Gemzar Proves a Point
This article was originally published in RPM Report
FDA approval of Eli Lilly's oncology drug Gemzar for ovarian cancer against the recommendation of the agency's advisory committee shows FDA is serious about progression-free survival as a primary clinical endpoint.
You may also be interested in...
FDA's advisory committee process has long been criticized for conflict of interest issues. But now those on the inside are questioning whether change is needed. At the same time, some FDA officials don't believe advisory committees add much to the review process. And given resource constraints, FDA is holding committees less and less often. That may be good news for drug sponsors. The public disclosure of an NDA as part of the committee process leaves sponsors vulnerable to attacks that can undermine the future of a drug. Given the sway advisory committees in the court of public opinion, a re-examination of the system is coming.
FDA is getting tougher on cancer drug approvals. But stakeholders on all sides-industry, regulators, and patient groups-say that's probably a good thing. Under the leadership of Richard Pazdur, MD, the controversial director of FDA's newly formed Office of Oncology Drug Products, the agency is raising the bar for getting cancer drugs on the market.
Accelerated approvals are decelerating. Sponsors argue the FDA is so caught up in the current emphasis on safety that they're raising the AA efficacy standards. The FDA contends that the companies who have been rejected aren't meeting the efficacy standards or performing the promised follow-up trials. Is the FDA changing the rules-or are companies themselves bending them? A look at several recent cases of AA therapies reveals that both are true.