Assessment of Coverage in England of Cancer Drugs Qualifying for US Food and Drug Administration Accelerated Approval
Numerous cancer drugs have received accelerated approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) based on clinical trial outcomes that are otherwise not acceptable for traditional FDA approval; the accelerated approval process allows outcomes based on surrogate measures that are only reasonab...
Uložené v:
| Vydané v: | JAMA internal medicine Ročník 181; číslo 4; s. 490 |
|---|---|
| Hlavní autori: | , , , , |
| Médium: | Journal Article |
| Jazyk: | English |
| Vydavateľské údaje: |
United States
01.04.2021
|
| Predmet: | |
| ISSN: | 2168-6114, 2168-6114 |
| On-line prístup: | Zistit podrobnosti o prístupe |
| Tagy: |
Pridať tag
Žiadne tagy, Buďte prvý, kto otaguje tento záznam!
|
| Abstract | Numerous cancer drugs have received accelerated approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) based on clinical trial outcomes that are otherwise not acceptable for traditional FDA approval; the accelerated approval process allows outcomes based on surrogate measures that are only reasonably likely to estimate clinical benefits. In England, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) evaluates the clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of drugs after they have received regulatory approval and issues recommendations regarding their coverage in the National Health Service (NHS). However, the level of concordance between European and FDA decision-making in the context of drugs qualifying for FDA accelerated approval is unknown.
To compare FDA accelerated approval decisions for cancer drugs with NICE coverage decisions.
This retrospective cohort study compared cancer drug indications that received FDA accelerated approval from December 11, 1992, to May 31, 2017, with the same set of drug indication pairs in England until August 31, 2019. Data from European Public Assessment Reports developed by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and public appraisal documents from NICE were used to determine NHS coverage recommendations. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) public appraisal documents were analyzed for drug indications, characteristics of clinical evidence, cost-effectiveness, and coverage decisions. Data were analyzed from September 1 to December 31, 2019.
Cancer drug indication coverage decision by NICE.
From 1992 to 2017, 93 cancer drug indications received FDA accelerated approval, 6 of which were subsequently withdrawn, leaving 87 cancer drug indications on the market. As of August 2019, 5 of these indications had been withdrawn or denied market authorization for the European Union by the EMA. From the cohort of EMA-approved drugs, an additional 7 drug indications were not recommended by NICE and were not deemed to have sufficient clinical benefits or cost-effectiveness to warrant mandatory public coverage in England; 5 drugs were not recommended based on clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness criteria, and 2 drugs were not recommended based on cost-effectiveness criteria alone. In total, 12 drug indications were not recommended for public coverage in the NHS, and an additional 30 drug indications were not reviewed by either the EMA (14 drug indications) or NICE (16 drug indications) by the study end date. Most drug indications recommended by NICE were conditional on the negotiation of additional confidential discounts, the imposition of restricted indications that limited prescribing to specific patient subgroups, or the collection of additional data. Among the 9 drug indications with evidence of overall survival benefit at the time of NICE review, 2 were not recommended for public funding based on cost-effectiveness criteria.
In this cohort study, 30 cancer drug indications that were granted accelerated approval by the FDA were not subsequently reviewed by either European regulators or NICE, and 12 drugs were denied authorization or coverage owing to insufficient safety, clinical efficacy, or cost-effectiveness. National Health Service coverage of cancer drugs given FDA accelerated approval commonly required additional price concessions, restrictions to approved indications, or review of additional data. |
|---|---|
| AbstractList | Numerous cancer drugs have received accelerated approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) based on clinical trial outcomes that are otherwise not acceptable for traditional FDA approval; the accelerated approval process allows outcomes based on surrogate measures that are only reasonably likely to estimate clinical benefits. In England, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) evaluates the clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of drugs after they have received regulatory approval and issues recommendations regarding their coverage in the National Health Service (NHS). However, the level of concordance between European and FDA decision-making in the context of drugs qualifying for FDA accelerated approval is unknown.
To compare FDA accelerated approval decisions for cancer drugs with NICE coverage decisions.
This retrospective cohort study compared cancer drug indications that received FDA accelerated approval from December 11, 1992, to May 31, 2017, with the same set of drug indication pairs in England until August 31, 2019. Data from European Public Assessment Reports developed by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and public appraisal documents from NICE were used to determine NHS coverage recommendations. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) public appraisal documents were analyzed for drug indications, characteristics of clinical evidence, cost-effectiveness, and coverage decisions. Data were analyzed from September 1 to December 31, 2019.
Cancer drug indication coverage decision by NICE.
From 1992 to 2017, 93 cancer drug indications received FDA accelerated approval, 6 of which were subsequently withdrawn, leaving 87 cancer drug indications on the market. As of August 2019, 5 of these indications had been withdrawn or denied market authorization for the European Union by the EMA. From the cohort of EMA-approved drugs, an additional 7 drug indications were not recommended by NICE and were not deemed to have sufficient clinical benefits or cost-effectiveness to warrant mandatory public coverage in England; 5 drugs were not recommended based on clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness criteria, and 2 drugs were not recommended based on cost-effectiveness criteria alone. In total, 12 drug indications were not recommended for public coverage in the NHS, and an additional 30 drug indications were not reviewed by either the EMA (14 drug indications) or NICE (16 drug indications) by the study end date. Most drug indications recommended by NICE were conditional on the negotiation of additional confidential discounts, the imposition of restricted indications that limited prescribing to specific patient subgroups, or the collection of additional data. Among the 9 drug indications with evidence of overall survival benefit at the time of NICE review, 2 were not recommended for public funding based on cost-effectiveness criteria.
In this cohort study, 30 cancer drug indications that were granted accelerated approval by the FDA were not subsequently reviewed by either European regulators or NICE, and 12 drugs were denied authorization or coverage owing to insufficient safety, clinical efficacy, or cost-effectiveness. National Health Service coverage of cancer drugs given FDA accelerated approval commonly required additional price concessions, restrictions to approved indications, or review of additional data. Numerous cancer drugs have received accelerated approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) based on clinical trial outcomes that are otherwise not acceptable for traditional FDA approval; the accelerated approval process allows outcomes based on surrogate measures that are only reasonably likely to estimate clinical benefits. In England, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) evaluates the clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of drugs after they have received regulatory approval and issues recommendations regarding their coverage in the National Health Service (NHS). However, the level of concordance between European and FDA decision-making in the context of drugs qualifying for FDA accelerated approval is unknown.ImportanceNumerous cancer drugs have received accelerated approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) based on clinical trial outcomes that are otherwise not acceptable for traditional FDA approval; the accelerated approval process allows outcomes based on surrogate measures that are only reasonably likely to estimate clinical benefits. In England, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) evaluates the clinical benefits and cost-effectiveness of drugs after they have received regulatory approval and issues recommendations regarding their coverage in the National Health Service (NHS). However, the level of concordance between European and FDA decision-making in the context of drugs qualifying for FDA accelerated approval is unknown.To compare FDA accelerated approval decisions for cancer drugs with NICE coverage decisions.ObjectiveTo compare FDA accelerated approval decisions for cancer drugs with NICE coverage decisions.This retrospective cohort study compared cancer drug indications that received FDA accelerated approval from December 11, 1992, to May 31, 2017, with the same set of drug indication pairs in England until August 31, 2019. Data from European Public Assessment Reports developed by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and public appraisal documents from NICE were used to determine NHS coverage recommendations. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) public appraisal documents were analyzed for drug indications, characteristics of clinical evidence, cost-effectiveness, and coverage decisions. Data were analyzed from September 1 to December 31, 2019.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis retrospective cohort study compared cancer drug indications that received FDA accelerated approval from December 11, 1992, to May 31, 2017, with the same set of drug indication pairs in England until August 31, 2019. Data from European Public Assessment Reports developed by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and public appraisal documents from NICE were used to determine NHS coverage recommendations. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) public appraisal documents were analyzed for drug indications, characteristics of clinical evidence, cost-effectiveness, and coverage decisions. Data were analyzed from September 1 to December 31, 2019.Cancer drug indication coverage decision by NICE.Main Outcomes and MeasuresCancer drug indication coverage decision by NICE.From 1992 to 2017, 93 cancer drug indications received FDA accelerated approval, 6 of which were subsequently withdrawn, leaving 87 cancer drug indications on the market. As of August 2019, 5 of these indications had been withdrawn or denied market authorization for the European Union by the EMA. From the cohort of EMA-approved drugs, an additional 7 drug indications were not recommended by NICE and were not deemed to have sufficient clinical benefits or cost-effectiveness to warrant mandatory public coverage in England; 5 drugs were not recommended based on clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness criteria, and 2 drugs were not recommended based on cost-effectiveness criteria alone. In total, 12 drug indications were not recommended for public coverage in the NHS, and an additional 30 drug indications were not reviewed by either the EMA (14 drug indications) or NICE (16 drug indications) by the study end date. Most drug indications recommended by NICE were conditional on the negotiation of additional confidential discounts, the imposition of restricted indications that limited prescribing to specific patient subgroups, or the collection of additional data. Among the 9 drug indications with evidence of overall survival benefit at the time of NICE review, 2 were not recommended for public funding based on cost-effectiveness criteria.ResultsFrom 1992 to 2017, 93 cancer drug indications received FDA accelerated approval, 6 of which were subsequently withdrawn, leaving 87 cancer drug indications on the market. As of August 2019, 5 of these indications had been withdrawn or denied market authorization for the European Union by the EMA. From the cohort of EMA-approved drugs, an additional 7 drug indications were not recommended by NICE and were not deemed to have sufficient clinical benefits or cost-effectiveness to warrant mandatory public coverage in England; 5 drugs were not recommended based on clinical benefit and cost-effectiveness criteria, and 2 drugs were not recommended based on cost-effectiveness criteria alone. In total, 12 drug indications were not recommended for public coverage in the NHS, and an additional 30 drug indications were not reviewed by either the EMA (14 drug indications) or NICE (16 drug indications) by the study end date. Most drug indications recommended by NICE were conditional on the negotiation of additional confidential discounts, the imposition of restricted indications that limited prescribing to specific patient subgroups, or the collection of additional data. Among the 9 drug indications with evidence of overall survival benefit at the time of NICE review, 2 were not recommended for public funding based on cost-effectiveness criteria.In this cohort study, 30 cancer drug indications that were granted accelerated approval by the FDA were not subsequently reviewed by either European regulators or NICE, and 12 drugs were denied authorization or coverage owing to insufficient safety, clinical efficacy, or cost-effectiveness. National Health Service coverage of cancer drugs given FDA accelerated approval commonly required additional price concessions, restrictions to approved indications, or review of additional data.Conclusions and RelevanceIn this cohort study, 30 cancer drug indications that were granted accelerated approval by the FDA were not subsequently reviewed by either European regulators or NICE, and 12 drugs were denied authorization or coverage owing to insufficient safety, clinical efficacy, or cost-effectiveness. National Health Service coverage of cancer drugs given FDA accelerated approval commonly required additional price concessions, restrictions to approved indications, or review of additional data. |
| Author | Cherla, Avi Naci, Huseyin Mossialos, Elias Gyawali, Bishal Kesselheim, Aaron S |
| Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Avi surname: Cherla fullname: Cherla, Avi organization: Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, United Kingdom – sequence: 2 givenname: Huseyin surname: Naci fullname: Naci, Huseyin organization: Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, United Kingdom – sequence: 3 givenname: Aaron S surname: Kesselheim fullname: Kesselheim, Aaron S organization: Program on Regulation, Therapeutics, and Law, Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacoeconomics, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts – sequence: 4 givenname: Bishal surname: Gyawali fullname: Gyawali, Bishal organization: Department of Oncology and Department of Public Health Sciences, Division of Cancer Care and Epidemiology, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada – sequence: 5 givenname: Elias surname: Mossialos fullname: Mossialos, Elias organization: Department of Health Policy, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, United Kingdom |
| BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33616607$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
| BookMark | eNpNkE1PwzAMhiM0xMbYX4AcuXQkaZqlx2psgDQJIdi5SltnytQmI2kn7d-T8SHhiy370Wv7vUYj6ywgdEfJnBJCH_aqU8b24G0HzZwRRuaSc3qBJowKmQhK-ehfPUazEPYkhiSEp-kVGqepoEKQxQQNRQgQQge2x07jpTuCVzvAxuKV3bXKNt9tZWvw-NEPu4DfBtUafTJ2h7XzePuO1841-IyeAVw0nbEm9F71xllc1DW0UbSHBheHg3dH1d6gS63aALPfPEXb9epj-ZxsXp9elsUmUVlK-kQAYRLyShKlVZ3XciGbfFFrQjmlWgteAc-aqpKZ4LnKWMXisIaKRiwVlWZTdP-jG9d-DhD6sjMhnhP_AjeEkvGcMRlNzSJ6-4sOVbS1PHjTKX8q_6xiX2uzcmk |
| CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1001_jamainternmed_2021_3336 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41571_021_00561_6 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ccell_2021_07_008 crossref_primary_10_3390_pharmaceutics17091183 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_lanwpc_2022_100670 crossref_primary_10_1093_eurheartj_ehab892 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_healthpol_2022_01_013 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2021_058279 crossref_primary_10_1007_s40274_021_7517_2 crossref_primary_10_1007_s43441_023_00577_3 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41416_023_02439_z crossref_primary_10_1038_s41392_025_02267_y crossref_primary_10_1136_bmj_n2059 crossref_primary_10_1001_jamainternmed_2021_3339 crossref_primary_10_1002_cpt_2641 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2022_066378 crossref_primary_10_1007_s40273_023_01248_9 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41582_021_00557_x crossref_primary_10_1001_jamainternmed_2021_5983 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41598_024_54945_6 crossref_primary_10_1177_01410768231192476 crossref_primary_10_1001_jamanetworkopen_2023_8875 crossref_primary_10_1016_S1470_2045_22_00088_2 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11096_022_01461_0 crossref_primary_10_1001_jamanetworkopen_2022_16191 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41571_022_00652_y crossref_primary_10_1016_S1470_2045_24_00041_X crossref_primary_10_1016_j_blre_2021_100914 crossref_primary_10_1001_jamahealthforum_2022_1229 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjph_2024_001995 crossref_primary_10_1016_S1470_2045_23_00175_4 |
| ContentType | Journal Article |
| DBID | CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 7X8 |
| DOI | 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.8441 |
| DatabaseName | Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitle | MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitleList | MEDLINE MEDLINE - Academic |
| Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 2 dbid: 7X8 name: MEDLINE - Academic url: https://search.proquest.com/medline sourceTypes: Aggregation Database |
| DeliveryMethod | no_fulltext_linktorsrc |
| Discipline | Medicine |
| EISSN | 2168-6114 |
| ExternalDocumentID | 33616607 |
| Genre | Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Journal Article |
| GroupedDBID | 0R~ 4.4 53G AAGZG AARDX AAWTL ABBLC ABJNI ABPMR ACDNT ACGFS ADBBV AENEX AFCHL AGFXO AHMBA ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS AMJDE ANMPU BRYMA C45 CGR CUY CVF EBD EBS ECM EIF EMOBN EX3 H13 HF~ NPM OB2 OBH OCB OGEVE OHH OVD PQQKQ RAJ SV3 TEORI WH7 WOW YCJ YYP 7X8 |
| ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-a530t-6e028e9b80afac9c878d97cf01411ff64be45dbb85649a52b27cfceb18d936bf2 |
| IEDL.DBID | 7X8 |
| ISICitedReferencesCount | 36 |
| ISICitedReferencesURI | http://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=Summon&SrcAuth=ProQuest&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=000638994500015&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| ISSN | 2168-6114 |
| IngestDate | Mon Jul 21 11:09:43 EDT 2025 Thu Jan 02 22:56:37 EST 2025 |
| IsDoiOpenAccess | false |
| IsOpenAccess | true |
| IsPeerReviewed | true |
| IsScholarly | true |
| Issue | 4 |
| Language | English |
| LinkModel | DirectLink |
| MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-a530t-6e028e9b80afac9c878d97cf01411ff64be45dbb85649a52b27cfceb18d936bf2 |
| Notes | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 |
| OpenAccessLink | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC7900925 |
| PMID | 33616607 |
| PQID | 2492281005 |
| PQPubID | 23479 |
| ParticipantIDs | proquest_miscellaneous_2492281005 pubmed_primary_33616607 |
| PublicationCentury | 2000 |
| PublicationDate | 2021-04-01 |
| PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2021-04-01 |
| PublicationDate_xml | – month: 04 year: 2021 text: 2021-04-01 day: 01 |
| PublicationDecade | 2020 |
| PublicationPlace | United States |
| PublicationPlace_xml | – name: United States |
| PublicationTitle | JAMA internal medicine |
| PublicationTitleAlternate | JAMA Intern Med |
| PublicationYear | 2021 |
| References | 34251401 - JAMA Intern Med. 2021 Sep 1;181(9):1263 33616600 - JAMA Intern Med. 2021 Apr 1;181(4):509-510 34251429 - JAMA Intern Med. 2021 Sep 1;181(9):1263-1264 |
| References_xml | – reference: 34251429 - JAMA Intern Med. 2021 Sep 1;181(9):1263-1264 – reference: 33616600 - JAMA Intern Med. 2021 Apr 1;181(4):509-510 – reference: 34251401 - JAMA Intern Med. 2021 Sep 1;181(9):1263 |
| SSID | ssj0000800433 |
| Score | 2.5148993 |
| Snippet | Numerous cancer drugs have received accelerated approval from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) based on clinical trial outcomes that are otherwise not... |
| SourceID | proquest pubmed |
| SourceType | Aggregation Database Index Database |
| StartPage | 490 |
| SubjectTerms | Antineoplastic Agents - economics Cohort Studies Drug Approval Humans Insurance Coverage State Medicine |
| Title | Assessment of Coverage in England of Cancer Drugs Qualifying for US Food and Drug Administration Accelerated Approval |
| URI | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33616607 https://www.proquest.com/docview/2492281005 |
| Volume | 181 |
| WOSCitedRecordID | wos000638994500015&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| hasFullText | |
| inHoldings | 1 |
| isFullTextHit | |
| isPrint | |
| link | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV3dS8MwEA_qRHzx-2N-EcHXapumafokZTp8cGOgk72VJE1lL-1cN_9-77Ju4oMg-NBS2iuE9Hp3ufvld4TcSCyRWBl5MjKYreJwpbjychVLYeEoXJeIt-e435ejUTJoEm51A6tc2kRnqPPKYI78DpntmAxAae4nHx52jcLqatNCY520QghlENIVj-Qqx4LREHfd5FkgJKySAr6EeDXEQ2OXdgO_AytF5t9KzoPfQ03ncrq7_x3sHtlpgk2aLrRjn6zZ8oBs9Zpy-iGZpyteTloVtINwTrAvdFzSprmHu42KMaUP0_l7TR3nhtsbRSHcpcMX2q2qnKIoCtCfZLw0NQb8GtJR5DRF-nJQ7CMy7D6-dp68pg-Dp6LQn3nCQhBiEy19VSiTGBnLPIlNgRjRoCgE15ZHudYyEjxREdMMHhpwAiAWCl2wY7JRVqU9JVS5nbfWFyYGa5FLqTXPtbWRYglTid8m18sJzUDPsXihSlvN6-x7StvkZPFVssmCkCMLQxEI4cdnf3j7nGwzhKU48M0FaRXwl9tLsmk-Z-N6euUUCM79Qe8LNz_QwA |
| linkProvider | ProQuest |
| openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Assessment+of+Coverage+in+England+of+Cancer+Drugs+Qualifying+for+US+Food+and+Drug+Administration+Accelerated+Approval&rft.jtitle=JAMA+internal+medicine&rft.au=Cherla%2C+Avi&rft.au=Naci%2C+Huseyin&rft.au=Kesselheim%2C+Aaron+S&rft.au=Gyawali%2C+Bishal&rft.date=2021-04-01&rft.eissn=2168-6114&rft.volume=181&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=490&rft_id=info:doi/10.1001%2Fjamainternmed.2020.8441&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F33616607&rft_id=info%3Apmid%2F33616607&rft.externalDocID=33616607 |
| thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=2168-6114&client=summon |
| thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=2168-6114&client=summon |
| thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=2168-6114&client=summon |