Effect of Project Orbis participation by the Swiss regulator on submission gaps, review times, and drug approval decisions between 2020 and 2022: a comparative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Expedited market access for novel and efficacious drugs is warranted for patients. Since 2020, Swissmedic (The Swiss Agency for Therapeutic Products) has been participating in Project Orbis, a collaborative parallel-review programme launched by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2019 to expedite patient access to cancer drugs. This programme allows regulatory agencies to remain independent in their decisions. We aimed to evaluate the effect of the first 2 years of Project Orbis from the Swissmedic perspective. METHODS: In this comparative analysis, we compared submission gap (time between submission at the FDA and Swissmedic), review time, approval and consensus decision rate, and the approved indications between Swissmedic and the FDA for marketing authorisation applications (MAAs) in oncology submitted to Swissmedic through Project Orbis (Orbis MAAs) or outside of Project Orbis (non-Orbis MAAs) from Jan 1, 2020, to Dec 31, 2021. Swissmedic review time was evaluated with a decision until June 30, 2022. For the decision comparison analysis, non-Orbis oncology MAAs submitted and evaluated from Jan 1, 2009, to Dec 31, 2018 (referred to as the pre-Orbis era) were also considered. Inferential statistics were done using Wilcoxon rank-sum test and the 95% CI for the median was based on binomial distribution. For each hypothesis testing, the significance level was set to 5%. No correction for multiple testing was performed. FINDINGS: We analysed the submission gap, review time, and regulatory decision for 31 Orbis MAAs and 41 non-Orbis MAAs during the Orbis era. The median submission gap was 33·0 days (95% CI 19·0-57·0) for Orbis MAAs versus 168·0 days (56·0-351·0) for non-Orbis MAAs (p<0·0001). The median review time at Swissmedic was 235·5 days (198·0-264·0) for Orbis MAAs versus 314·0 days (279·0-354·0) for non-Orbis MAAs (p=0·0002). Approval rates at Swissmedic were consistent between Orbis MAAs (20 [77%] of 26) and non-Orbis MAAs (31 [76%] of 41). The rate of consensus decisions between Swissmedic and the FDA was 21 (81%) of 26 for Orbis MAAs and 31 (76%) of 41 for non-Orbis MAAs. Swissmedic approval rates were lower for indication extensions than for new active substances for Orbis MAAs (13 [72%] of 18 vs seven [88%] of eight) and non-Orbis MAAs (17 [71%] of 24 vs 14 [82%] of 17). Divergent decisions between agencies were predominantly observed for indication extensions (11 [73%] of 15 divergent decisions). During the pre-Orbis era, Swissmedic approved 61 (88%) of 69 MAAs for new active substances. INTERPRETATION: Submission gap and review time for oncology applications at Swissmedic were significantly reduced by participation in Project Orbis, and approval consensus decisions were increased between agencies. These findings suggests that participating in Project Orbis could lead to faster patient access to drugs. FUNDING: None.

Clinical Benefit and Regulatory Outcomes of Cancer Drugs Receiving Accelerated Approval.

Importance: The US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) accelerated approval pathway allows approval of investigational drugs treating unmet medical needs based on changes to surrogate measures considered "reasonably likely" to predict clinical benefit. Postapproval clinical trials are then required to confirm whether these drugs offer clinical benefit. Objective: To determine whether cancer drugs granted accelerated approval ultimately demonstrate clinical benefit and to evaluate the basis of conversion to regular approval. Design, Setting, and Participants: In this cohort study, publicly available FDA data were used to identify cancer drugs granted accelerated approval from 2013 to 2023. Main Outcomes and Measures: Demonstrated improvement in quality of life or overall survival in accelerated approvals with more than 5 years of follow-up, as well as confirmatory trial end points and time to conversion for drug-indication pairs converted to regular approval. Results: A total of 129 cancer drug-indication pairs were granted accelerated approval from 2013 to 2023. Among 46 indications with more than 5 years of follow-up (approved 2013-2017), approximately two-thirds (29, 63%) were converted to regular approval, 10 (22%) were withdrawn, and 7 (15%) remained ongoing after a median of 6.3 years. Fewer than half (20/46, 43%) demonstrated a clinical benefit in confirmatory trials. Time to withdrawal decreased from 9.9 years to 3.6 years, and time to regular approval increased from 1.6 years to 3.6 years. Among 48 drug-indication pairs converted to regular approval, 19 (40%) were converted based on overall survival, 21 (44%) on progression-free survival, 5 (10%) on response rate plus duration of response, 2 (4%) on response rate, and 1 (2%) despite a negative confirmatory trial. Comparing accelerated and regular approval indications, 18 of 48 (38%) were unchanged, while 30 of 48 (63%) had different indications (eg, earlier line of therapy). Conclusions and Relevance: Most cancer drugs granted accelerated approval did not demonstrate benefit in overall survival or quality of life within 5 years of accelerated approval. Patients should be clearly informed about the cancer drugs that use the accelerated approval pathway and do not end up showing benefits in patient-centered clinical outcomes.

EMA commentary on the guideline on quality, nonclinical and clinical aspects of medicinal products containing genetically modified cells.

Great advances have been made in the knowledge of development and regulatory approval of medicinal product containing genetically modified cells. Although a guideline has been available in the EU since 2012, the current updated version provides a useful guide to developers and professionals involved in the regulatory process of these medicines. This article presents the main issues communicated in that guidance, the regulators' insights and a commentary from the academic developers' point of view.

The Impact of Regulatory Reforms in China on Drug Lag: The Role of Clinical Development Strategies.

In recent years, there has been significant focus on China's new drug lag, but relevant research is limited. This study explores the reasons for drug lag by assessing the impact of reforms in China's drug review system, particularly focusing on the influence of clinical development strategies. This study selected drugs first launched in the United States between 2017 and 2022, examining absolute and relative lag between China and the first-launch country (including submission and review lag). These delays with drugs approved in the European Union and Japan during the same period were compared with uncover the roots of delays in China, further identifying potential factors that could reduce these delays. The results indicate that the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) has a longer relative lag compared with the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA). The submission lag time of the NMPA significantly surpasses that of the EMA and PMDA, whereas the review lag time of the NMPA exceeds that of the PMDA but falls short of the EMA. Focusing on clinical trial strategies, bridging trials and multiregional clinical trials (MRCTs) are typically required by the NMPA in East Asia, resulting in longer clinical delay time. Whereas the EMA and PMDA primarily require international MRCTs in Europe and America, with a clinical delay of < 5 months. It is evident that there is a significant gap in clinical trial durations between China and other countries. Further optimization of clinical trial management is necessary to address the lag for new drugs in China.

Patents and Regulatory Exclusivities on GLP-1 Receptor Agonists.

Importance: Glucagon-like peptide 1 (GLP-1) receptor agonists were first approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in 2005. Demand for these drugs has increased rapidly in recent years, as indications have expanded, but they remain expensive. Objective: To analyze how manufacturers of brand-name GLP-1 receptor agonists have used the patent and regulatory systems to extend periods of market exclusivity. Evidence Review: The annual US Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Approved Drug Products With Therapeutic Equivalence Evaluations was used to identify GLP-1 receptor agonists approved from 2005 to 2021 and to record patents and nonpatent statutory exclusivities listed for each product. Google Patents was used to extract additional data on patents, including whether each was obtained on the delivery device or another aspect of the product. The primary outcome was the duration of expected protection from generic competition, defined as the time elapsed from FDA approval until expiration of the last-to-expire patent or regulatory exclusivity. Findings: On the 10 GLP-1 receptor agonists included in the cohort, drug manufacturers listed with the FDA a median of 19.5 patents (IQR, 9.0-25.8) per product, including a median of 17 patents (IQR, 8.3-22.8) filed before FDA approval and 1.5 (IQR, 0-2.8) filed after FDA approval. Fifty-four percent of all patents listed on GLP-1 receptor agonists were on the delivery devices rather than active ingredients. Manufacturers augmented patent protection with a median of 2 regulatory exclusivities (IQR, 0-3) obtained at approval and 1 (IQR, 0.3-4.3) added after approval. The median total duration of expected protection after FDA approval, when accounting for both preapproval and postapproval patents and regulatory exclusivities, was 18.3 years (IQR, 16.0-19.4). No generic firm has successfully challenged patents on GLP-1 receptor agonists to gain FDA approval. Conclusions and Relevance: Patent and regulatory reform is needed to ensure timely generic entry of GLP-1 receptor agonists to the market.

Regulatory performance of the East African Community joint assessment procedure: The way forward for regulatory systems strengthening.

BACKGROUND: Seven national medicines regulatory authorities in the East African Community (EAC) have embraced regulatory reliance, harmonization and work sharing through the EAC Medicines Regulatory Harmonization programme. Measuring the performance of regulatory systems provides key baseline information to build on regulatory system-strengthening strategies. Therefore, the aim of the study was to evaluate the regulatory performance of the EAC joint scientific assessment of applications approved between 2018 and 2021. METHODS: Utilising a data metrics tool, information was collected reflecting timelines for various milestones including submission to screening, scientific assessment and communication of regional recommendations for biologicals and pharmaceuticals that received a positive regional recommendation for product registration from 2018 to 2021. RESULTS: Several challenges as well as possible solutions were identified, including median overall approval times exceeding the EAC 465-day target and median times to issue marketing authorisation following EAC joint assessment recommendation that far exceeded the 116-day target. Recommendations included establishment of an integrated information management system and automation of the capture of regulatory timelines through the EAC metric tool. CONCLUSIONS: Despite initiative progress, work is required to improve the EAC joint regulatory procedure to achieve regulatory systems-strengthening and ensure patients' timely access to safe, efficacious and quality medicines.

Evaluación de los comparadores empleados en los estudios pivotales de nuevos medicamentos e indicaciones / Assessment of comparators used in pivotal studies of new medicines and indications

Objetivo: En algunos casos, los estudios pivotales para aprobar nuevos medicamentos no emplean el comparador más adecuado. El objetivo es cuantificar este problema analizando los Informes de Posicionamiento Terapéutico (IPT) publicados por el Ministerio de Sanidad español.Métodos: El comparador se clasificó en seis categorías según la adecuación del tratamiento, es decir, si coincidía con el estándar de tratamiento al ser autorizado: A-“inicialmente adecuado”, B-“sin comparador por causa ética”, C-“sin comparador excluyendo los clasificados en B”, D-“inadecuado” y E-“parcialmente subóptimo” (cuando era estándar solo para parte de los pacientes).La variable principal fue la proporción de nuevos fármacos/indicaciones con comparación suficiente (categorías A, B y C) o deficiente (el resto). La información sobre comparadores y tratamiento estándar se extrajo del IPT. Resultados: Se analizaron aleatoriamente 186 IPT con nuevos medicamentos/indicaciones, publicados entre 2013 y 2022. La comparación se consideró suficiente en un 73,7% (IC95 66,9-79,5) de los casos. El 26,3% restante (IC95 20,5-33,1) presentaba comparaciones deficientes en el ensayo pivotal, ya fuera por comparador inadecuado (11,3%), parcialmente subóptimo (5,4%) o ausencia de un estudio comparativo (9,7%). No hubo diferencias en relación con el año de aprobación.Conclusiones: Aproximadamente uno de cada cuatro nuevos medicamentos o indicaciones carece de una comparación suficiente en el momento de empezar a ser utilizado en la práctica clínica. La proporción no mejora a lo largo de los últimos 10 años. Las agencias reguladoras deben ser más exigentes en la selección del comparador para los ensayos clínicos pivotales, por cuestiones éticas y sanitarias. (AU)

Objective: Pivotal studies to approve new medicines often do not use the most appropriate comparator. The objective is to quantify this problem by analysing the Therapeutic Positioning Reports (IPT for its acronym in Spanish) published by the Spanish Health Ministry.Methods: The comparator was classified into six categories, based on the appropriateness of the treatment, i.e. whether it matched the standard of treatment when authorised: A-«initially adequate» (at the start of the study), B-«no comparator for ethical reasons», C-«no comparator -excluding B-«, D-«inadequate» and E-«partially suboptimal» (when it was standard for part of the included patients but not for all of them).The primary endpoint was the proportion of new drugs/indications with sufficient (categories A, B and C) or poor comparator (the rest). Information on comparators and standard treatment was extracted from the IPT. Results: We randomly analysed 186 IPTs with new drugs or indications, published between 2013 and March 2022. Comparability was assessed as sufficient in 73.7% (95%CI 66.9-79.5) of cases. The remaining 26.3% (95%CI 20.5-33.1) had poor comparisons in the pivotal trial, either due to inadequate comparator (11.3%), partially suboptimal (5.4%) or absence of a comparative study excluding ethical justification (9.7%). Conclusions: Approximately one in four new medicines or indications lacks sufficient comparability at the time of entry into clinical practice. The proportion has not improved over the last 10 years. Regulatory agencies need to be more stringent in comparator selection for pivotal clinical trials, for ethical and health reasons. (AU)