美国食品和药物管理局、欧洲药品管理局和巴西卫生监管机构2019年至2024年所有实体肿瘤药物批准的审查。

IF 3 Q2 ONCOLOGY
JCO Global Oncology Pub Date : 2025-10-01 Epub Date: 2025-10-15 DOI:10.1200/GO-25-00326
Rafael Balsini Barreto, Mário Henrique Furlanetto Miranda, Camila Marchi Blatt, Bárbara Andressa Uliana, Denize Bodnar
{"title":"美国食品和药物管理局、欧洲药品管理局和巴西卫生监管机构2019年至2024年所有实体肿瘤药物批准的审查。","authors":"Rafael Balsini Barreto, Mário Henrique Furlanetto Miranda, Camila Marchi Blatt, Bárbara Andressa Uliana, Denize Bodnar","doi":"10.1200/GO-25-00326","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Regulatory agencies play a pivotal role in evaluating clinical evidence for oncology drug approvals. This study aimed to compare approved indications across the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), European Medicines Agency (EMA), and Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (ANVISA), with a focus on the robustness of the supporting evidence and consistency between labeling and clinical trial data.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review identified all new drugs and indications for solid tumors approved by the FDA from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2024. Each approval was cross-referenced with corresponding decisions by EMA and ANVISA. For each indication, the pivotal trial's design, primary end point, study population, and the concordance between the approved label and the clinical evidence were identified.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>During the 6-year period, 199 new indications for solid tumors were approved by the FDA; 138 (69.3%) were also approved by EMA and 124 (62.3%) by ANVISA. Discrepancies between approved labels and the primary end point population occurred in 10.0% of FDA, 18.8% of EMA, and 12.9% of ANVISA approvals, most often due to label restrictions to subgroups, indicating a more conservative approach by EMA and ANVISA. Labeling differences were noted in 19 of 139 FDA-EMA and 10 of 124 FDA-ANVISA shared approvals. A total of 190 pivotal trials supported these approvals, including three phase I, 59 phase II, and 128 phase III studies. The most frequent end points were overall response rate and progression-free survival, including in phase III trials and regular approvals, rather than overall survival or quality of life.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Notable differences in timelines, regulatory mechanisms, and evidentiary thresholds across agencies result in divergent labeling. These variations have clinical and pol<u>i</u>cy implications for oncology drug access and adoption worldwide.</p>","PeriodicalId":14806,"journal":{"name":"JCO Global Oncology","volume":"11 ","pages":"e2500326"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Review of All Solid Tumor Drug Approvals From 2019 to 2024 by US Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, and Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency.\",\"authors\":\"Rafael Balsini Barreto, Mário Henrique Furlanetto Miranda, Camila Marchi Blatt, Bárbara Andressa Uliana, Denize Bodnar\",\"doi\":\"10.1200/GO-25-00326\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>Regulatory agencies play a pivotal role in evaluating clinical evidence for oncology drug approvals. This study aimed to compare approved indications across the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), European Medicines Agency (EMA), and Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (ANVISA), with a focus on the robustness of the supporting evidence and consistency between labeling and clinical trial data.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic review identified all new drugs and indications for solid tumors approved by the FDA from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2024. Each approval was cross-referenced with corresponding decisions by EMA and ANVISA. For each indication, the pivotal trial's design, primary end point, study population, and the concordance between the approved label and the clinical evidence were identified.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>During the 6-year period, 199 new indications for solid tumors were approved by the FDA; 138 (69.3%) were also approved by EMA and 124 (62.3%) by ANVISA. Discrepancies between approved labels and the primary end point population occurred in 10.0% of FDA, 18.8% of EMA, and 12.9% of ANVISA approvals, most often due to label restrictions to subgroups, indicating a more conservative approach by EMA and ANVISA. Labeling differences were noted in 19 of 139 FDA-EMA and 10 of 124 FDA-ANVISA shared approvals. A total of 190 pivotal trials supported these approvals, including three phase I, 59 phase II, and 128 phase III studies. The most frequent end points were overall response rate and progression-free survival, including in phase III trials and regular approvals, rather than overall survival or quality of life.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Notable differences in timelines, regulatory mechanisms, and evidentiary thresholds across agencies result in divergent labeling. These variations have clinical and pol<u>i</u>cy implications for oncology drug access and adoption worldwide.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":14806,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"JCO Global Oncology\",\"volume\":\"11 \",\"pages\":\"e2500326\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"JCO Global Oncology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1200/GO-25-00326\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/10/15 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"JCO Global Oncology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1200/GO-25-00326","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/10/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:监管机构在评估肿瘤药物批准的临床证据方面发挥着关键作用。本研究旨在比较美国食品和药物管理局(FDA)、欧洲药品管理局(EMA)和巴西卫生监管局(ANVISA)批准的适应症,重点关注支持证据的稳健性以及标签和临床试验数据之间的一致性。方法:系统评价了2019年1月1日至2024年12月31日期间FDA批准的所有用于实体瘤的新药和适应症。每个批准都与EMA和ANVISA的相应决定交叉参考。对于每个适应症,确定了关键试验的设计、主要终点、研究人群以及批准的标签与临床证据之间的一致性。结果:6年期间,FDA批准实体瘤新适应症199例;EMA批准了138个(69.3%),ANVISA批准了124个(62.3%)。10.0%的FDA、18.8%的EMA和12.9%的ANVISA批准中,已批准的标签与主要终点人群之间存在差异,最常见的原因是标签对亚组的限制,这表明EMA和ANVISA采用了更保守的方法。139个FDA-EMA中有19个,124个FDA-ANVISA共享批准中有10个存在标签差异。总共有190项关键试验支持这些批准,包括3项I期研究,59项II期研究和128项III期研究。最常见的终点是总缓解率和无进展生存期,包括III期试验和常规批准,而不是总生存期或生活质量。结论:各机构在时间表、监管机制和证据门槛方面的显著差异导致了标签的分歧。这些差异对全球肿瘤药物的获取和采用具有临床和政策意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Review of All Solid Tumor Drug Approvals From 2019 to 2024 by US Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, and Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency.

Purpose: Regulatory agencies play a pivotal role in evaluating clinical evidence for oncology drug approvals. This study aimed to compare approved indications across the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), European Medicines Agency (EMA), and Brazilian Health Regulatory Agency (ANVISA), with a focus on the robustness of the supporting evidence and consistency between labeling and clinical trial data.

Methods: A systematic review identified all new drugs and indications for solid tumors approved by the FDA from January 1, 2019, to December 31, 2024. Each approval was cross-referenced with corresponding decisions by EMA and ANVISA. For each indication, the pivotal trial's design, primary end point, study population, and the concordance between the approved label and the clinical evidence were identified.

Results: During the 6-year period, 199 new indications for solid tumors were approved by the FDA; 138 (69.3%) were also approved by EMA and 124 (62.3%) by ANVISA. Discrepancies between approved labels and the primary end point population occurred in 10.0% of FDA, 18.8% of EMA, and 12.9% of ANVISA approvals, most often due to label restrictions to subgroups, indicating a more conservative approach by EMA and ANVISA. Labeling differences were noted in 19 of 139 FDA-EMA and 10 of 124 FDA-ANVISA shared approvals. A total of 190 pivotal trials supported these approvals, including three phase I, 59 phase II, and 128 phase III studies. The most frequent end points were overall response rate and progression-free survival, including in phase III trials and regular approvals, rather than overall survival or quality of life.

Conclusion: Notable differences in timelines, regulatory mechanisms, and evidentiary thresholds across agencies result in divergent labeling. These variations have clinical and policy implications for oncology drug access and adoption worldwide.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
JCO Global Oncology
JCO Global Oncology Medicine-Oncology
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
6.70%
发文量
310
审稿时长
7 weeks
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信