RESUMEN
This work summarizes the benefit and risk of the results of clinical trials submitted to the US Food and Drug Administration of therapies for the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) using number needed to benefit (NNB) and number needed to harm (NNH) metrics. NNB and NNH metrics have been reported as potentially being more patient centric and more intuitive to medical practitioners than more common metrics, such as the hazard ratio, and valuable to medical practitioners in complementing other metrics, such as the median time to event. This approach involved the characterization of efficacy and safety results in terms of NNB and NNH of 30 clinical trials in advanced NSCLC supporting US Food and Drug Administration approval decisions from 2003 to 2017. We assessed trends of NNB over time of treatment (eg, for programmed death 1 inhibitors) and variation of NNB across subpopulations (eg, characterized by epidermal growth factor receptor mutation, programmed death ligand 1 expression, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, age, and extent of disease progression). Furthermore, the evolution of NNB of treatments for advanced NSCLC was charted from 2003 to 2017. Across subpopulations, NNB, on average, was 4 patients for approved targeted therapies in molecularly enriched populations, 11 patients for approved therapies in nonmolecularly enriched populations, and 23 patients for withdrawn or unapproved therapies. Furthermore, the NNB analysis showed variation for attributes of epidermal growth factor receptor mutations, level of programmed death 1 expression, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, etc. When considering the best-case subpopulations and available drugs, the NNB frontier reduced from an estimated value of 7.7 in 2003 to an estimated value of 2.5 in 2017 at the estimated median overall survival-equal to 6 months-of an untreated patient.
Asunto(s)
Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas , Neoplasias Pulmonares , Carcinoma de Pulmón de Células no Pequeñas/tratamiento farmacológico , Humanos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/tratamiento farmacológico , Atención Dirigida al PacienteRESUMEN
Drug regulators such as the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) make decisions about drug approvals based on benefit-risk analysis. In this work, a quantitative benefit-risk analysis approach captures regulatory decision making about new drugs to treat renal cell carcinoma (RCC). Fifteen FDA decisions on RCC drugs based on clinical trials whose results were published from 2005 to 2018 were identified and analyzed. The benefits and risks of the new drug in each clinical trial were quantified relative to comparators (typically the control arm of the same clinical trial) to estimate whether the benefit-risk was positive or negative. A sensitivity analysis was demonstrated using pazopanib to explore the magnitude of uncertainty. FDA approval decision outcomes for the clinical trials assessed were consistent and logical using this benefit-risk framework.
Asunto(s)
Carcinoma de Células Renales/tratamiento farmacológico , Aprobación de Drogas/legislación & jurisprudencia , Neoplasias Renales/tratamiento farmacológico , Antineoplásicos/administración & dosificación , Antineoplásicos/efectos adversos , Toma de Decisiones , Humanos , Indazoles , Pirimidinas/administración & dosificación , Pirimidinas/efectos adversos , Medición de Riesgo , Sulfonamidas/administración & dosificación , Sulfonamidas/efectos adversos , Estados Unidos , United States Food and Drug AdministrationRESUMEN
Drug regulators seek to make decisions regarding drug approvals based on analysis of the relevant benefits and risks. In this work, 25 US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) decisions on melanoma drugs were identified and analyzed based on clinical trial results published between 1999 and 2017. In each case, the benefits and risks of the new drug in each clinical trial relative to a comparator (typically the control arm of the same clinical trial) were quantified. The benefits and risks were analyzed using a common scale to allow for direct comparison. A sensitivity analysis was conducted using vemurafenib to explore the magnitude of uncertainty in the quantitative assessments. The associated FDA decision outcomes of the new drugs were consistent with the benefits and risks quantified in this work.
Asunto(s)
Antineoplásicos/uso terapéutico , Toma de Decisiones , Aprobación de Drogas/organización & administración , Melanoma/tratamiento farmacológico , United States Food and Drug Administration/organización & administración , Antineoplásicos/administración & dosificación , Antineoplásicos/efectos adversos , Humanos , Estimación de Kaplan-Meier , Melanoma/mortalidad , Melanoma/patología , Estadificación de Neoplasias , Ensayos Clínicos Controlados Aleatorios como Asunto , Proyectos de Investigación , Medición de Riesgo , Incertidumbre , Estados Unidos/epidemiología , United States Food and Drug Administration/normasRESUMEN
Drug regulators around the world make decisions about drug approvability based on qualitative benefit-risk analysis. In this work, a quantitative benefit-risk analysis approach captures regulatory decision-making about new drugs to treat multiple myeloma (MM). MM assessments have been based on endpoints such as time to progression (TTP), progression-free survival (PFS), and objective response rate (ORR) which are different than benefit-risk analysis based on overall survival (OS). Twenty-three FDA decisions on MM drugs submitted to FDA between 2003 and 2016 were identified and analyzed. The benefits and risks were quantified relative to comparators (typically the control arm of the clinical trial) to estimate whether the median benefit-risk was positive or negative. A sensitivity analysis was demonstrated using ixazomib to explore the magnitude of uncertainty. FDA approval decision outcomes were consistent and logical using this benefit-risk framework.