N Samuel1, S Verma2. 1. MD/PhD Program, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON. 2. Tom Baker Cancer Centre, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The primary objective of the present study was to examine the drug approval process and the time to approval (tta) for cancer drugs by 3 major international regulatory bodies-Health Canada, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (fda), and the European Medicines Agency (ema)-and to explore differences in the drug approval processes that might contribute to any disparities. METHODS: The publicly available Health Canada Drug Product Database was surveyed for all marketed antineoplastic agents approved between 1 January 2005 and 1 June 2013. For the resulting set of cancer drugs, public records of sponsor submission and approval dates by Health Canada, the fda, and the ema were obtained. RESULTS: Overall, the tta for the 37 antineoplastic agents that met the study criteria was significantly less for the fda than for the ema (X̄ = 6.7 months, p < 0.001) or for Health Canada (X̄ = 6.4 months, p < 0.001). The tta was not significantly different for Health Canada and the ema (X̄ = 0.65 months, p = 0.89). An analysis of the review processes demonstrated that the primary reason for the identified discrepancies in tta was the disparate use of accelerated approval mechanisms. SUMMARY: In the present study, we systematically compared cancer drug approvals at 3 international regulatory bodies. The differences in tta reflect several important considerations in the regulatory framework of cancer drug approvals. Those findings warrant an enhanced dialogue between clinicians and government agencies to understand opportunities and challenges in the current approval processes and to work toward balancing drug safety with timely access.
BACKGROUND: The primary objective of the present study was to examine the drug approval process and the time to approval (tta) for cancer drugs by 3 major international regulatory bodies-Health Canada, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (fda), and the European Medicines Agency (ema)-and to explore differences in the drug approval processes that might contribute to any disparities. METHODS: The publicly available Health Canada Drug Product Database was surveyed for all marketed antineoplastic agents approved between 1 January 2005 and 1 June 2013. For the resulting set of cancer drugs, public records of sponsor submission and approval dates by Health Canada, the fda, and the ema were obtained. RESULTS: Overall, the tta for the 37 antineoplastic agents that met the study criteria was significantly less for the fda than for the ema (X̄ = 6.7 months, p < 0.001) or for Health Canada (X̄ = 6.4 months, p < 0.001). The tta was not significantly different for Health Canada and the ema (X̄ = 0.65 months, p = 0.89). An analysis of the review processes demonstrated that the primary reason for the identified discrepancies in tta was the disparate use of accelerated approval mechanisms. SUMMARY: In the present study, we systematically compared cancer drug approvals at 3 international regulatory bodies. The differences in tta reflect several important considerations in the regulatory framework of cancer drug approvals. Those findings warrant an enhanced dialogue between clinicians and government agencies to understand opportunities and challenges in the current approval processes and to work toward balancing drug safety with timely access.
Entities:
Keywords:
Drug approval processes; Health Canada; cancer drugs; ema; fda
Authors: Nicholas S Downing; Jenerius A Aminawung; Nilay D Shah; Joel B Braunstein; Harlan M Krumholz; Joseph S Ross Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2012-05-16 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Elizabeth A Richey; E Alison Lyons; Jonathan R Nebeker; Veena Shankaran; June M McKoy; Thanh Ha Luu; Narissa Nonzee; Steven Trifilio; Oliver Sartor; Al B Benson; Kenneth R Carson; Beatrice J Edwards; Douglas Gilchrist-Scott; Timothy M Kuzel; Dennis W Raisch; Martin S Tallman; Dennis P West; Steven Hirschfeld; Antonio J Grillo-Lopez; Charles L Bennett Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2009-07-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Francesco Trotta; Hubert G M Leufkens; Jan H M Schellens; Richard Laing; Giovanni Tafuri Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-05-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: John R Johnson; Yang-Min Ning; Ann Farrell; Robert Justice; Patricia Keegan; Richard Pazdur Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2011-03-21 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Michael B Shea; Samantha A Roberts; Jessica C Walrath; Jeff D Allen; Ellen V Sigal Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2013-05-10 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: L G Baird; R Banken; H-G Eichler; F B Kristensen; D K Lee; J C W Lim; R Lim; C Longson; E Pezalla; T Salmonson; D Samaha; S Tunis; J Woodcock; G Hirsch Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2014-07-09 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: V Higenell; R Fajzel; G Batist; P K Cheema; H L McArthur; B Melosky; D Morris; T M Petrella; R Sangha; M F Savard; S S Sridhar; J Stagg; D J Stewart; S Verma Journal: Curr Oncol Date: 2019-04-01 Impact factor: 3.677
Authors: Amanda Katherina Herbrand; Andreas M Schmitt; Matthias Briel; Hannah Ewald; Marius Goldkuhle; Stefan Diem; Anouk Hoogkamer; Markus Joerger; Giusi Moffa; Urban Novak; Lars G Hemkens; Benjamin Kasenda Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2021-03-01