Ten years of marketing approvals of anticancer drugs in Europe: regulatory policy and guidance documents need to find a balance between different pressures

Despite important progress in understanding the molecular factors underlying the development of cancer and the improvement in response rates with new drugs, long-term survival is still disappointing for most common solid tumours. This might be because very little of the modest gain for patients is the result of the new compounds discovered and marketed recently. An assessment of the regulatory agencies' performance may suggest improvements. The present analysis summarizes and evaluates the type of studies and end points used by the EMEA to approve new anticancer drugs, and discusses the application of current regulations. This report is based on the information available on the EMEA web site. We identified current regulatory requirements for anticancer drugs promulgated by the agency and retrieved them in the relevant directory; information about empirical evidence supporting the approval of drugs for solid cancers through the centralised procedure were retrieved from the European Public Assessment Report (EPAR). We surveyed documents for drug applications and later extensions from January 1995, when EMEA was set up, to December 2004. We identified 14 anticancer drugs for 27 different indications (14 new applications and 13 extensions). Overall, 48 clinical studies were used as the basis for approval; randomised comparative (clinical) trial (RCT) and Response Rate were the study design and end points most frequently adopted (respectively, 25 out of 48 and 30 out of 48). In 13 cases, the EPAR explicitly reported differences between arms in terms of survival: the range was 0–3.7 months, and the mean and median differences were 1.5 and 1.2 months. The majority of studies (13 out of 27, 48%) involved the evaluation of complete and/or partial tumour responses, with regard to the end points supporting the 27 indications. Despite the recommendations of the current EMEA guidance documents, new anticancer agents are still often approved on the basis of small single arm trials that do not allow any assessment of an ‘acceptable and extensively documented toxicity profile' and of end points such as response rate, time to progression or progression-free survival which at best can be considered indicators of anticancer activity and are not ‘justified surrogate markers for clinical benefit'. Anticipating an earlier than ideal point along the drug approval path and the use of not fully validated surrogate end points in nonrandomised trials looks like a dangerous shortcut that might jeopardise consumers' health, leading to unsafe and ineffective drugs being marketed and prescribed. The present Note for Guidance for new anticancer agents needs revising. Drugs must be rapidly released for patients who need them but not be at the expense of adequate knowledge about the real benefit of the drugs

Extent of non-publication in cohorts of studies approved by research ethics committees or included in trial registries

Background: The synthesis of published research in systematic reviews is essential when providing evidence to inform clinical and health policy decisionmaking. However, the validity of systematic reviews is threatened if journal publications represent a biased selection of all studies that have been conducted (dissemination bias). To investigate the extent of dissemination bias we conducted a systematic review that determined the proportion of studies published as peerreviewed journal articles and investigated factors associated with full publication in cohorts of studies (i) approved by research ethics committees (RECs) or (ii) included in trial registries. Copyright:Methods and Findings: Four bibliographic databases were searched for methodological research projects (MRPs) without limitations for publication year, language or study location. The searches were supplemented by handsearching the references of included MRPs. We estimated the proportion of studies published using prediction intervals (PI) and a random effects meta-analysis. Pooled odds ratios (OR) were used to express associations between study characteristics and journal publication. Seventeen MRPs (23 publications) evaluated cohorts of studies approved by RECs; the proportion of published studies had a PI between 22% and 72% and the weighted pooled proportion when combining estimates would be 46.2% (95% CI 40.2%-52.4%, I2594.4%). Twenty-two MRPs (22 publications) evaluated cohorts of studies included in trial registries; the PI of the proportion published ranged from 13% to 90% and the weighted pooled proportion would be 54.2% (95% CI 42.0%-65.9%, I2598.9%). REC-approved studies with statistically significant results (compared with those without statistically significant results) were more likely to be published (pooled OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.2-3.5). Phase-III trials were also more likely to be published than phase II trials (pooled OR 2.0; 95% CI 1.6- 2.5). The probability of publication within two years after study completion ranged from 7% to 30%.Conclusions: A substantial part of the studies approved by RECs or included in trial registries remains unpublished. Due to the large heterogeneity a prediction of the publication probability for a future study is very uncertain. Non-publication of research is not a random process, e.g., it is associated with the direction of study findings. Our findings suggest that the dissemination of research findings is biased

The role of amputation as an outcome measure in cellular therapy for critical limb ischemia: implications for clinical trial design

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Autologous bone marrow-derived stem cells have been ascribed an important therapeutic role in No-Option Critical limb Ischemia (NO-CLI). One primary endpoint for evaluating NO-CLI therapy is major amputation (AMP), which is usually combined with mortality for AMP-free survival (AFS). Only a trial which is double blinded can eliminate physician and patient bias as to the timing and reason for AMP. We examined factors influencing AMP in a prospective double-blinded pilot RCT (2:1 therapy to control) of 48 patients treated with site of service obtained bone marrow cells (BMAC) as well as a systematic review of the literature.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Cells were injected intramuscularly in the CLI limbs as either BMAC or placebo (peripheral blood). Six month AMP rates were compared between the two arms. Both patient and treating team were blinded of the assignment in follow-up examinations. A search of the literature identified 9 NO-CLI trials, the control arms of which were used to determine 6 month AMP rates and the influence of tissue loss.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Fifteen amputations occurred during the 6 month period, 86.7% of these during the first 4 months. One amputation occurred in a Rutherford 4 patient. The difference in amputation rate between patients with rest pain (5.6%) and those with tissue loss (46.7%), irrespective of treatment group, was significant (p = 0.0029). In patients with tissue loss, treatment with BMAC demonstrated a lower amputation rate than placebo (39.1% vs. 71.4%, p = 0.1337). The Kaplan-Meier time to amputation was longer in the BMAC group than in the placebo group (p = 0.067). Projecting these results to a pivotal trial, a bootstrap simulation model showed significant difference in AFS between BMAC and placebo with a power of 95% for a sample size of 210 patients. Meta-analysis of the literature confirmed a difference in amputation rate between patients with tissue loss and rest pain.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>BMAC shows promise in improving AMP-free survival if the trends in this pilot study are validated in a larger pivotal trial. The difference in amp rate between Rutherford 4 & 5 patients suggests that these patients should be stratified in future RCTs.</p

Combined loss of the BH3-only proteins Bim and Bmf restores B-cell development and function in TACI-Ig transgenic mice.

Terminal differentiation of B cells depends on two interconnected survival pathways, elicited by the B-cell receptor (BCR) and the BAFF receptor (BAFF-R), respectively. Loss of either signaling pathway arrests B-cell development. Although BCR-dependent survival depends mainly on the activation of the v-AKT murine thymoma viral oncogene homolog 1 (AKT)/PI3-kinase network, BAFF/BAFF-R-mediated survival engages non-canonical NF-κB signaling as well as MAPK/extracellular-signal regulated kinase and AKT/PI3-kinase modules to allow proper B-cell development. Plasma cell survival, however, is independent of BAFF-R and regulated by APRIL that signals NF-κB activation via alternative receptors, that is, transmembrane activator and CAML interactor (TACI) or B-cell maturation (BCMA). All these complex signaling events are believed to secure survival by increased expression of anti-apoptotic B-cell lymphoma 2 (Bcl2) family proteins in developing and mature B cells. Curiously, how lack of BAFF- or APRIL-mediated signaling triggers B-cell apoptosis remains largely unexplored. Here, we show that two pro-apoptotic members of the 'Bcl2 homology domain 3-only' subgroup of the Bcl2 family, Bcl2 interacting mediator of cell death (Bim) and Bcl2 modifying factor (Bmf), mediate apoptosis in the context of TACI-Ig overexpression that effectively neutralizes BAFF as well as APRIL. Surprisingly, although Bcl2 overexpression triggers B-cell hyperplasia exceeding the one observed in Bim(-/-)Bmf(-/-) mice, Bcl2 transgenic B cells remain susceptible to the effects of TACI-Ig expression in vivo, leading to ameliorated pathology in Vav-Bcl2 transgenic mice. Together, our findings shed new light on the molecular machinery restricting B-cell survival during development, normal homeostasis and under pathological conditions. Our data further suggest that Bcl2 antagonists might improve the potency of BAFF/APRIL-depletion strategies in B-cell-driven pathologies