Oncologic orphan drugs approved in the EU - Do clinical trial data correspond with real-world effectiveness?

Yvonne Schuller, Marieke Biegstraaten, Carla E. M. Hollak, Heinz-Josef Klümpen, Christine C. Gispen-de Wied, Violeta Stoyanova-Beninska

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

Abstract

Background: Evaluation of evidence for efficacy of orphan medicinal products (OMPs) for rare malignancies may be hampered by the use of tumor measurements instead of clinical endpoints. This may cause efficacy data to not always match effectiveness in the real-world. We investigated whether an efficacy-effectiveness gap exists for oncologic OMPs and aimed to identify which factors contribute to it. Also, the magnitude of the clinical efficacy of oncologic OMPs was evaluated. Methods: We included all oncologic OMPs authorized in the European Union from 2000 to 2017. Pivotal studies were evaluated by means of the European Society for Medical Oncology - Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). To estimate real-world effectiveness, a literature search was performed to identify post-marketing studies, of which data on overall survival (OS) were extracted. OS of the new OMP was compared with OS data of standard of care. An OS gain of ≥3 months compared to pre-marketing data was considered clinically relevant. Results: Twenty OMPs were included, of which 5 were authorized based on OS as a primary endpoint. 10 OMPs had post-marketing data available, of which 40% did not show a clinically relevant OS gain in the real world. All OMPs that were studied with OS as primary endpoint in the pivotal study had a clinically relevant OS gain in the real world. Furthermore, all OMPs that had a high ESMO-MCBS score and post-marketing data available, resulted in a clinically relevant OS gain in the real world. Conclusions: Although the sample size is small, our results indicate an efficacy-effectiveness gap for oncologic OMPs exists. Significant changes in PFS do not always lead to an increased OS. The use of PFS may be justified, but validation of surrogate endpoints is needed.
Original languageEnglish
Article number214
JournalOrphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
Volume13
Issue number1
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2018

Cite this

Schuller, Yvonne ; Biegstraaten, Marieke ; Hollak, Carla E. M. ; Klümpen, Heinz-Josef ; Gispen-de Wied, Christine C. ; Stoyanova-Beninska, Violeta. / Oncologic orphan drugs approved in the EU - Do clinical trial data correspond with real-world effectiveness?. In: Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases. 2018 ; Vol. 13, No. 1.
@article{58931be27bb54435a7669bb2636c85d6,
title = "Oncologic orphan drugs approved in the EU - Do clinical trial data correspond with real-world effectiveness?",
abstract = "Background: Evaluation of evidence for efficacy of orphan medicinal products (OMPs) for rare malignancies may be hampered by the use of tumor measurements instead of clinical endpoints. This may cause efficacy data to not always match effectiveness in the real-world. We investigated whether an efficacy-effectiveness gap exists for oncologic OMPs and aimed to identify which factors contribute to it. Also, the magnitude of the clinical efficacy of oncologic OMPs was evaluated. Methods: We included all oncologic OMPs authorized in the European Union from 2000 to 2017. Pivotal studies were evaluated by means of the European Society for Medical Oncology - Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). To estimate real-world effectiveness, a literature search was performed to identify post-marketing studies, of which data on overall survival (OS) were extracted. OS of the new OMP was compared with OS data of standard of care. An OS gain of ≥3 months compared to pre-marketing data was considered clinically relevant. Results: Twenty OMPs were included, of which 5 were authorized based on OS as a primary endpoint. 10 OMPs had post-marketing data available, of which 40{\%} did not show a clinically relevant OS gain in the real world. All OMPs that were studied with OS as primary endpoint in the pivotal study had a clinically relevant OS gain in the real world. Furthermore, all OMPs that had a high ESMO-MCBS score and post-marketing data available, resulted in a clinically relevant OS gain in the real world. Conclusions: Although the sample size is small, our results indicate an efficacy-effectiveness gap for oncologic OMPs exists. Significant changes in PFS do not always lead to an increased OS. The use of PFS may be justified, but validation of surrogate endpoints is needed.",
author = "Yvonne Schuller and Marieke Biegstraaten and Hollak, {Carla E. M.} and Heinz-Josef Kl{\"u}mpen and {Gispen-de Wied}, {Christine C.} and Violeta Stoyanova-Beninska",
year = "2018",
doi = "10.1186/s13023-018-0900-9",
language = "English",
volume = "13",
journal = "Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases",
issn = "1750-1172",
publisher = "BioMed Central",
number = "1",

}

Oncologic orphan drugs approved in the EU - Do clinical trial data correspond with real-world effectiveness? / Schuller, Yvonne; Biegstraaten, Marieke; Hollak, Carla E. M.; Klümpen, Heinz-Josef; Gispen-de Wied, Christine C.; Stoyanova-Beninska, Violeta.

In: Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, Vol. 13, No. 1, 214, 2018.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleAcademicpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Oncologic orphan drugs approved in the EU - Do clinical trial data correspond with real-world effectiveness?

AU - Schuller, Yvonne

AU - Biegstraaten, Marieke

AU - Hollak, Carla E. M.

AU - Klümpen, Heinz-Josef

AU - Gispen-de Wied, Christine C.

AU - Stoyanova-Beninska, Violeta

PY - 2018

Y1 - 2018

N2 - Background: Evaluation of evidence for efficacy of orphan medicinal products (OMPs) for rare malignancies may be hampered by the use of tumor measurements instead of clinical endpoints. This may cause efficacy data to not always match effectiveness in the real-world. We investigated whether an efficacy-effectiveness gap exists for oncologic OMPs and aimed to identify which factors contribute to it. Also, the magnitude of the clinical efficacy of oncologic OMPs was evaluated. Methods: We included all oncologic OMPs authorized in the European Union from 2000 to 2017. Pivotal studies were evaluated by means of the European Society for Medical Oncology - Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). To estimate real-world effectiveness, a literature search was performed to identify post-marketing studies, of which data on overall survival (OS) were extracted. OS of the new OMP was compared with OS data of standard of care. An OS gain of ≥3 months compared to pre-marketing data was considered clinically relevant. Results: Twenty OMPs were included, of which 5 were authorized based on OS as a primary endpoint. 10 OMPs had post-marketing data available, of which 40% did not show a clinically relevant OS gain in the real world. All OMPs that were studied with OS as primary endpoint in the pivotal study had a clinically relevant OS gain in the real world. Furthermore, all OMPs that had a high ESMO-MCBS score and post-marketing data available, resulted in a clinically relevant OS gain in the real world. Conclusions: Although the sample size is small, our results indicate an efficacy-effectiveness gap for oncologic OMPs exists. Significant changes in PFS do not always lead to an increased OS. The use of PFS may be justified, but validation of surrogate endpoints is needed.

AB - Background: Evaluation of evidence for efficacy of orphan medicinal products (OMPs) for rare malignancies may be hampered by the use of tumor measurements instead of clinical endpoints. This may cause efficacy data to not always match effectiveness in the real-world. We investigated whether an efficacy-effectiveness gap exists for oncologic OMPs and aimed to identify which factors contribute to it. Also, the magnitude of the clinical efficacy of oncologic OMPs was evaluated. Methods: We included all oncologic OMPs authorized in the European Union from 2000 to 2017. Pivotal studies were evaluated by means of the European Society for Medical Oncology - Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale (ESMO-MCBS). To estimate real-world effectiveness, a literature search was performed to identify post-marketing studies, of which data on overall survival (OS) were extracted. OS of the new OMP was compared with OS data of standard of care. An OS gain of ≥3 months compared to pre-marketing data was considered clinically relevant. Results: Twenty OMPs were included, of which 5 were authorized based on OS as a primary endpoint. 10 OMPs had post-marketing data available, of which 40% did not show a clinically relevant OS gain in the real world. All OMPs that were studied with OS as primary endpoint in the pivotal study had a clinically relevant OS gain in the real world. Furthermore, all OMPs that had a high ESMO-MCBS score and post-marketing data available, resulted in a clinically relevant OS gain in the real world. Conclusions: Although the sample size is small, our results indicate an efficacy-effectiveness gap for oncologic OMPs exists. Significant changes in PFS do not always lead to an increased OS. The use of PFS may be justified, but validation of surrogate endpoints is needed.

UR - https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85057443299&origin=inward

UR - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30486835

U2 - 10.1186/s13023-018-0900-9

DO - 10.1186/s13023-018-0900-9

M3 - Article

VL - 13

JO - Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases

JF - Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases

SN - 1750-1172

IS - 1

M1 - 214

ER -