ODAC Report Card: Six Takeaways From Accelerated Approval Reviews Of Checkpoint Inhibitors
Executive Summary
US FDA’s expedited pathway remains alive and well in oncology, but ‘dangling’ indications may be subject to more regular public scrutiny going forward; negative votes for two of six indications reflected the influence of Oncology Center of Excellence director Richard Pazdur.
You may also be interested in...
Pazdur On Accelerated Approval: FDA Needs To Explain Why It Does Not Always Seek Withdrawal When Trials Fail
Knee-jerk reaction when a confirmatory trial fails is that the drug should be withdrawn, but the agency must undertake a more nuanced evaluation and do a better job explaining it to the public, OCE Director Richard Pazdur says; Pazdur and Project Confirm lead Gautam Mehta spoke with the Pink Sheet about dangling indications, FDORA reforms and the withdrawal process.
Accelerated Approval: Sponsor Size No Excuse For Confirmatory Trial Delays, FDA Says
There is a greater commitment among larger, well-capitalized oncology companies to complete confirmatory trials, Oncology Center of Excellence Director Richard Pazdur says; smaller company approach of first getting accelerated approval and then using commercial proceeds to capitalize confirmatory trial is ‘unacceptable.’
Rx For Immuno-Oncology Excess? Top US FDA Cancer Officials Take On Development ‘Wild West’
Rapid, uncoordinated growth has turned the PD-1/L1 inhibitor pipeline into a global stampede, FDA’s Pazdur and Beaver say. Solutions like a unified submission pathway and coordinated trial design pose challenges requiring international cooperation among governments and industry alike.