OBJECTIVES: Real-world evidence (RWE) has gained increased attention in recent years as a complement to traditional clinical trials. The use of RWE to establish the efficacy of oncology drugs for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval has not been described. In this paper, we review 5 recent examples where RWE was submitted in support of the FDA approvals of original or supplementary indications for oncology drugs. METHODS: To identify cases where RWE was used, we reviewed drug approval packages available at Drugs@FDA for oncology drugs approved between 2017 and 2019. Five cases were selected to present a broad overview of different types of RWE, different circumstances under which RWE has been used for regulatory approvals, and how FDA evaluated the data in each case. The type of RWE submitted, the indication, limitations identified by FDA reviewers, and the outcome of the submission are discussed. RESULTS: RWE, particularly historical controls for rare or orphan indications, has been used to support both original and supplementary oncology drug approvals. Types of RWE included data from electronic health records, claims, post-marketing safety reports, retrospective medical record reviews, and expanded access studies. Small sample sizes, data quality, and methodological issues were among concerns cited by FDA reviewers. CONCLUSION: By bridging the gap between the constraints of the trial setting and the realities of clinical practice, RWE can add value to a regulatory submission. These early examples provide insight into how regulators evaluated RWE submitted as evidence of efficacy for oncology drugs.
OBJECTIVES: Real-world evidence (RWE) has gained increased attention in recent years as a complement to traditional clinical trials. The use of RWE to establish the efficacy of oncology drugs for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval has not been described. In this paper, we review 5 recent examples where RWE was submitted in support of the FDA approvals of original or supplementary indications for oncology drugs. METHODS: To identify cases where RWE was used, we reviewed drug approval packages available at Drugs@FDA for oncology drugs approved between 2017 and 2019. Five cases were selected to present a broad overview of different types of RWE, different circumstances under which RWE has been used for regulatory approvals, and how FDA evaluated the data in each case. The type of RWE submitted, the indication, limitations identified by FDA reviewers, and the outcome of the submission are discussed. RESULTS: RWE, particularly historical controls for rare or orphan indications, has been used to support both original and supplementary oncology drug approvals. Types of RWE included data from electronic health records, claims, post-marketing safety reports, retrospective medical record reviews, and expanded access studies. Small sample sizes, data quality, and methodological issues were among concerns cited by FDA reviewers. CONCLUSION: By bridging the gap between the constraints of the trial setting and the realities of clinical practice, RWE can add value to a regulatory submission. These early examples provide insight into how regulators evaluated RWE submitted as evidence of efficacy for oncology drugs.
Authors: Rifaquat Rahman; Steffen Ventz; Jon McDunn; Bill Louv; Irmarie Reyes-Rivera; Mei-Yin C Polley; Fahar Merchant; Lauren E Abrey; Joshua E Allen; Laura K Aguilar; Estuardo Aguilar-Cordova; David Arons; Kirk Tanner; Stephen Bagley; Mustafa Khasraw; Timothy Cloughesy; Patrick Y Wen; Brian M Alexander; Lorenzo Trippa Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2021-10 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Joaquin Mateo; Lotte Steuten; Philippe Aftimos; Fabrice André; Mark Davies; Elena Garralda; Jan Geissler; Don Husereau; Iciar Martinez-Lopez; Nicola Normanno; Jorge S Reis-Filho; Stephen Stefani; David M Thomas; C Benedikt Westphalen; Emile Voest Journal: Nat Med Date: 2022-04-19 Impact factor: 87.241
Authors: Sini Marika Eskola; Hubertus Gerardus Maria Leufkens; Andrew Bate; Marie Louise De Bruin; Helga Gardarsdottir Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2021-11-16 Impact factor: 6.903
Authors: Charis Wong; Maria Stavrou; Elizabeth Elliott; Jenna M Gregory; Nigel Leigh; Ashwin A Pinto; Timothy L Williams; Jeremy Chataway; Robert Swingler; Mahesh K B Parmar; Nigel Stallard; Christopher J Weir; Richard A Parker; Amina Chaouch; Hisham Hamdalla; John Ealing; George Gorrie; Ian Morrison; Callum Duncan; Peter Connelly; Francisco Javier Carod-Artal; Richard Davenport; Pablo Garcia Reitboeck; Aleksandar Radunovic; Venkataramanan Srinivasan; Jenny Preston; Arpan R Mehta; Danielle Leighton; Stella Glasmacher; Emily Beswick; Jill Williamson; Amy Stenson; Christine Weaver; Judith Newton; Dawn Lyle; Rachel Dakin; Malcolm Macleod; Suvankar Pal; Siddharthan Chandran Journal: Brain Commun Date: 2021-10-23
Authors: Denis Horgan; Bettina Borisch; Ivana Cattaneo; Mark Caulfield; Arturo Chiti; Christine Chomienne; Amanda Cole; Karen Facey; Allan Hackshaw; Minna Hendolin; Nadia Georges; Dipak Kalra; Birutė Tumienė; Martina von Meyenn Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-02-01 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Denis Horgan; Giuseppe Curigliano; Olaf Rieß; Paul Hofman; Reinhard Büttner; Pierfranco Conte; Tanja Cufer; William M Gallagher; Nadia Georges; Keith Kerr; Frédérique Penault-Llorca; Ken Mastris; Carla Pinto; Jan Van Meerbeeck; Elisabetta Munzone; Marlene Thomas; Sonia Ujupan; Gilad W Vainer; Janna-Lisa Velthaus; Fabrice André Journal: J Pers Med Date: 2022-01-08