Food And Drug Administration Drug Approval Research Articles

Reporting of immune-related adverse events (irAEs) in US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approvals of immune checkpoint inhibitors.

e14693 Background: Evaluating immune checkpoint inhibitor (ICI) toxicity is complex given the interplay between the host immune system and tumor microenvironment leading to unpredictable timing and severity of irAEs. Monitoring of irAEs is critical as they can cause significant impact on morbidity and quality of life. Thus, we evaluated the consistency and pattern of reporting of irAEs in trials leading to FDA drug approvals. Methods: Using the FDA website, we identified 73 primary articles for ICI FDA approvals over a 10-year period (2011-2021). Data were collected independently by all authors as categorical variables for reporting of any grade and grade 3 or higher toxicity in the trial arm that led to FDA approval for 29 irAEs classified by the National Comprehensive Cancer Network Version 1.2024 guidelines. Our analyses were based on a binary classification of reported versus not reported, including the manuscript text, tables, and supplement, and reporting trends were analyzed based on the study year, phase, primary tumor, and monotherapy versus combination ICI therapy. Results: The majority of approvals were associated with Phase II (N=22) or Phase III (N=39) studies. Approvals included 14 primary tumors and 2 tumor agnostic approvals with the most common tumors including lung (N=22) and skin (N=14). irAE reporting ranged between 0% and 100% with a mean of 40% and a standard deviation of 35. Across the 29 irAEs, 45% were categorized as severely underreported with less than 25% reporting in trials, 17% were classified as underreported in 26-50% of trials, 17% were moderately reported in 51-75% of trials, and 21% were well reported in at least 75% of trials. For example, fatigue, diarrhea, and hypothyroidism were well reported at 100%, 99%, and 93%, respectively, while myocarditis, aseptic meningitis, and giant cell arteritis were severely underreported at 18%, 4%, and 1%, respectively. Additionally, certain systems were more reported than others, including gastrointestinal (100%) and endocrine (97%), while other systems were inconsistently reported such as cardiology (15%) and neurology (48%) (see Table). Conclusions: Our study identified significant inconsistencies in irAE reporting in clinical trials that led to ICI FDA approvals. In particular, rarer irAEs were reported infrequently while more common irAEs were well reported. Unified efforts are needed to standardize the irAE reporting in the primary literature to ensure reliable dissemination of information for timely recognition and treatment in clinical practice. [Table: see text]

How the Food and Drug Administration Drug Approval Process Relates to the Potential Approval of Intravenous Racemic Ketamine for Treatment-resistant Major Depression.

This column focuses on the status of intravenous racemic ketamine for the treatment of patients suffering from a form of major depressive disorder that does not respond to trials of currently available biogenic amine antidepressants. To provide context, the column reviews the 3 pivotal elements of the usual Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug approval process: (1) the unmet medical need (ie, the indication) for which the drug is being developed, (2) the efficacy of the drug for that condition, and (3) the safety/tolerability of the drug. This column is based on the author's 45-year history of drug development work and is not a statement of the FDA. There are typically 3 phases in the drug development process: (1) studies done in normal volunteers, (2) typically small-scale proof of concept studies, and (3) large-scale registration trials. This third phase is critical in determining the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of the drug in a manner that most closely follows the clinical use of the drug. This column focuses specifically on whether generally small-scale studies done in academic centers are sufficient for drug approval, and it briefly reviews lithium and clozapine as examples of psychiatric medications that had such academic research in the literature, as well as clinical use in other countries. Those data supported the unique value of these medications in patients with bipolar disorder and treatment-resistant schizophrenia (ie, the unmet medical need), respectively, and the findings led American psychiatrists to advocate for FDA approval of these medications. Their efforts led to the needed registration trials for FDA approval of these medications. This column reviews the key features of registration trials and the reason that they are critical for FDA approval, and it discusses 2 special considerations related to the intravenous administration of racemic ketamine. First, racemic ketamine is not esketamine but, instead, it contains R-ketamine in addition to S-ketamine (ie, esketamine). The second consideration is that differences between intravenous and intranasal administration may affect the safety of the drug. While safety concerns were specifically addressed in the registration trials for esketamine, comparable research remains to be done for intravenous racemic ketamine. Understanding how the FDA's drug approval process works is important for prescribers, their patients, and the public.

The Pharmaceutical Industry in 2023: An Analysis of FDA Drug Approvals from the Perspective of Molecules.

With the COVID-19 pandemic behind us, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved 55 new drugs in 2023, a figure consistent with the number authorized in the last five years (53 per year on average). Thus, 2023 marks the second-best yearly FDA harvest after 2018 (59 approvals) in all the series. Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) continue to be the class of drugs with the most approvals, with an exceptional 12, a number that makes it the most outstanding year for this class. As in 2022, five proteins/enzymes have been approved in 2023. However, no antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs) have been released onto the market. With respect to TIDES (peptides and oligonucleotides), 2023 has proved a spectacular year, with a total of nine approvals, corresponding to five peptides and four oligonucleotides. Natural products continue to be the best source of inspiration for drug development, with 10 new products on the market. Three drugs in this year's harvest are pegylated, which may indicate the return of pegylation as a method to increase the half-lives of drugs after the withdrawal of peginesatide from the market in 2013. Following the trends in recent years, two bispecific drugs have been authorized in 2023. As in the preceding years, fluorine and/or N-aromatic heterocycles are present in most of the drugs. Herein, the 55 new drugs approved by the FDA in 2023 are analyzed exclusively on the basis of their chemical structure. They are classified as the following: biologics (antibodies, proteins/enzymes); TIDES (peptide and oligonucleotides); combined drugs; pegylated drugs; natural products; nitrogen aromatic heterocycles; fluorine-containing molecules; and other small molecules.

Sex or Gender Reporting in Ophthalmology Clinical Trials Among US Food and Drug Administration Approvals, 1995 to 2022

As critical determinants of scientific rigor, reproducibility, and equity, sex and gender should be considered in clinical trial design and reporting. To evaluate the accuracy of sex and gender reporting and extent of sex- and gender-based analysis in clinical trials associated with US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug approvals between January 1, 1995, and December 31, 2022. In this cross-sectional study of participants enrolled in FDA ophthalmology trials, the following trial documents were reviewed by pairs of independent reviewers in decreasing order of priority: peer-reviewed publication, ClinicalTrials.gov report, and FDA medical and statistical reviews. Trial protocols and supplementary materials were also reviewed. The proportion of trials that correctly applied sex and gender terminology, reported the method of assessing sex or gender, and conducted sex- or gender-based data analysis; incorrect application of sex and gender terminology was defined as interchangeable use of sex- and gender-related terms without a clear justification. Between 1995 and 2022, 34 ophthalmic drugs corresponding to 85 trials (34 740 participants) received FDA approval, of which 16 drugs (47.1%) corresponding to 32 trials (18 535 participants [37.6%]) were associated with peer-reviewed publications. Sixteen trials used sex and gender terminology correctly (19.5%). No trial reported how sex and gender were collected nor enrolled participants from sexual and gender identity minority populations. Most trials reported sex- and gender-disaggregated demographic data (96.5%), but few conducted sex- or gender-based analysis for data on dropout (1.2%), primary outcomes (28.2%), secondary outcomes (2.4%), and adverse events (9.4%). Erroneous sex and gender reporting was associated with later publication year (2008.5 vs 2001.0; median difference, 7.5; 95% CI, -6.0 to 11.0; P < .001) and higher journal influence metrics, including 2022 journal impact factor (13.7 vs 5.9; median difference, 7.8; 95% CI, -1.4 to 152.4, P < .001) and 2022 journal citation indicator (4.9 vs 2.1; median difference, 2.9; 95% CI, 0-20.0, P < .001). In this observational study, over three-quarters of ophthalmology trials associated with FDA drug approvals conflated sex and gender and over two-thirds lacked sex- and gender-based analyses. More rigorous integration of sex and gender appears warranted for FDA, and presumably other trials, to improve their validity, reproducibility, and equity.

A Drug Discovery Perspective on FDA Expedited Development and Incentive Programs.

Expedited development and approval pathways at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) such as Priority review, Fast Track Designation, Breakthrough Designation, and Accelerated Approval are programs available to drug sponsors that aim to incentivize and expedite the delivery of drugs to patients in need. In addition, other incentive programs such as Orphan Drug Designation (ODD), Qualified Infectious Disease Product Designation (QIDP), and Rare Pediatric Disease Designation (RPDD) are available to drug sponsors to help motivate development of drugs that may have lower economic incentive for commercialization. These programs have been largely effective, and many new innovative drugs since 2010 have accessed these programs. This Perspective highlights how these programs have been used in recent FDA drug approvals and discusses future ways sponsors and regulatory agencies may further enable development of these innovative drugs in the most expeditious fashion.

Physicians' Perspectives On FDA Regulation Of Drugs And Medical Devices: A National Survey.

Physicians' knowledge of Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval processes is important in informing clinical decisions and patient discussions. Among a randomly selected national sample of 509 internists, cardiologists, and oncologists, 41percent reported moderate or better understanding of the FDA's drug approval process, and 17percent reported moderate or better understanding of the FDA's medical device approval process. Nearly all physicians thought that randomized, blinded trials that met primary endpoints should be very important factors required to secure regulatory approval. Also, nearly all physicians thought that the FDA should revoke approval for accelerated-approval drugs or breakthrough devices that did not show benefit in postapproval studies. Our findings suggest that physicians commonly lack familiarity with drug and medical device regulatory practices and are under the impression that the data supporting FDA drug and high-risk device approvals are more rigorous than they often are. Physicians would value more rigorous premarket evidence, as well as regulatory action for drugs and devices that do not demonstrate safety and effectiveness in the postmarket setting.

Racial Disparities in Acute Myeloid Leukemia and Myelodysplastic Syndrome US FDA Drug Approval Trials

Introduction Young black patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML) have remarkably worse outcomes than white patients of the same age. Compared to white patients, the death rate of young black patients is fivefold more within 30 days of starting treatment and twofold more within five years. Here we studied the demographic representation of different races in the AML and myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) clinical trials that led to drug approval by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Methods Data were collected from all the trials submitted to the FDA to support the approval of AML and MDS drugs from 2006 to 2022. A total of 17 trials were screened, and 10 trials that did not mention the race or ethnicity of the participants were excluded. Our analysis included six trials of AML drugs and one trial of MDS drugs. The methodological quality of the included studies was evaluated using the NIH quality assessment tool. The inter-study variance was calculated using the Der Simonian-Laird Estimator. Analysis for this study was performed using R version 4.1.2 and R Studio version 1.1.423 (R Project for Statistical Computing). Results: Seven FDA trials reported the race or ethnicity of the participants, and a total of 2484 patients from these trials were analyzed. (Table 1) Olutasidenib, glasdegib plus low dose cytarabine, gemtuzumab-ozogamicin, liposome-encapsulated combination of daunorubicin and cytarabine, ivosidenib, and midostaurin were approved for AML. An oral combination of decitabine and cedazuridine was approved for MDS. The median age of the participants was 69.5 years (0.003-94). The median follow-up time was 20.9 months (0-85.2), and 51% (n=1267) of the participants were male and female participants were 49 % (n=1217). The racial analysis of included patients showed 63.4% (n=1574) white, 5.7% (n=141) black, 3.9% (n=97) Asian, 0.2% (n=4) American Indian/Alaska Native, and 0.1% (n=2) Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander while 5.9% (n=147) of the patients belonged to other races. Data about race was not reported for 20.8% (n=519) of the patients. Cortes et al. (2018) reported the highest racial disparity with 97.7% (n=129) white patients and only 0.76% black patients (n=1), while Gamis et al. (2014) reported the highest number of black patients (n=116). Conclusion: Despite being affected adversely to a significant degree by AML, black patients are underrepresented in drug trials. More efforts should be made to include them in trials so that better treatment plans can be formulated for this underrepresented group of patients.

Informed options trading before FDA drug advisory meetings

Months before the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) decides to approve or reject a new drug, it often asks committees of drug experts for their recommendations. The experts receive nonpublic technical reports from drug firms and FDA staff. We find significant abnormal options trading before the final reports are created and the committees meet, particularly for small drug firms. These options trades appear to be informed because there are more calls (puts) purchased before approvals (rejections), and a majority have maturities covering the dates when the reports are publicly released. Our results imply that securities regulators should consider monitoring trades early, well before FDA drug approval decisions.

Data transparency and demographic representation in approval packages of FDA-approved oncology drugs from 2012-2021.

1594 Background: Over the past decade, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has leveraged regulations and guidance documents to accelerate improvements in demographic reporting and encourage adequate representation of minorities in clinical trials. This cross-sectional study aims to assess the impact of these interventions by characterizing demographic data reporting and representation by sex, age, and racial and ethnic identity in pivotal trials supporting novel cancer therapeutics approved by the FDA from 2012 through 2021. Methods: Study demographic data were abstracted from FDA drug approval packages and US cancer population demographic data was abstracted from US Cancer Statistics. The percentages of trials reporting sex, age, racial and ethnic identity of participants in drug approval packages were calculated and participation to prevalence ratios (PPRs) were calculated by dividing the percentage of participants in each demographic by the percentage of the US cancer population in each group. PPRs were constructed for each pivotal trial by cancer type. Adequate representation was defined as PPR 0.8-1.2 and the proportion of trials which were adequately representative of each demographic was calculated and trended over time. Results: From 2012 through 2021, the FDA approved 118 cancer therapeutics, based on 131 pivotal trials. For drugs approved 2012-2016, the majority of associated pivotal trials reported participation based on sex (100% of trials), age (100%) and White (98%), Black (75%) or Asian (84%) racial identity, but not American Indian or Alaskan Native racial identity (18%) or Hispanic ethnic identity (41%). For drugs approved 2017-2021, there were no significant improvements in demographic data reporting, although there was a trend towards increased reporting on Hispanic ethnic identity from 2012-2016 (41%) to 2017-2021 (65%) (p= 0.06). For drugs approved 2012-2016, most pivotal trials adequately represented female participants (78% of trials) and participants identifying as White (87%), but few pivotal trials adequately represented older adults (7%), participants identifying as Black (11%), American Indian or Alaskan Native (0%), Asian (18%) or Hispanic (5%). Representation in pivotal trials did not significantly improve for any demographic for drugs approved 2017-2021 (p&gt;0.05). Conclusions: This study found that the last decade’s efforts to improve demographic data transparency and representation in clinical trials have not yet borne fruit for novel cancer therapeutics. More consequential FDA regulations may be necessary. Beyond the FDA, demographic data transparency and adequate minority representation in oncology clinical trials is an all-stakeholder responsibility. A more just clinical trial infrastructure requires greater collaboration between the FDA, sponsors, enrollers, contract research organizations and cooperative groups.

RANDOMIZATION IS AN INFREQUENTLY USED METHOD IN INTERVENTIONAL PHASE II CLINICAL TRIALS OF ADULT PATIENTS WITH LYMPHOMA

Introduction: Clinical trials are important to inform decision making and to improve outcomes for patients with lymphoma. Phase II trials are designed to determine if a new treatment has enough promising efficacy and safety to warrant further investigation in a phase III trial. Randomized controlled trials have historically received the greatest consideration in providing reliable evidence of a drug's safety and efficacy. However, Single Arm Non-Randomized Studies (SANRS) have been considered as a valid option by regulators. It has been reported that 66% (49/74) of approvals granted between 1999 and 2014 from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) were based on nonrandomized experiments in oncology including hematological malignancies, and lymphoma is one of the most common cancer types that has single arm FDA drug approval. The aim of this report is to evaluate the proportion and evolution in time of the use of randomization in interventional phase II clinical trials in adult patients with lymphoma, using a sample of the ClinicalTrials.govdatabase. Methods: We conducted a predefined search in the United States National Library of Medicine clinical trials database (ClinicalTrials.gov) in the field “condition or disease” for the term "lymphoma" with filters for "interventional studies", "phase 2 studies” and “adults = >18–64 years old” plus “older adults = 65 years and older”. We examined all clinical trials that met the inclusion criteria from January 1st, 2012, through December 31st, 2022. We excluded trials with overlapping terminology that did not enroll patients with mature lymphoid neoplasms, such as precursor b-lymphoblastic lymphoma/leukaemia, anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) non-small-cell lung cancer and trials involving very broad disease categories such as “advanced cancer”, “hematological malignancies” or “high risk populations” with the exception when a significant proportion of patients with lymphoma was expected to be enrolled. Difficult cases were discussed and decided at the discretion of the authors. Results: Our search returned 2085 clinical trials, of those we included 1376 in the analysis according to our inclusion/exclusion criteria. We found that between 2012 and 2022 randomization was performed in 12.8% (177/1376) of interventional phase II clinical trials of adult patients with lymphoma. The histogram (Figure 1) shows that the number of trials increased during the analysis period, but the number of randomized clinical trials remained proportionally low. Keywords: therapeutics and clinical trials in lymphoma, other No conflicts of interests pertinent to the abstract.

Data visualization explorer: A tool for participant representation in pivotal trials of FDA-approved medicinal products

This paper presents a 2015-2021US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Drug Trials Snapshots (DTS) Data Visualization Explorer-an interactive data visualization web-based tool (https://arielcarmeli.shinyapps.io/fda-drug-trial-snapshots-data-explorer) built in R and based on publicly available FDA clinical trial participation data and disease incidence data from the National Cancer Institute and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. FDA data can be explored by race, ethnicity, sex, age group, therapeutic area, pharmaceutical sponsor, and approval year for clinical trials that supported each of the 339 FDA drug and biologic approvals between 2015 and 2021. This work provides several advantages relative to past literature and DTS reports: a dynamic data visualization tool; race, ethnicity, sex, and age group data presented in one place; data on sponsor; and emphasis on data distributions instead of averages. We present recommendations for improved data access, reporting, and communication to assist leaders in making evidence-based decisions to improve trial representation to enhance health equity.

The Pharmaceutical Industry in 2022: An Analysis of FDA Drug Approvals from the Perspective of Molecules.

While 2021 ended with the world engulfed in the COVID-19 Omicron wave, 2022 has ended in almost all countries, except China, with COVID-19 being likened to the flu. In this context, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has authorized only 37 new drugs this year compared to an average of 52 in the last four years. Thus 2022 is the second lowest harvest after 2016 in the last six years. This ranking may be transient and will be confirmed in the coming years. In this regard, the reduction in the number of drugs accepted by the FDA this year applies only to the so-called small molecules as there has been no variation in the respective numbers of biologics or TIDES (peptides and oligonucleotides). Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) continue to be the class with the most drugs authorized (9), while proteins/enzymes (5) and an antibody-drug conjugate complete the biologics harvest. In 2022, five TIDES and seven drugs inspired by natural products have received the green light, thus showing the same tendency as in previous years. Finally, pharmaceutical agents with nitrogen aromatic heterocycles and/or fluorine atoms continue to be predominant among small molecules this year. Furthermore, three drugs have been approved for imaging, reinforcing the trend in recent years for this class of treatments. A keyword in 2022 is bispecificity since four drugs have this property (two mAbs, one protein, and one peptide). Herein, the 37 new drugs approved by the FDA in 2022 are analyzed. On the basis of chemical structure alone, these drugs are classified as the following: biologics (antibodies, antibody-drug conjugates, proteins/enzymes), TIDES (peptide and oligonucleotides), combined drugs, natural products; nitrogen aromatic heterocycles, fluorine-containing molecules, and other small molecules.

Overview of FDA Drug Approval and Labeling

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regulates a variety of products, including medical, food, and tobacco products. Prior to the creation of the FDA, there were few protections to the public around the contents and sale of food and pharmaceuticals. Over time, legislation was passed and amended that ensured drugs and biologics undergo extensive review by multidisciplinary teams to provide assurance that marketed products are safe and effective for their intended use. The FDA-approved drug labeling is the primary tool for communicating essential information regarding the safe and effective use of a drug product. As such, providers should be familiar with the format of the prescribing information because it is a valuable source of information, particularly prior to prescribing a new drug for the first time. Although there are clinical circumstances in which off-label drug use may be warranted, prescribing drugs off-label involves a context of use that has not undergone the FDA's rigorous evaluation of the benefit-risk assessment.

A review of patient-reported outcome assessments in registration trials of FDA-approved new oncology drugs (2014–2018)

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) encourages the assessment of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in oncology clinical trials. A 2015 review showed that approximately 26% of industry-sponsored oncology trials included assessment of PROs. However, the proportion of recent trials that supported new oncology drug approvals and assessed PROs is unknown. This review found that assessment of PROs was included in about 75% of registration trials that supported 55 new FDA drug approvals during 2014–2018. Patient-reported outcome assessment was included more in randomized controlled trials than in open-label trials (88% vs. 69%, respectively) and more in phase 3 than in phase 2 trials (89% vs. 66%, respectively).

Trends in the Quality of Evidence Supporting FDA Drug Approvals: Results from a Literature Review.

New drug approvals in the United States must be supported by substantial evidence from "adequate and well-controlled" trials. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has flexibility in how it applies this standard. The authors conducted a systematic literature review of studies evaluating the design and outcomes of the key trials supporting new drug approvals in the United States. They extracted data on the trial characteristics, endpoint types, and expedited regulatory pathways. Among 48 publications eligible for inclusion, 30 covered trial characteristics, 23 covered surrogate measures, and 30 covered regulatory pathways. Trends point toward less frequent randomization, double-blinding, and active controls, with variation by drug type and indication. Surrogate measures are becoming more common but are not consistently well correlated with clinical outcomes. Drugs approved through expedited regulatory pathways often have less rigorous trial design characteristics. The characteristics of trials used to approve new drugs have evolved over the past two decades along with greater use of expedited regulatory pathways and changes in the nature of drugs being evaluated. While flexibility in regulatory standards is important, policy changes can emphasize high-quality data collection before or after FDA approval.

New Medical Device and Therapeutic Approvals in Otolaryngology: State of the Art Review of 2021.

ObjectiveTo evaluate new medical devices and drugs pertinent to otolaryngology–head and neck surgery that were approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2021.Data SourcesPublicly available FDA device and drug approvals from ENT (ear, nose, and throat), anesthesia, neurosurgery, plastic surgery, and general surgery FDA committees.Review MethodsFDA device and therapeutic approvals were identified and reviewed by members of the American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery’s Medical Devices and Drugs Committee. Two independent reviewers assessed the relevance of devices and drugs to otolaryngologists. Medical devices and drugs were then allocated to their respective subspecialty fields for critical review based on available scientific literature.ConclusionsThe Medical Devices and Drugs Committee reviewed 1153 devices and 52 novel drugs that received FDA approval in 2021 (67 ENT, 106 anesthesia, 618 general surgery and plastic surgery, 362 neurosurgery). Twenty-three devices and 1 therapeutic agent relevant to otolaryngology were included in the state of the art review. Advances spanned all subspecialties, including over-the-counter hearing aid options in otology, expanding treatment options for rhinitis in rhinology, innovative laser-safe endotracheal tubes in laryngology, novel facial rejuvenation and implant technology in facial plastic surgery, and advances in noninvasive and surgical treatment options for obstructive sleep apnea.Implications for PracticeFDA approvals for new technology and pharmaceuticals present new opportunities across subspecialties in otolaryngology. Clinicians’ nuanced understanding of the safety, advantages, and limitations of these innovations ensures ongoing progress in patient care.

Association Between Food and Drug Administration Approval and Disparities in Immunotherapy Use Among Patients With Cancer in the US

Clinical trials and compassionate use agreements provide selected patients with access to potentially life-saving treatments before approval by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Approval from the FDA decreases a number of access barriers; however, it is unknown whether FDA approval is associated with increases in the equitable use of novel therapies and reductions in disparities in use among patients with cancer in the US. To assess the association between FDA drug approval and disparities in the use of immunotherapy across health, sociodemographic, and socioeconomic strata before and after approval of the first checkpoint inhibitors for the treatment of patients with cancer in the US. This cohort study used data from the National Cancer Database to examine the use of immunotherapy across health, sociodemographic, and socioeconomic strata before and after FDA approval of the first checkpoint inhibitor therapies. A total of 402 689 patients 20 years or older who were diagnosed with stage IV non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), renal cell carcinoma (RCC), or melanoma of the skin between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2018 (specific years varied by tumor type), were included. Patient health (Charlson-Deyo comorbidity score and age), sociodemographic characteristics (sex, race, and ethnicity), and socioeconomic (insurance status and household income based on zip code of residence) characteristics. The association of patient characteristics with receipt of immunotherapy was evaluated in the 4 years before and the 3 years immediately after FDA approval using multivariable logistic regression modeling. Among 402 689 patients (median [IQR] age, 68 [60-76 years]; 225 081 men [55.9%]), 347 233 had NSCLC, 43 714 had RCC, and 11 742 patients had melanoma. A total of 47 527 patients (11.8%) were Black, 15 763 (3.9%) were Hispanic, 375 874 (93.3%) were non-Hispanic, 335 833 (83.4%) were White, and 16 553 (4.1%) were of other races. Before FDA approval, 6271 patients (3.2%) with NSCLC, 1155 patients (4.8%) with RCC, and 504 patients (8.6%) with melanoma received immunotherapy compared with 23 908 patients (15.6%) with NSCLC, 3890 patients (19.7%) with RCC, and 1143 patients (19.3%) with melanoma after FDA approval. Before FDA approval, sociodemographic and socioeconomic characteristics were associated with variable immunotherapy administration by tumor type. For example, among those with NSCLC, Black patients were less likely to receive immunotherapy than White patients (odds ratio [OR], 0.78; 95% CI ,0.71-0.85; P < .001); among those with RCC, uninsured patients were less likely to receive immunotherapy than privately insured patients (OR, 0.31; 95% CI, 0.20-0.48; P < .001). After FDA approval, most disparities persisted, but several narrowed (eg, Black patients with NSCLC: OR, 0.87 [95% CI, 0.83-0.91; P < .001]; uninsured patients with RCC: OR, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.48-0.75; P < .001]). Although many disparities remained, some gaps across socioeconomic characteristics appeared to widen (eg, patients with NSCLC in the lowest vs highest income quartile: OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.76-0.83; P < .001), and new gaps emerged (eg, Black patients with RCC: OR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.72-0.93; P = .003). In this cohort study, disparities in immunotherapy use existed across a number of sociodemographic and socioeconomic characteristics among patients with NSCLC, RCC, and melanoma before FDA approval, including during the important period when clinical trials were accruing patients. Although FDA approval was associated with a significant increase in the use of immunotherapy, gaps persisted, suggesting that FDA approval may not eliminate disparities in the use of novel therapies.

Is health-related quality of life (HRQoL) reporting keeping pace with new drug approvals in hematology and oncology: A five-year analysis of 245 drug approvals.

6519 Background: HRQoL data in cancer clinical trials can inform tolerability of new drugs, facilitate informed decision-making, and influence health care and policy decisions, but are frequently underreported. We reviewed all registration trials that informed Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval between 2015-2020 for latency and quality of HRQoL reporting. Methods: HRQoL data for each clinical trial associated with FDA drug approval between 7/2015-5/2020 was collected retrospectively from multiple sources including the FDA and clinicaltrials.gov website, conference abstracts, and journal manuscripts. The aim of the study was to analyze the proportion of trials reporting HRQoL, quality of HRQoL data, latency between FDA approval and first reporting of HRQoL data, and association between changes in HRQOL and overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS) outcomes. Results: Of the 259 trials involving 245 drug approvals, majority involved solid tumors (61.4%), were phase III (59.1%), and led to approval based on a non-PFS/OS endpoint (52.9%). HRQoL was a pre-specified endpoint in 55.2% and reported in 49.8% trials. HRQoL data was published by the time of FDA approval in only 41.8% cases, 24.8% reported HRQoL data &gt; 12 mo after approval. Further, among trials reporting HRQoL (n = 129), HRQoL data was first reported in the primary paper in only 34.1%, and either in an ancillary paper in 41.9% or an ancillary abstract in 24% trials. Of the 129 trials with HRQoL data, an improvement in HRQoL was seen in 44.2%, no significant change in 41.9%, mixed results in 11.6%, and worsening in 2.3% of trials. Overall, by the time of FDA approval, OS and PFS data were reported in 59% (152/259) and 65% (168/259) trials respectively with an OS benefit seen in 23.9% (62/259) trials, and PFS benefit in 38.6% (100/259) trials. Of the 84 trials that led to FDA approvals based solely on response rate, HRQoL was reported in only 23.8% (n = 24) with a HRQoL benefit seen in only 9.5% (n = 8) trials. Trials reporting either no significant impact on HRQoL or a mixed impact on HRQoL reported median OS benefit of 4.6 months and 4.2 months respectively. In trials reporting HRQoL data &gt; 6 mo from FDA approval, OS benefit of &lt; 3 mo was seen in 17.8% (8/45) trials. No significant time trends were noted during the study period. Conclusions: There was significant underreporting of HRQoL outcomes in trials ( &lt; 50%) associated with FDA drug approvals between 2015-2020 with majority of trials reporting HRQoL data in an ancillary paper/abstract, and at a much later time than the FDA approval. While it is widely accepted that timely dissemination of HRQoL data from cancer drug trials are vital for clinical and regulatory decisions, no improvement in reporting rates were noted over past 5 years. Only 10% of drugs approved on the basis of response rates showed improvement in HRQoL in the registration trials.

An Evaluation of Sex- and Gender-Based Analyses in Oncology Clinical Trials.

The objective of this study was to evaluate whether sex- and gender-based analyses and proper sex and gender terminology were used in oncology trials leading to regulatory drug approval. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Hematology/Oncology Approvals and Safety Notifications page was used to identify all anticancer therapies that received FDA approval between 2012 and 2019. The trials used to support FDA drug approval were collected along with all available supplemental tables and study protocols. Documents were reviewed to determine if there was a plan to analyze results according to sex and gender and to determine if consistent sex and gender terminology were used. We identified 128 randomized, controlled trials corresponding to a cancer medicine, which received FDA approval. No study specified how sex and gender were collected or analyzed. No study reported any information on the gender of participants. Sex and gender terminology were used inconsistently at least once in 76% (97 of 128) of studies. Among the 102 trials for nonsex-specific cancer sites, 89% (91 of 102) presented disaggregated survival outcome data by sex. No study presented disaggregated toxicity data by sex or gender. The majority of pivotal clinical trials in oncology fail to account for the important distinction between sex and gender and conflate sex and gender terminology. More rigor in designing clinical trials to include sex- and gender-based analyses and more care in using sex and gender terms in the cancer literature are needed. These efforts are essential to improve the reproducibility, generalizability, and inclusiveness of cancer research.

Use of Extrapolation in New Drug Approvals by the US Food and Drug Administration

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved indications can be factors in prescribing practices and insurance coverage, yet the frequency with which the extrapolation of clinical characteristics from pivotal trial data to the final approved indication occurs is not well understood. To evaluate the frequency of extrapolation beyond pivotal trial data into approved indications in relation to disease severity, disease subtype, and concomitant medication use. In a cross-sectional study, the characteristics of patients in pivotal trials of 105 novel drug approvals from 2015 to 2017 were identified and compared with the FDA-approved indications for the drugs. Main sources analyzed included FDA reviews, published material describing the pivotal trials, and the original drug labeling. The study was conducted from July 4, 2019, to June 1, 2021. Clinical characteristics of pivotal trials used in FDA approval. Main outcomes included the nature and frequency of extrapolation from study populations to the final indications. Extrapolation was defined as the granting of an indication for use in a broader population than was included in the pivotal trials on the basis of disease severity, disease subtype, or concomitant medication use. Among the 105 novel FDA drug approvals studied, 23 extrapolations of trial population characteristics to the approved indication were identified in 21 drugs (20%): 12 times (29%) in 2015, 3 times (15%) in 2016, and 6 times (14%) in 2017. Extrapolation of trial findings to patients with greater disease severity was most common (n = 14 drugs), followed by differences in disease subtype (n = 6) and concomitant medication use (n = 3). The findings of this study suggest that extrapolation from pivotal trial data to FDA-approved indications is common. Although extrapolations may be grounded in reasonable clinical predictions, they can limit the generalizability of such indications to specific prescribing decisions; these findings suggest a greater need for close postapproval monitoring to determine whether new safety issues arise, or effectiveness differs from expectations when these medications are used in broader real-world populations.