Histology independent drug development - Is this the future for cancer drugs?

The Cancer Drug Development Forum (CDDF)’s ‘Histology independent drug development – is this the future for cancer drugs?’ workshop was set up to explore the current landscape of histology independent drug development, review the current regulatory landscape and propose recommendations for improving the conduct of future trials.The first session considered lessons learnt from previous trials, including innovative solutions for reimbursement. The session explored why overall survival represents the most valuable endpoint, and the importance of duration of response, which can be captured with swimmer and spider plots.The second session on biomarker development and treatment optimisation considered current regulations for companion diagnostics, FDA guidance on histology independent drug development in oncology, and the need to establish cut-offs for the biomarker of tumour mutational burden to identify the patients most likely to benefit from PDL1 treatment.The third session reviewed novel trial designs, including basket, umbrella and platform trials, and statistical approaches of hierarchical modelling where homogeneity between study cohorts enables information to be borrowed between cohorts. The discussion highlighted the need to agree ‘common assessment standards’ to facilitate pooling of data across studies.In the fourth session, the sharing of data sets was recognised as a key step for improving equity of access to precision medicines across Europe. The session considered how the European Health Data Space (EHDS) could streamline access to medical records, emphasizing the importance of introducing greater accountability into the digital space.In conclusion the workshop proposed 11 recommendations to facilitate histology agnostic drug development.</p

Décisions réglementaires prises pour des raisons de sécurité des médicaments

LYON1-BU Santé (693882101) / SudocSudocFranceF

Extension of Indication for Authorised Oncology Products in the European Union: A Joint Effort of Multiple Stakeholders

After marketing authorisation, the development of a medicinal product often continues with studies investigating new therapeutic indications. Positive results can potentially lead to changes to the terms of the marketing authorisation, such as an extension of therapeutic indication(s). These studies can be initiated and sponsored by the marketing authorisation holder (MAH) or by others. When results from an investigator-initiated trial suggest that an authorised medicinal product is safe and effective for a new therapeutic indication, physicians may want to treat their patients with this medicinal product. In such a situation, it is desirable to extend the therapeutic indication(s) via the regulatory approval process, as this can facilitate patient access within the European Union. There may however be challenges when the MAH did not conduct the study and might not have access to the data. In this perspective, we focus on the possibilities to extend the therapeutic indication(s) of an already authorised medicinal product based on results from investigator-initiated trials. We address: (1) the advantages of an extension of indication; (2) the regulatory requirements for a variation application; (3) investigator-initiated trials as a basis for regulatory approval; (4) the role of the MAH in extending the indication. With this article, we want to emphasize the importance of a collaborative approach and dialogue between stakeholders with the aim to facilitate access to effective medicinal products

Extension of Indication for Authorised Oncology Products in the European Union: A Joint Effort of Multiple Stakeholders

After marketing authorisation, the development of a medicinal product often continues with studies investigating new therapeutic indications. Positive results can potentially lead to changes to the terms of the marketing authorisation, such as an extension of therapeutic indication(s). These studies can be initiated and sponsored by the marketing authorisation holder (MAH) or by others. When results from an investigator-initiated trial suggest that an authorised medicinal product is safe and effective for a new therapeutic indication, physicians may want to treat their patients with this medicinal product. In such a situation, it is desirable to extend the therapeutic indication(s) via the regulatory approval process, as this can facilitate patient access within the European Union. There may however be challenges when the MAH did not conduct the study and might not have access to the data. In this perspective, we focus on the possibilities to extend the therapeutic indication(s) of an already authorised medicinal product based on results from investigator-initiated trials. We address: (1) the advantages of an extension of indication; (2) the regulatory requirements for a variation application; (3) investigator-initiated trials as a basis for regulatory approval; (4) the role of the MAH in extending the indication. With this article, we want to emphasize the importance of a collaborative approach and dialogue between stakeholders with the aim to facilitate access to effective medicinal products

Exploring the opportunities for alignment of regulatory postauthorization requirements and data required for performance-based managed entry agreements

Performance-based managed entry agreements (PB-MEAs) might allow patient access to new medicines, but practical hurdles make competent authorities for pricing and reimbursement (CAPR) reluctant to implement PB-MEAs. We explored if the feasibility of PB-MEAs might improve by better aligning regulatory postauthorization requirements with the data generation of PB-MEAs and by active collaboration and data sharing. Reviewers from seven CAPRs provided structured assessments of the information available at the European Medicines Agency (EMA) Web site on regulatory postauthorization requirements for fifteen recently authorized products. The reviewers judged to what extent regulatory postauthorization studies could help implement PB-MEAs by addressing uncertainty gaps. Study domains assessed were: patient population, intervention, comparators, outcomes, time horizon, anticipated data quality, and anticipated robustness of analysis. Reviewers shared general comments about PB-MEAs for each product and on cooperation with other CAPRs. Reviewers rated regulatory postauthorization requirements at least partly helpful for most products and across domains except the comparator domain. One quarter of responses indicated that public information provided by the EMA was insufficient to support the implementation of PB-MEAs. Few PB-MEAs were in place for these products, but the potential for implementation of PB-MEAs or collaboration across CAPRs was seen as more favorable. Responses helped delineate a set of conditions where PB-MEAs may help reduce uncertainty. In conclusion, PB-MEAs are not a preferred option for CAPRs, but we identified conditions where PB-MEAs might be worth considering. The complexities of implementing PB-MEAs remain a hurdle, but collaboration across silos and more transparency on postauthorization studies could help overcome some barriers

Exploring the opportunities for alignment of regulatory postauthorization requirements and data required for performance-based managed entry agreements

Performance-based managed entry agreements (PB-MEAs) might allow patient access to new medicines, but practical hurdles make competent authorities for pricing and reimbursement (CAPR) reluctant to implement PB-MEAs. We explored if the feasibility of PB-MEAs might improve by better aligning regulatory postauthorization requirements with the data generation of PB-MEAs and by active collaboration and data sharing. Reviewers from seven CAPRs provided structured assessments of the information available at the European Medicines Agency (EMA) Web site on regulatory postauthorization requirements for fifteen recently authorized products. The reviewers judged to what extent regulatory postauthorization studies could help implement PB-MEAs by addressing uncertainty gaps. Study domains assessed were: patient population, intervention, comparators, outcomes, time horizon, anticipated data quality, and anticipated robustness of analysis. Reviewers shared general comments about PB-MEAs for each product and on cooperation with other CAPRs. Reviewers rated regulatory postauthorization requirements at least partly helpful for most products and across domains except the comparator domain. One quarter of responses indicated that public information provided by the EMA was insufficient to support the implementation of PB-MEAs. Few PB-MEAs were in place for these products, but the potential for implementation of PB-MEAs or collaboration across CAPRs was seen as more favorable. Responses helped delineate a set of conditions where PB-MEAs may help reduce uncertainty. In conclusion, PB-MEAs are not a preferred option for CAPRs, but we identified conditions where PB-MEAs might be worth considering. The complexities of implementing PB-MEAs remain a hurdle, but collaboration across silos and more transparency on postauthorization studies could help overcome some barriers