Haematological anticancer drugs in Europe: Any added value at the time of approval?

Vittorio Bertele, Rita Banzi, Filippo Capasso, Giovanni Tafuri, Francesco Trotta, Giovanni Apolone, Silvio Garattini

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

13 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: Current European regulations only require drugs to be safe and effective, although there is heavy demand for comparative efficacy data to demonstrate the added value of new drugs. The objective of the analysis reported here was to assess the added value of new anticancer drugs for haematological malignancies that have been approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) based on the clinical data provided at the time of submission. Methods: Information on the evidence supporting the approval was extracted from the European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs). Documents were surveyed for new applications and for subsequent extensions between January 1995, when the EMEA was set up, and May 2006. The added value of newly approved drugs was assessed by an algorithm that evaluates the strength of evidence based on methodological appropriateness (randomised comparison) and the importance of clinical advantage (in terms of the magnitude of benefit, hardness of outcome measures, adequacy of comparator). Results: Eleven anticancer drugs were analysed. Of 17 indications, nine (53%) were approved on the basis of single-arm trials (SATs), and eight (47%) were approved on the basis of randomised controlled (clinical) trials (RCTs). The most frequently used endpoint was response rate (12 of 17 indications, 70%). On the basis of our criteria, only four of the 11 drugs show a consistent added value. Conclusion: We were unable to establish an added value for about two thirds of the drugs evaluated in this study, primarily due to methodological aspects related to study design and endpoint robustness.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)713-719
Number of pages7
JournalEuropean Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
Volume63
Issue number7
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jul 2007

Fingerprint

Pharmaceutical Preparations
Hardness
Hematologic Neoplasms
Randomized Controlled Trials
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)

Keywords

  • Added value
  • EMEA
  • Endpoint
  • Haematological anticancer drugs
  • Regulatory process

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pharmacology (medical)
  • Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics(all)

Cite this

Haematological anticancer drugs in Europe : Any added value at the time of approval? / Bertele, Vittorio; Banzi, Rita; Capasso, Filippo; Tafuri, Giovanni; Trotta, Francesco; Apolone, Giovanni; Garattini, Silvio.

In: European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, Vol. 63, No. 7, 07.2007, p. 713-719.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{ae00cc49c96349afac50d2e34feabdd5,
title = "Haematological anticancer drugs in Europe: Any added value at the time of approval?",
abstract = "Objective: Current European regulations only require drugs to be safe and effective, although there is heavy demand for comparative efficacy data to demonstrate the added value of new drugs. The objective of the analysis reported here was to assess the added value of new anticancer drugs for haematological malignancies that have been approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) based on the clinical data provided at the time of submission. Methods: Information on the evidence supporting the approval was extracted from the European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs). Documents were surveyed for new applications and for subsequent extensions between January 1995, when the EMEA was set up, and May 2006. The added value of newly approved drugs was assessed by an algorithm that evaluates the strength of evidence based on methodological appropriateness (randomised comparison) and the importance of clinical advantage (in terms of the magnitude of benefit, hardness of outcome measures, adequacy of comparator). Results: Eleven anticancer drugs were analysed. Of 17 indications, nine (53{\%}) were approved on the basis of single-arm trials (SATs), and eight (47{\%}) were approved on the basis of randomised controlled (clinical) trials (RCTs). The most frequently used endpoint was response rate (12 of 17 indications, 70{\%}). On the basis of our criteria, only four of the 11 drugs show a consistent added value. Conclusion: We were unable to establish an added value for about two thirds of the drugs evaluated in this study, primarily due to methodological aspects related to study design and endpoint robustness.",
keywords = "Added value, EMEA, Endpoint, Haematological anticancer drugs, Regulatory process",
author = "Vittorio Bertele and Rita Banzi and Filippo Capasso and Giovanni Tafuri and Francesco Trotta and Giovanni Apolone and Silvio Garattini",
year = "2007",
month = "7",
doi = "10.1007/s00228-007-0296-2",
language = "English",
volume = "63",
pages = "713--719",
journal = "European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology",
issn = "0031-6970",
publisher = "Springer Verlag",
number = "7",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Haematological anticancer drugs in Europe

T2 - Any added value at the time of approval?

AU - Bertele, Vittorio

AU - Banzi, Rita

AU - Capasso, Filippo

AU - Tafuri, Giovanni

AU - Trotta, Francesco

AU - Apolone, Giovanni

AU - Garattini, Silvio

PY - 2007/7

Y1 - 2007/7

N2 - Objective: Current European regulations only require drugs to be safe and effective, although there is heavy demand for comparative efficacy data to demonstrate the added value of new drugs. The objective of the analysis reported here was to assess the added value of new anticancer drugs for haematological malignancies that have been approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) based on the clinical data provided at the time of submission. Methods: Information on the evidence supporting the approval was extracted from the European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs). Documents were surveyed for new applications and for subsequent extensions between January 1995, when the EMEA was set up, and May 2006. The added value of newly approved drugs was assessed by an algorithm that evaluates the strength of evidence based on methodological appropriateness (randomised comparison) and the importance of clinical advantage (in terms of the magnitude of benefit, hardness of outcome measures, adequacy of comparator). Results: Eleven anticancer drugs were analysed. Of 17 indications, nine (53%) were approved on the basis of single-arm trials (SATs), and eight (47%) were approved on the basis of randomised controlled (clinical) trials (RCTs). The most frequently used endpoint was response rate (12 of 17 indications, 70%). On the basis of our criteria, only four of the 11 drugs show a consistent added value. Conclusion: We were unable to establish an added value for about two thirds of the drugs evaluated in this study, primarily due to methodological aspects related to study design and endpoint robustness.

AB - Objective: Current European regulations only require drugs to be safe and effective, although there is heavy demand for comparative efficacy data to demonstrate the added value of new drugs. The objective of the analysis reported here was to assess the added value of new anticancer drugs for haematological malignancies that have been approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) based on the clinical data provided at the time of submission. Methods: Information on the evidence supporting the approval was extracted from the European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs). Documents were surveyed for new applications and for subsequent extensions between January 1995, when the EMEA was set up, and May 2006. The added value of newly approved drugs was assessed by an algorithm that evaluates the strength of evidence based on methodological appropriateness (randomised comparison) and the importance of clinical advantage (in terms of the magnitude of benefit, hardness of outcome measures, adequacy of comparator). Results: Eleven anticancer drugs were analysed. Of 17 indications, nine (53%) were approved on the basis of single-arm trials (SATs), and eight (47%) were approved on the basis of randomised controlled (clinical) trials (RCTs). The most frequently used endpoint was response rate (12 of 17 indications, 70%). On the basis of our criteria, only four of the 11 drugs show a consistent added value. Conclusion: We were unable to establish an added value for about two thirds of the drugs evaluated in this study, primarily due to methodological aspects related to study design and endpoint robustness.

KW - Added value

KW - EMEA

KW - Endpoint

KW - Haematological anticancer drugs

KW - Regulatory process

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=34250375652&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=34250375652&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00228-007-0296-2

DO - 10.1007/s00228-007-0296-2

M3 - Article

C2 - 17530236

AN - SCOPUS:34250375652

VL - 63

SP - 713

EP - 719

JO - European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

JF - European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

SN - 0031-6970

IS - 7

ER -