Cancer therapy approval timings, review speed and publication of pivotal registration trials in the US and Europe from 2010-2019

Abstract

Importance: Ensuring patients have access to safe and efficacious medicines in a timely manner is an essential goal for regulatory agencies, which has particular significance in oncology due to the significant unmet need for new therapies. The two largest regulatory agencies, the FDA and EMA have pivotal global roles, and their recommendations and approvals are frequently followed by other national regulators. Objective: To compare market authorization dates for new oncology therapies approved in the US and Europe over the past decade and to examine and contrast the regulatory activities of the FDA and EMA in the approval of new cancer medicines. Design, Setting and Participants: A review of the FDA and EMA regulatory databases to identify new oncology therapies approved in both the US and Europe from 2010 to 2019, and characterization of the timings of regulatory activities. Main Outcome Measures: Regulatory approval date, review time, submission of market authorization application, accelerated approval or conditional marketing authorisation status and proportion of approvals prior to peer-reviewed publication of pivotal trial results. Results: In total, 89 new concomitant oncology therapies were approved in the US and Europe from 2010 to 2019. The FDA approved 85 (95%) oncology therapies before European authorization and 4 (5%) therapies after. The median delay in market authorization for new oncology therapies in Europe was 241 days compared to the US. The median review time was 200 days and 426 days for the FDA and EMA, respectively. 60 (67%) new licensing applications were submitted to the FDA first, compared to 25 (28%) to the EMA. 35 (39%) oncology therapies were approved by the FDA prior to pivotal study publication, whereas only 8 (9%) by the EMA. Conclusion and Relevance: In this study we demonstrate that new oncology therapies are approved earlier in the US than Europe. The FDA receives licensing applications sooner and has shorter review times. However, more therapies are approved prior to licensing study publication, leaving uncertainty for practitioners regarding clinical utility and safety of newly approved therapies.