liquid biopsy genomic profiling and transcriptomic, immunomic, and proteomic interrogation can now all be leveraged to optimize therapy. Multiple new trial designs, including basket and umbrella trials, master platform trials, and N-of-1 patient-centric studies, are beginning to supplant standard phase I, II, and III protocols, allowing for accelerated drug evaluation and approval and molecular-based individualized treatment. Furthermore, real-world data, as well as exploitation of digital apps and structured observational registries, and the utilization of machine learning and/or artificial intelligence, may further accelerate knowledge acquisition. Overall, clinical trials have evolved, shifting from tumor type-centered to gene-directed and histology-agnostic trials, with innovative adaptive designs and personalized combination treatment strategies tailored to individual biomarker profiles. Some, but not all, novel trials now demonstrate that matched therapy correlates with superior outcomes compared to non-matched therapy across tumor types and in specific cancers. To further improve the precision medicine paradigm, the strategy of matching drugs to patients based on molecular features should be implemented earlier in the disease course, and cancers should have comprehensive multi-omic (genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, immunomic) tumor profiling. To overcome cancer complexity, moving from drug-centric to patient-centric individualized combination therapy is critical. This review focuses on the design, advantages, limitations, and challenges of a spectrum of clinical trial designs in the era of precision oncology.

Fewer than half of new drugs have data on their comparative benefits and harms against existing treatment options at the time of regulatory approval in Europe and the USA. Even when active-comparator trials exist, they might not produce meaningful data to inform decisions in clinical practice and health policy. The uncertainty associated with the paucity of well designed active-comparator trials has been compounded by legal and regulatory changes in Europe and the USA that have created a complex mix of expedited programmes aimed at facilitating faster access to new drugs. Comparative evidence generation is even sparser for medical devices. Some have argued that the current process for regulatory approval needs to generate more evidence that is useful for patients, clinicians, and payers in health-care systems. We propose a set of five key principles relevant to the European Medicines Agency, European medical device regulatory agencies, US Food and Drug Administration, as well as payers, that we believe will provide the necessary incentives for pharmaceutical and device companies to generate comparative data on drugs and devices and assure timely availability of evidence that is useful for decision making. First, labelling should routinely inform patients and clinicians whether comparative data exist on new products. Second, regulators should be more selective in their use of programmes that facilitate drug and device approvals on the basis of incomplete benefit and harm data. Third, regulators should encourage the conduct of randomised trials with active comparators. Fourth, regulators should use prospectively designed network meta-analyses based on existing and future randomised trials. Last, payers should use their policy levers and negotiating power to incentivise the generation of comparative evidence on new and existing drugs and devices, for example, by explicitly considering proven added benefit in pricing and payment decisions.