The Role of Regulator-Imposed Post-Approval Studies in Health Technology Assessments for Conditionally Approved Drugs.

BACKGROUND: The European Medicines Agency (EMA) aims to resolve uncertainties associated with conditionally approved drugs by imposing post-approval studies. Results from these studies may be relevant for health technology assessment (HTA) organizations. This study investigated the role of regulator-imposed post-approval studies within HTA. METHODS: For all conditionally approved drugs up to December 2018, regulator-imposed post-approval studies were identified from EMA's public assessment reports. The availability for and inclusion of study results in relative effectiveness (re)assessments were analyzed for 4 European HTA organizations: NICE (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, England/Wales), HAS (Haute Autorité de Santé, France), ZIN (Zorginstituut Nederland, the Netherlands) and the European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA, Europe). When study results became available between an HTA organization's initial assessment and reassessment, it was evaluated whether and how they affected the assessment and its outcome. RESULTS: For 36 conditionally approved drugs, 98 post-approval studies were imposed. In total, 81 initial relative effectiveness assessments (REAs) and 13 reassessments were available, with numbers of drugs (re)assessed varying greatly between jurisdictions. Study results were available for 16 initial REAs (20%) and included in 14 (88%), and available for 10 reassessments (77%) and included in all (100%). Five reassessments had an outcome different from the initial REA, with 4 (2 positive and 2 negative changes) relating directly to the new study results. Reassessments often cited the inability of post-approval studies to resolve the concerns reported in the initial REA. CONCLUSION: Results from regulator-imposed post-approval studies for conditionally approved drugs were not often used in REAs by HTA organizations, because they were often not yet available at the time of initial assessment and because reassessments were scarce. When available, results from post-approval studies were almost always used within HTA, and they have led to changes in conclusions about drugs' relative effectiveness. Post-approval studies can be relevant within HTA but the current lack of alignment between regulators and HTA organizations limits their potential.

Combined targeting of the p53 and pRb pathway in neuroblastoma does not lead to synergistic responses.

BACKGROUND: Despite intensive treatment protocols and recent advances, neuroblastomas still account for approximately 15% of all childhood cancer deaths. In contrast with adult cancers, p53 pathway inactivation in neuroblastomas is rarely caused by p53 mutation but rather by altered MDM2 or p14ARF expression. Moreover, neuroblastomas are characterised by high proliferation rates, frequently triggered by pRb pathway dysfunction due to aberrant expression of cyclin D1, CDK4 or p16INK4a. Simultaneous disturbance of these pathways can occur via co-amplification of MDM2 and CDK4 or homozygous deletion of CDKN2A, which encodes both p14ARF and p16INK4a. METHODS AND RESULTS: We examined whether both single and combined inhibition of MDM2 and CDK4/6 is effective in reducing neuroblastoma cell viability. In our panel of ten cell lines with a spectrum of aberrations in the p53 and pRb pathway, idasanutlin and abemaciclib were the most potent MDM2 and CDK4/6 inhibitors, respectively. No correlation was observed between the genetic background and response to the single inhibitors. We confirmed this lack of correlation in isogenic systems overexpressing MDM2 and/or CDK4. In addition, combined inhibition did not result in synergistic effects. Instead, abemaciclib diminished the pro-apoptotic effect of idasanutlin, leading to slightly antagonistic effects. In vivo treatment with idasanutlin and abemaciclib led to reduced tumour growth compared with single drug treatment, but no synergistic response was observed. CONCLUSION: We conclude that p53 and pRb pathway aberrations cannot be used as predictive biomarkers for neuroblastoma sensitivity to MDM2 and/or CDK4/6 inhibitors. Moreover, we advise to be cautious with combining these inhibitors in neuroblastomas.