Comparative Assessment of Pivotal Trials Supporting the Indication Approvals of Innovative and Modified New Anticancer Drugs in China, 2016-2022.

Health data science Pub Date : 2025-05-02 eCollection Date: 2025-01-01 DOI:10.34133/hds.0263
Lixia Fu, Ruifen Xue, Jie Chen, Guoshu Jia, Xiaocong Pang, Yimin Cui
{"title":"Comparative Assessment of Pivotal Trials Supporting the Indication Approvals of Innovative and Modified New Anticancer Drugs in China, 2016-2022.","authors":"Lixia Fu, Ruifen Xue, Jie Chen, Guoshu Jia, Xiaocong Pang, Yimin Cui","doi":"10.34133/hds.0263","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Since the launch of drug regulatory reform in 2015, China has substantially increased the availability of new cancer therapies. However, the efficacy evidence criteria for modified new anticancer drugs have not been evaluated. This cross-sectional study aimed to assess the pivotal trials supporting the indication approvals of innovative and modified new chemical anticancer drugs in China. <b>Methods:</b> The characteristics of indications, regulatory aspects, and pivotal trial designs were extracted and described. The primary efficacy endpoints of the pivotal clinical trials, including overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), were quantitatively assessed by meta-analysis. <b>Results:</b> Between 2016 and 2022, 77 cancer therapeutics for 107 indications were approved in China based on 128 pivotal trials. Among the 107 indications, 64 (59.8%) were classified as innovative anticancer drugs, and 43 (40.2%) as modified new anticancer drugs. The study found that pivotal trials for innovative approvals tended to be single-arm trials, while modified approvals were more likely to employ randomized clinical trials with larger sample sizes and rigorous designs. Despite innovative drugs often receiving more expedited regulatory designations, there were no statistically significant differences in clinical benefit of OS or PFS outcomes between innovative and modified approvals. <b>Conclusions:</b> These results suggest that the current regulatory framework may prioritize the speed of approval for innovative drugs over the strength of supporting evidence. These findings align with the strategic trends of pharmaceutical companies and regulatory inclinations that aim to expedite the approval of innovative anticancer drugs with a high unmet need, thereby accelerating patients' accessibility to treatment.</p>","PeriodicalId":73207,"journal":{"name":"Health data science","volume":"5 ","pages":"0263"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12046133/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health data science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34133/hds.0263","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Since the launch of drug regulatory reform in 2015, China has substantially increased the availability of new cancer therapies. However, the efficacy evidence criteria for modified new anticancer drugs have not been evaluated. This cross-sectional study aimed to assess the pivotal trials supporting the indication approvals of innovative and modified new chemical anticancer drugs in China. Methods: The characteristics of indications, regulatory aspects, and pivotal trial designs were extracted and described. The primary efficacy endpoints of the pivotal clinical trials, including overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS), were quantitatively assessed by meta-analysis. Results: Between 2016 and 2022, 77 cancer therapeutics for 107 indications were approved in China based on 128 pivotal trials. Among the 107 indications, 64 (59.8%) were classified as innovative anticancer drugs, and 43 (40.2%) as modified new anticancer drugs. The study found that pivotal trials for innovative approvals tended to be single-arm trials, while modified approvals were more likely to employ randomized clinical trials with larger sample sizes and rigorous designs. Despite innovative drugs often receiving more expedited regulatory designations, there were no statistically significant differences in clinical benefit of OS or PFS outcomes between innovative and modified approvals. Conclusions: These results suggest that the current regulatory framework may prioritize the speed of approval for innovative drugs over the strength of supporting evidence. These findings align with the strategic trends of pharmaceutical companies and regulatory inclinations that aim to expedite the approval of innovative anticancer drugs with a high unmet need, thereby accelerating patients' accessibility to treatment.

2016-2022年支持中国创新和改良抗癌新药适应症批准的关键试验的比较评估
背景:自2015年启动药品监管改革以来,中国大大增加了癌症新疗法的可获得性。然而,改良抗癌新药的疗效证据标准尚未得到评价。本横断面研究旨在评估支持中国创新和改良新型化学抗癌药物适应症批准的关键试验。方法:提取和描述适应症特点、监管方面和关键试验设计。关键临床试验的主要疗效终点,包括总生存期(OS)和无进展生存期(PFS),通过meta分析进行定量评估。结果:2016年至2022年期间,基于128项关键试验,107种适应症的77种癌症治疗药物在中国获得批准。在107个适应症中,64个(59.8%)被归为创新抗癌药物,43个(40.2%)被归为改良抗癌新药。研究发现,创新批准的关键试验往往是单臂试验,而修改后的批准更有可能采用更大样本量和严格设计的随机临床试验。尽管创新药物通常获得更快速的监管指定,但创新和修改批准之间的OS或PFS结果的临床获益没有统计学上的显着差异。结论:这些结果表明,目前的监管框架可能优先考虑创新药物的批准速度,而不是支持证据的强度。这些发现与制药公司的战略趋势和监管倾向相一致,这些趋势旨在加快对高度未满足需求的创新抗癌药物的批准,从而加快患者获得治疗的机会。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信