Evaluation of Serious Postmarket Safety Signals Within 2 Years of FDA Approval for New Cancer Drugs.


Journal

The oncologist
ISSN: 1549-490X
Titre abrégé: Oncologist
Pays: England
ID NLM: 9607837

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
04 2020
Historique:
received: 23 08 2019
accepted: 05 11 2019
entrez: 17 4 2020
pubmed: 17 4 2020
medline: 22 6 2021
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

We examined how often new serious safety signals were identified by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration within the first 2 years after approval for new molecular entities (NMEs) for treatment of cancer that required specific regulatory actions described here. We identified, for all NMEs approved for treatment of cancer or malignant hematology indications between 2010 and 2016, substantial safety-related changes within the first 2 years after approval, which included a new Boxed Warning or Warning and Precaution; requirement for (or modification of existing) Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS); and withdrawal from the market because of safety concerns. Fifty-five NMEs were approved between 2010 and 2016: 32 (58%) under regular approval (RA) and 23 (42%) under accelerated approval (AA). Of these 55 NMEs, 9 (16%) had substantial safety-related changes after approval. Across all 55 NMEs, one was temporarily withdrawn from the market for safety reasons (1.8%); one (1.8%) required a new REMS; nine required labeling revisions-new Boxed Warnings were required for two NMEs (3.6%), and new Warnings and Precautions subsections were required for eight (14.6%). One drug (ponatinib) was responsible for several of the substantial safety-related changes (withdrawal, REMS, Boxed Warnings). One of 32 NMEs approved under RA required a new Warning and Precaution, whereas 7 of 23 NMEs approved under AA had substantial safety-related changes in the first 2 years after approval. Based on our analysis we conclude that although there was a greater incidence of substantial safety-related changes to AA drugs versus RA drugs, the majority of these were changes to the Warnings and Precautions and did not substantially alter the benefit-risk profile of the drug. The majority of new cancer drugs (84%) approved in the U.S. do not have new substantial safety information being added to the label within the first 2 years of approval. Unprecedented efficacy seen in contemporary cancer drug development has led to early availability of effective cancer therapies based on large effects in smaller populations. More limited premarket safety data require diligent postmarketing safety surveillance as we continue to learn and update drug labeling throughout the product lifecycle.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
We examined how often new serious safety signals were identified by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration within the first 2 years after approval for new molecular entities (NMEs) for treatment of cancer that required specific regulatory actions described here.
METHODS
We identified, for all NMEs approved for treatment of cancer or malignant hematology indications between 2010 and 2016, substantial safety-related changes within the first 2 years after approval, which included a new Boxed Warning or Warning and Precaution; requirement for (or modification of existing) Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategies (REMS); and withdrawal from the market because of safety concerns.
RESULTS
Fifty-five NMEs were approved between 2010 and 2016: 32 (58%) under regular approval (RA) and 23 (42%) under accelerated approval (AA). Of these 55 NMEs, 9 (16%) had substantial safety-related changes after approval. Across all 55 NMEs, one was temporarily withdrawn from the market for safety reasons (1.8%); one (1.8%) required a new REMS; nine required labeling revisions-new Boxed Warnings were required for two NMEs (3.6%), and new Warnings and Precautions subsections were required for eight (14.6%). One drug (ponatinib) was responsible for several of the substantial safety-related changes (withdrawal, REMS, Boxed Warnings). One of 32 NMEs approved under RA required a new Warning and Precaution, whereas 7 of 23 NMEs approved under AA had substantial safety-related changes in the first 2 years after approval.
CONCLUSION
Based on our analysis we conclude that although there was a greater incidence of substantial safety-related changes to AA drugs versus RA drugs, the majority of these were changes to the Warnings and Precautions and did not substantially alter the benefit-risk profile of the drug.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE
The majority of new cancer drugs (84%) approved in the U.S. do not have new substantial safety information being added to the label within the first 2 years of approval. Unprecedented efficacy seen in contemporary cancer drug development has led to early availability of effective cancer therapies based on large effects in smaller populations. More limited premarket safety data require diligent postmarketing safety surveillance as we continue to learn and update drug labeling throughout the product lifecycle.

Identifiants

pubmed: 32297444
doi: 10.1634/theoncologist.2019-0653
pmc: PMC7160417
doi:

Substances chimiques

Antineoplastic Agents 0

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

348-354

Informations de copyright

Published 2019. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

Références

BMJ. 2017 Sep 7;358:j3837
pubmed: 28882831
JAMA. 2017 May 9;317(18):1854-1863
pubmed: 28492899
JAMA Oncol. 2018 Jun 1;4(6):849-856
pubmed: 29494733
J Natl Cancer Inst. 2017 Nov 1;109(11):
pubmed: 29059439
N Engl J Med. 2016 Dec 8;375(23):2293-2297
pubmed: 27959688

Auteurs

Janice Kim (J)

Office of Oncologic Diseases, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.

Abhilasha Nair (A)

Office of Oncologic Diseases, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.

Patricia Keegan (P)

Office of Oncologic Diseases, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.

Julia A Beaver (JA)

Office of Oncologic Diseases, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.

Paul G Kluetz (PG)

Office of Oncologic Diseases, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.

Richard Pazdur (R)

Office of Oncologic Diseases, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.

Meredith Chuk (M)

Office of Oncologic Diseases, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.

Gideon M Blumenthal (GM)

Office of Oncologic Diseases, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland, USA.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH