Economics of new oncology drug development.

PURPOSE: Review existing studies and provide new results on the development, regulatory, and market aspects of new oncology drug development. METHODS: We utilized data from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), company surveys, and publicly available commercial business intelligence databases on new oncology drugs approved in the United States and on investigational oncology drugs to estimate average development and regulatory approval times, clinical approval success rates, first-in-class status, and global market diffusion. RESULTS: We found that approved new oncology drugs to have a disproportionately high share of FDA priority review ratings, of orphan drug designations at approval, and of drugs that were granted inclusion in at least one of the FDA's expedited access programs. US regulatory approval times were shorter, on average, for oncology drugs (0.5 years), but US clinical development times were longer on average (1.5 years). Clinical approval success rates were similar for oncology and other drugs, but proportionately more of the oncology failures reached expensive late-stage clinical testing before being abandoned. In relation to other drugs, new oncology drug approvals were more often first-in-class and diffused more widely across important international markets. CONCLUSION: The market success of oncology drugs has induced a substantial amount of investment in oncology drug development in the last decade or so. However, given the great need for further progress, the extent to which efforts to develop new oncology drugs will grow depends on future public-sector investment in basic research, developments in translational medicine, and regulatory reforms that advance drug-development science.

Clinical effectiveness of posaconazole versus fluconazole as antifungal prophylaxis in hematology-oncology patients: a retrospective cohort study.

In preventing invasive fungal disease (IFD) in patients with acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) or myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), clinical trials demonstrated efficacy of posaconazole over fluconazole and itraconazole. However, effectiveness of posaconazole has not been investigated in the United States in real-world setting outside the environment of controlled clinical trial. We performed a single-center, retrospective cohort study of 130 evaluable patients ≥18 years of age admitted to Duke University Hospital between 2004 and 2010 who received either posaconazole or fluconazole as prophylaxis during first induction or first reinduction chemotherapy for AML or MDS. The primary endpoint was possible, probable, or definite breakthrough IFD. Baseline characteristics were well balanced between groups, except that posaconazole recipients received reinduction chemotherapy and cytarabine more frequently. IFD occurred in 17/65 (27.0%) in the fluconazole group and in 6/65 (9.2%) in the posaconazole group (P = 0.012). Definite/probable IFDs occurred in 7 (10.8%) and 0 patients (0%), respectively (P = 0.0013). In multivariate analysis, fluconazole prophylaxis and duration of neutropenia were predictors of IFD. Mortality was similar between groups. This study demonstrates superior effectiveness of posaconazole over fluconazole as prophylaxis of IFD in AML and MDS patients. Such superiority did not translate to reductions in 100-day all-cause mortality.

Prevalence and incidence of liver enzyme elevations in a pooled oncology clinical trial cohort.

Few epidemiologic studies describe longitudinal liver chemistry (LC) elevations in cancer patients. A population-based retrospective cohort was identified from 31 Phase 2-3 oncology trials (excluding targeted therapies) conducted from 1985 to 2005 to evaluate background rates of LC elevations in patients (n = 3998) with or without liver metastases. Patients with baseline liver metastases (29% of patients) presented with a 3% prevalence of alanine transaminase (ALT) ≥ 3x upper limits normal (ULN) and 0.2% prevalence of bilirubin ≥ 3xULN. During follow-up, the incidence (per 1000 person-months) of new onset ALT elevations ≥3xULN was 6.1 (95% CI: 4.5, 8.0) and 2.2 (95% CI: 0.9, 4.5) in patients without and with liver metastases, respectively. No new incident cases of ALT and bilirubin elevations suggestive of severe liver injury occurred among those with liver metastases; a single case occurred among those without metastasis. Regardless of the presence of liver metastases, LC elevations were rare in cancer patients during oncology trials, which may be due to enrollment criteria. Our study validates uniform thresholds for detection of LC elevations in oncology studies and serves as an empirical referent point for comparing liver enzyme abnormalities in oncology trials of novel targeted therapies. These data support uniform LC stopping criteria in oncology trials.