Faster approval: oncology drugs in the U.S., non-oncology drugs in the E.U.

Friday, September 7, 2012 10:45 AM

Approval times for new oncology drugs in the U.S. during the last decade were shorter than approval times for non-oncology products, while the reverse was the case in the E.U., according to a study recently completed by the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development.

For drugs approved by the FDA from 2002 through 2011, approval times were 10 months shorter for oncology versus non-oncology drugs. In contrast, in Europe, approval times were almost two months shorter for non-oncology versus oncology drugs. During that period, oncology approvals accounted for 19% of all new drug approvals in the U.S. and 12% in the E.U.

In addition, in both regions there was little difference in approval times between products that had a special designation—such as fast track, accelerated approval and orphan designation—and those that did not.

"Oncology drug development continues to be challenging due to smaller patient populations for recruitment and longer periods for evaluation of treatment response," said Christopher-Paul Milne, director of research at Tufts CSDD. "What’s encouraging is that while total development time for oncology and non-oncology drugs decreased by half a year during the 2002-11 period, for oncology drugs this was accomplished by process improvements that shortened regulatory review time."

The study, reported in the September/October Tufts CSDD Impact Report, also found that approval times for non-oncology drugs in the E.U. were 27% shorter than similar approvals in the U.S., but 54% longer for oncology therapeutics.

In addition, total development and approval time in the U.S. for fast track drugs dropped by 20% — from 8.3 years in 2002-06 to 6.6 years in 2007-11. In 2007-11, 39% of U.S. orphan approvals were for oncology drugs, up from 31% in 2002-06, while 37% of European orphan approvals were for oncology drugs in 2007-11, up from 28% in 2002-06.

Share:          
CLINICAL TRIAL RESOURCES

Search:

NEWS ONLINE ARCHIVE

Browse by:

CWWeekly

April 14

Proposal calls for back-to-back trials to measure efficacy and effectiveness prior to FDA approval

Study: Minority populations under-represented in cancer trials, but have higher rates of incidence

Already a subscriber?
Log in to your digital subscription.

Subscribe to CWWeekly.

The CenterWatch Monthly

April

Make way for mobile health in clinical trials
Despite patient retention, data quality benefits, regulatory hurdles persist

Global clinical trial laboratories decentralize
Regional labs reducing complexity, delivering cost and time savings

Already a subscriber?
Log in to your digital subscription.

Purchase the April issue.

Subscribe to
The CenterWatch Monthly.

The CenterWatch Monthly

March

Strategic alliances hit bumps in the road
Mixed relationship performance driving new approaches

Tapping community hospitals for clinical trial volunteers
New study finds high potential but infrastructure, resources are lacking

Already a subscriber?
Log in to your digital subscription.

Purchase the March issue.

Subscribe to
The CenterWatch Monthly.

JobWatch centerwatch.com/jobwatch

Featured Jobs