OBJECTIVE: To compare the rate of device failure for those cochlear implants (CIs) involved in the 2020 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) voluntary field corrective action (VFCA).
UNASSIGNED: Medline, Embase, and Scopus.
METHODS: A systematic review was performed according to the PRISMA guidelines. Publications reporting institutional experiences with implants affected by the VFCA were included. Outcomes assessed included etiology of, rate of, and time to failure and pre-/post-device failure speech perception testing. All outcomes reported in at least two independent studies were included in a meta-analysis.
RESULTS: Six studies met criteria for analysis. The overall pooled failure rate was 23.7% (95% CI, 11.6-38.4%). The pooled device, inconclusive, and medical failure rates were 21.5%, 0.2%, and 0.7%, respectively. Pediatric failure rates were higher than those of adults (46.9% [95% CI, 11.2-84.5%] versus 32.6% [95% CI, 8.2-63.7%]). WRS declined with primary implant failure (55.1% [95% CI, 48.0-62.1%] to 34.1% [95% CI, 30.2-38.0%]) but improved after reimplantation (34.1% [95% CI, 30.2-38.0%] to 50.1% [95% CI, 45.2-55.1%]).
CONCLUSIONS: The rate of pooled reported failure for CIs falling under the 2020 VFCA in the literature thus far is 23.7%. The overwhelming majority of these failures were device related, the rates of which were higher in children. Speech perception improved significantly after reimplantation.

BACKGROUND: Adult patients and clinicians are faced with several pharmacological options to manage attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). If types or rates of adverse experiences vary among these options, these differences could inform the shared decision-making process.
METHODS: To discern differentiating evidence-based patterns of risk, we analyzed data from FDA package labels for drugs approved to treat adult ADHD and reports from the registration trials used to create these labels. Three analyses of adverse effects were conducted: placebo-corrected occurrence at rates of 1 in 5, 10, and 20 participants, association with discontinuation, and uniqueness of occurrence within the treatment options.
RESULTS: Among the 7 agents approved to treat adult ADHD, the number of types of side effects experienced during a mix of fixed and flexible-dose studies was greatest among the nonstimulant medications, but the stimulant medications had higher rates of occurrence of side effects. The minimum frequency at which all medications had adverse events was 1 in 10 participants. Overall discontinuation rates did not differ among the stimulant medications nor between stimulants and nonstimulants.
CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, this is the first study to compile and compare data from all FDA registration trials for medications approved to treat adult ADHD. This article describes a process by which readily available adverse event reporting data can be used as a tool to inform shared clinical decision-making. While differences in the methodology and outcome reporting of the trials included may limit generalizability, the number of individual patients included and the completeness of the discontinuation data can be used to inform discussions with patients about the relative likelihood of adverse experiences and other patient concerns.

BACKGROUND: Expedited market access for novel and efficacious drugs is warranted for patients. Since 2020, Swissmedic (The Swiss Agency for Therapeutic Products) has been participating in Project Orbis, a collaborative parallel-review programme launched by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2019 to expedite patient access to cancer drugs. This programme allows regulatory agencies to remain independent in their decisions. We aimed to evaluate the effect of the first 2 years of Project Orbis from the Swissmedic perspective.
METHODS: In this comparative analysis, we compared submission gap (time between submission at the FDA and Swissmedic), review time, approval and consensus decision rate, and the approved indications between Swissmedic and the FDA for marketing authorisation applications (MAAs) in oncology submitted to Swissmedic through Project Orbis (Orbis MAAs) or outside of Project Orbis (non-Orbis MAAs) from Jan 1, 2020, to Dec 31, 2021. Swissmedic review time was evaluated with a decision until June 30, 2022. For the decision comparison analysis, non-Orbis oncology MAAs submitted and evaluated from Jan 1, 2009, to Dec 31, 2018 (referred to as the pre-Orbis era) were also considered. Inferential statistics were done using Wilcoxon rank-sum test and the 95% CI for the median was based on binomial distribution. For each hypothesis testing, the significance level was set to 5%. No correction for multiple testing was performed.
RESULTS: We analysed the submission gap, review time, and regulatory decision for 31 Orbis MAAs and 41 non-Orbis MAAs during the Orbis era. The median submission gap was 33·0 days (95% CI 19·0-57·0) for Orbis MAAs versus 168·0 days (56·0-351·0) for non-Orbis MAAs (p<0·0001). The median review time at Swissmedic was 235·5 days (198·0-264·0) for Orbis MAAs versus 314·0 days (279·0-354·0) for non-Orbis MAAs (p=0·0002). Approval rates at Swissmedic were consistent between Orbis MAAs (20 [77%] of 26) and non-Orbis MAAs (31 [76%] of 41). The rate of consensus decisions between Swissmedic and the FDA was 21 (81%) of 26 for Orbis MAAs and 31 (76%) of 41 for non-Orbis MAAs. Swissmedic approval rates were lower for indication extensions than for new active substances for Orbis MAAs (13 [72%] of 18 vs seven [88%] of eight) and non-Orbis MAAs (17 [71%] of 24 vs 14 [82%] of 17). Divergent decisions between agencies were predominantly observed for indication extensions (11 [73%] of 15 divergent decisions). During the pre-Orbis era, Swissmedic approved 61 (88%) of 69 MAAs for new active substances.
CONCLUSIONS: Submission gap and review time for oncology applications at Swissmedic were significantly reduced by participation in Project Orbis, and approval consensus decisions were increased between agencies. These findings suggests that participating in Project Orbis could lead to faster patient access to drugs.
BACKGROUND: None.

暂无摘要。

This cross-sectional study evaluates the use of the US Food and Drug Administration’s Real-Time Oncology Review (RTOR) program in confirming the effectiveness of cancer drugs.

Acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS) is an enormous global health threat stemming from human immunodeficiency virus (HIV-1) infection. Up to now, the tremendous advances in combination antiretroviral therapy (cART) have shifted HIV-1 infection from a fatal illness into a manageable chronic disorder. However, the presence of latent reservoirs, the multifaceted nature of HIV-1, drug resistance, severe off-target effects, poor adherence, and high cost restrict the efficacy of current cART targeting the distinct stages of the virus life cycle. Therefore, there is an unmet need for the discovery of new therapeutics that not only bypass the limitations of the current therapy but also protect the body\'s health at the same time. The main goal for complete HIV-1 eradication is purging latently infected cells from patients\' bodies. A potential strategy called \"lock-in and apoptosis\" targets the budding phase of the life cycle of the virus and leads to susceptibility to apoptosis of HIV-1 infected cells for the elimination of HIV-1 reservoirs and, ultimately, for complete eradication. The current work intends to present the main advantages and disadvantages of United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved anti-HIV-1 drugs as well as plausible strategies for the design and development of more anti-HIV-1 compounds with better potency, favorable pharmacokinetic profiles, and improved safety issues.

暂无摘要。

An analysis of all new entities approved by both the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) and the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER) identified the approval of 69 new entities in the year 2023, 50 % more than in the previous year. Oncology drugs tied with congenital and infectious diseases drugs for the most approvals. Although orphan and priority approvals continued at a high pace, the rate of fast-track approvals continued to decline. The rate of industry consolidation also picked up again after decreasing slightly in 2022.

Cell and gene therapy (CGT) innovations have provided several significant breakthroughs in recent years. However, CGTs often come with a high upfront cost, raising questions about patient access, affordability, and long-term value. This study reviewed cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA) studies that have attempted to assess the long-term value of Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved CGTs. Two reviewers independently searched the Tufts Medical Center CEA Registry to identify all studies for FDA-approved CGTs, per January 2023. A data extraction template was used to summarize the evidence in terms of the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio expressed as the cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) and essential modeling assumptions, combined with a template to extract the adherence to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) checklist. The review identified 26 CEA studies for seven CGTs. Around half of the base-case cost-effectiveness results indicated that the cost per QALY was below $100,000-$150,000, often used as a threshold for reasonable cost-effectiveness in the United States. However, the results varied substantially across studies for the same treatment, ranging from being considered very cost-effective to far from cost-effective. Most models were based on data from single-arm trials with relatively short follow-ups, and different long-term extrapolations between studies caused large differences in the modeled cost-effectiveness results. In sum, this review showed that, despite the high upfront costs, many CGTs have cost-effectiveness evidence that can support long-term value. Nonetheless, substantial uncertainty regarding long-term value exists because so much of the modeling results are driven by uncertain extrapolations beyond the clinical trial data.

While strategies such as chemotherapy and immunotherapy have become the first-line standard therapies for patients with advanced or metastatic cancer, acquired resistance is still inevitable in most cases. The introduction of antibody‒drug conjugates (ADCs) provides a novel alternative. ADCs are a new class of anticancer drugs comprising the coupling of antitumor mAbs with cytotoxic drugs. Compared with chemotherapeutic drugs, ADCs have the advantages of good tolerance, accurate target recognition, and small effects on noncancerous cells. ADCs occupy an increasingly important position in the therapeutic field. Currently, there are 13 Food and Drug Administration (FDA)‒approved ADCs and more than 100 ADC drugs at different stages of clinical trials. This review briefly describes the efficacy and safety of FDA-approved ADCs, and discusses the related problems and challenges to provide a reference for clinical work.