Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board, Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2022 May;88(5):2169-2179. doi: 10.1111/bcp.15141. Epub 2022 Jan 5.
Cancer drugs are increasingly approved through expedited regulatory pathways including the European conditional marketing authorization (CMA). Whether, when taking CMA post-approval confirmatory trials into account, the level of evidence and clinical benefit between CMA and standard approved (SMA) drugs differs remains unknown.
We identified all CMA cancer indications converted to SMA in 2006-2020 and compared these to similar SMA indications with regard to pivotal trial and CMA post-approval confirmatory trial design, outcomes and demonstrated clinical benefit (per the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale). We tested for differences in clinical benefit and whether substantial clinical benefit was demonstrated. To account for the clinical benefit of unconverted CMA indications, we performed sensitivity analyses.
We included 15 SMA and 15 converted CMA cancer indications (17 remained unconverted). Approval of 11 SMA (73%) and four CMA indications (27%) was supported by a controlled trial. Improved overall survival (OS) was demonstrated for four SMA indications (27%). Improved quality of life (QoL) was demonstrated for three SMA (20%) and one CMA indication(s) (7%). Of subsequent CMA post-approval confirmatory trials, 11 were controlled (79%), one demonstrated improved OS (7%) and five improved QoL (36%). After conversion, CMA indications were associated with similar clinical benefit (P = .31) and substantial clinical benefit as SMA indications (risk ratio 1.4, 95% confidence interval 0.57-3.4).
While CMA cancer indications are initially associated with less comprehensive evidence than SMA indications, levels of evidence and clinical benefit are similar after conversion from CMA to SMA.
癌症药物越来越多地通过加速监管途径获得批准,包括欧洲有条件营销授权(CMA)。在考虑 CMA 上市后确证性试验的情况下,CMA 和标准批准(SMA)药物之间的证据水平和临床获益是否存在差异尚不清楚。
我们确定了 2006 年至 2020 年期间所有转换为 SMA 的 CMA 癌症适应证,并将这些适应证与类似的 SMA 适应证进行了比较,比较内容包括关键试验和 CMA 上市后确证性试验设计、结局和显示的临床获益(根据欧洲肿瘤内科学会临床获益量表)。我们检验了临床获益的差异以及是否显示了实质性的临床获益。为了考虑未转换的 CMA 适应证的临床获益,我们进行了敏感性分析。
我们纳入了 15 项 SMA 和 15 项转换的 CMA 癌症适应证(17 项仍未转换)。11 项 SMA(73%)和 4 项 CMA 适应证(27%)的批准得到了对照试验的支持。四项 SMA 适应证(27%)显示了总生存(OS)的改善。三项 SMA(20%)和一项 CMA 适应证(7%)显示了生活质量(QoL)的改善。在随后的 CMA 上市后确证性试验中,11 项为对照试验(79%),一项显示 OS 改善(7%),五项显示 QoL 改善(36%)。转换后,CMA 适应证与 SMA 适应证具有相似的临床获益(P=0.31)和实质性临床获益(风险比 1.4,95%置信区间 0.57-3.4)。
虽然 CMA 癌症适应证最初与 SMA 适应证相比,证据水平相对较低,但从 CMA 转换为 SMA 后,证据水平和临床获益相似。