Currently Viewing:
Newsroom
Currently Reading
Clinical Trial Participation Reduces Alcohol Intake, Improves HIV Outcomes in Women Regardless of Treatment Type
August 22, 2019 – Jaime Rosenberg
Hormone Replacement Therapy Might Place Some Menopausal Women at Increased Risk of Mortality
August 22, 2019 – Jaime Rosenberg
Results Point to Annual Assessment of Precursor to Multiple Myeloma
August 22, 2019 – Mary Caffrey
US Psoriasis Patients Face 2-Fold Mortality Risk, Study Finds
August 22, 2019 – Mary Caffrey
Air Pollution Found to Be Possible Cause of Premature Death Rates
August 22, 2019 – Matthew Gavidia
Elevated Troponin in Blood After Exercise Can Indicate Cardiovascular Disease, Study Finds
August 22, 2019 – Alison Rodriguez
What We're Reading: Gilead Challenges PrEP Patents; Opioid Addiction Treatment Use; NIH to Share Genetic Data
August 22, 2019 – AJMC Staff
More Women May Be Screened for BRCA Mutations Following USPSTF Guideline Update
August 21, 2019 – Jaime Rosenberg
MDM2 Antagonists Help CDK4/6 Inhibitors Overcome Resistance in Melanoma
August 21, 2019 – Laura Joszt

Do Breakthrough Therapies Need More Rigorous Evaluation?

Surabhi Dangi-Garimella, PhD
A new study published in JAMA reviewed the premarket development and review times of drugs approved between 2012 and 2017 that were granted Breakthrough Therapy designation and found that the crucial studies that supported these approvals lacked key features, including randomization, double-blinding, and control groups.
A new study published in JAMA reviewed the premarket development and review times of drugs approved between 2012 and 2017 that were granted Breakthrough Therapy designation and found that the crucial studies that supported these approvals lacked key features, including randomization, double-blinding, and control groups.

A common perception among physicians concerning the Breakthrough Therapy designation is that the drugs are supported by stronger evidence than is required by the statute. When researchers surveyed internists and specialists from endocrinology, hematology, and infectious diseases back in 2016, they found “substantial deficits” in physician understanding of FDA approvals. Overall, they did find greater awareness among specialists than internists.1

For their current study,2 the authors assembled a list of new drugs and biologics that were FDA approved between January 2012 and December 2017 and were listed on the Drugs@FDA database. Further, for those drugs that were granted Breakthrough Therapy designation, details on the FDA-determined regulatory and therapeutic characteristics along with postmarketing requirements were gathered. The authors also reviewed pivotal trials that supported the approval of these drugs and documented:
  • Randomization
  • Blinding
  • Comparator group
  • Primary endpoint
  • Number of patients
To hone in on the timeline of these drugs, they also identified 3 regulatory dates using public FDA documents and patent extension notices: investigational new drug (IND) activation (when human testing can begin), new drug application (NDA) submission, and FDA approval.

Of the 46 drugs receiving Breakthrough designation during the study period, a majority were anticancer agents (n = 25; 54.3%), followed by infectious disease drugs (n = 8; 17.4%)—half the drugs approved were also first-in-class. While all 46 drugs received a Priority Review—which is a process that allows expedited review of high-impact drugs—30 were designated as orphan products and 24 qualified for Fast Track review.

The median number identified for pivotal trials used for the indicated approval was 1 (interquartile range [IQR], 1-2), and the median number of enrolled patients for the indication approval was 222 (IQR, 124-796). Only about 60% of approvals were made based on randomized trials, 45.7% were double-blinded, and 54.3% used an active placebo control group. Only 21.7% of trials used a clinical primary endpoint; a majority of the trials (about 80%) used surrogate endpoints.

Further, the authors found that pivotal trials that supported the breakthrough approvals and led to an Accelerated Drug Approval were less likely to be randomized, compared with those without an Accelerated Approval (16.7% versus 85.7%, respectively; P <.001). They were also less likely to be double-blinded or include a control group.

Overall, the median time from IND activation to FDA approval was 4.9 years (IQR, 2.7-7.6), which included 4.1 months (IQR, 2.0-7.0) between IND activation and FDA submission, and 6.9 months (IQR, 5.1-8.0), between the NDA submission and FDA approval. A postmarketing safety/efficacy requirement was documented for 100% of the Accelerated Approvals, compared with 64.3% that did not receive an Accelerated Approval.

FDA-required postmarketing studies will be critical to confirm the clinical benefit and safety of these promising, newly approved therapies, the authors conclude.

References
  1. Kesselheim AS, Woloshin S, Eddings W, Franklin JM, Ross KM, Schwartz LM. Physicians’ knowledge about FDA approval standards and perceptions of the “Breakthrough Therapy” designation. JAMA. 2016;315(14):1516-1518. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.16984.
  2. Puthumana J, Wallach JD, Ross JS. Clinical trial evidence supporting FDA approval of drugs granted breakthrough therapy designation. JAMA. 2018;320(3):301-303. doi:10.1001/jama.2018.7619.


Related Articles

Dr Darius Lakdawalla Talks Cost and Value of Breakthrough Therapies
Dissecting the Patient Perception of FDA's Breakthrough Designation
Tecentriq–Avastin Combination Earns Breakthrough Therapy Designation for Liver Cancer
 
Copyright AJMC 2006-2019 Clinical Care Targeted Communications Group, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
x
Welcome the the new and improved AJMC.com, the premier managed market network. Tell us about yourself so that we can serve you better.
Sign Up