Accelerated Withdrawal in Action: The Avastin Hearing Process
This article was originally published in RPM Report
The June hearing on the status of Genentech’s metastatic breast cancer indication for Avastin will focus on a long list of substantive disagreements about the data. But any sponsor interested in the future of the accelerated approval process should study the back-and-forth in the hearing process itself.
You may also be interested in...
The two-day “streamlined withdrawal” hearing for Genentech’s breast cancer indication for Avastin was an unprecedented regulatory event. Based on how badly it went for the sponsor—and how uncomfortable it was for FDA—there may not be too many imitators any time soon.
Actions speak louder than words. That, at least, is how Seattle Genetics urged investors to think about a tongue lashing the company received during an advisory committee review of the cancer agent Adcetris Seattle Genetics may be right on two levels: the practical outcome of the meeting was positive, and the FDA rhetoric may not have been as directly aimed at the sponsor as a warning to all oncology drug developers.
The debate over comparative effectiveness research has focused heavily on standards of evidence to judge the relative value of different therapies and standards for when and how conclusions should drive coverage policy. Less attention has been paid to a more fundamental question: when should the value determination be made. CMS’ top coverage official has an idea that would radically change that process.