Q Zhu, H Y Huang, A Q Yu, X Y Meng, Y Leng, H Fang, Z W Li, Y Tang, J Li, N Li
{"title":"[中国和美国的抗癌药审批加急项目及使用情况]。","authors":"Q Zhu, H Y Huang, A Q Yu, X Y Meng, Y Leng, H Fang, Z W Li, Y Tang, J Li, N Li","doi":"10.3760/cma.j.cn112152-20231024-00250","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> To systematically summarize and comparatively analyze the development, establishment and usage of oncology drugs speedy review approaches in China and in the United States between 2012 and 2021. <b>Methods:</b> Based on National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) websites, the development and current status of the speedy review approaches were consulted and summarized. Approved oncology drugs in China and in the United States (87 in China, 118 in the United States) over the past decade were analyzed using chi-square test for group comparison. <b>Results:</b> Five speedy approaches have been established in China and in the United States, three of which are the same, priority review, conditional approval or accelerated approval and breakthrough therapy. The rest two are special review and approval, special examination and approval in China, and fast track and real-time oncology review in the United States. Compared to the United States, speedy review approaches in China set up late (1992 vs. 2005). The overall utilization rates of the oncology drugs speedy review approaches were similar between the China and United States (90.8% vs. 92.4%, <i>P</i>=0.800) in the previous 10 years, and priority review have highest utilization rates in both China and the United States without significant group difference (77.0% vs. 82.2%, <i>P</i>=0.381); relatively low utilization rates of conditional approval (31.0% vs. 44.9%, <i>P</i>=0.041) and breakthrough therapy (2.3% vs. 50.0%, <i>P</i><0.001) were seen in China. 52.9% of new drugs applied for special examination and approval in China and 40.7% of new drugs applied for fast track in the United States. Overall, the priority review both in China and the United States are stable, with a similar average annual utilization rate (84.8% vs. 83.7%); accelerated approval and breakthrough therapies in the United States fluctuate wildly, but the situation is tending towards stability in the last 3 years. <b>Conclusions:</b> Both China and the United States have established a relatively complete accelerated review system, with an overall utilization rate over 90%; China's accelerated review started late, although the overall utilization rate is close to that of the United States. The utilization rates of conditional approval and breakthrough therapy are still relatively low. Flexible usage of speedy review approaches, gaining regulatory recognition to use alternative endpoints, achieving real-time review and guidance are keys to accelerate new drug development in China.</p>","PeriodicalId":39868,"journal":{"name":"中华肿瘤杂志","volume":"46 9","pages":"904-910"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[Expedited program and utilization for anticancer drug approval in China and the United States].\",\"authors\":\"Q Zhu, H Y Huang, A Q Yu, X Y Meng, Y Leng, H Fang, Z W Li, Y Tang, J Li, N Li\",\"doi\":\"10.3760/cma.j.cn112152-20231024-00250\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Objective:</b> To systematically summarize and comparatively analyze the development, establishment and usage of oncology drugs speedy review approaches in China and in the United States between 2012 and 2021. <b>Methods:</b> Based on National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) websites, the development and current status of the speedy review approaches were consulted and summarized. Approved oncology drugs in China and in the United States (87 in China, 118 in the United States) over the past decade were analyzed using chi-square test for group comparison. <b>Results:</b> Five speedy approaches have been established in China and in the United States, three of which are the same, priority review, conditional approval or accelerated approval and breakthrough therapy. The rest two are special review and approval, special examination and approval in China, and fast track and real-time oncology review in the United States. Compared to the United States, speedy review approaches in China set up late (1992 vs. 2005). The overall utilization rates of the oncology drugs speedy review approaches were similar between the China and United States (90.8% vs. 92.4%, <i>P</i>=0.800) in the previous 10 years, and priority review have highest utilization rates in both China and the United States without significant group difference (77.0% vs. 82.2%, <i>P</i>=0.381); relatively low utilization rates of conditional approval (31.0% vs. 44.9%, <i>P</i>=0.041) and breakthrough therapy (2.3% vs. 50.0%, <i>P</i><0.001) were seen in China. 52.9% of new drugs applied for special examination and approval in China and 40.7% of new drugs applied for fast track in the United States. Overall, the priority review both in China and the United States are stable, with a similar average annual utilization rate (84.8% vs. 83.7%); accelerated approval and breakthrough therapies in the United States fluctuate wildly, but the situation is tending towards stability in the last 3 years. <b>Conclusions:</b> Both China and the United States have established a relatively complete accelerated review system, with an overall utilization rate over 90%; China's accelerated review started late, although the overall utilization rate is close to that of the United States. The utilization rates of conditional approval and breakthrough therapy are still relatively low. Flexible usage of speedy review approaches, gaining regulatory recognition to use alternative endpoints, achieving real-time review and guidance are keys to accelerate new drug development in China.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":39868,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"中华肿瘤杂志\",\"volume\":\"46 9\",\"pages\":\"904-910\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"中华肿瘤杂志\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn112152-20231024-00250\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"中华肿瘤杂志","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn112152-20231024-00250","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
目的系统总结和比较分析 2012 年至 2021 年间中国和美国肿瘤药物快速审评方法的发展、建立和使用情况。方法:基于国家医药管理局(NMPA)和美国食品药品管理局(FDA)网站,查阅并总结了快速审评方法的发展和现状。采用卡方检验对过去十年中国和美国获批的肿瘤药物(中国87种,美国118种)进行分组比较分析。结果显示中国和美国已建立了五种快速通道,其中三种是相同的,即优先审评、有条件批准或加速批准和突破性治疗。其余两种分别是中国的特殊审评审批、特殊审批,美国的快速通道和肿瘤实时审评。与美国相比,中国的快速审评方式设立较晚(1992 年与 2005 年)。在过去10年中,中美两国肿瘤药物快速审评方法的总体使用率相似(90.8% vs. 92.4%,P=0.800),优先审评在中美两国的使用率最高,且无显著组间差异(77.0% vs. 82.2%,P=0.381);中国有条件批准(31.0% vs. 44.9%,P=0.041)和突破性治疗(2.3% vs. 50.0%,P<0.001)的使用率相对较低。52.9%的新药在中国申请了特殊审批,40.7%的新药在美国申请了快速通道。总体而言,中国和美国的优先审评都比较稳定,年均使用率相近(84.8% vs. 83.7%);美国的加速审批和突破性疗法波动较大,但近三年情况趋于稳定。结论:中国和美国都建立了比较完善的加速审评制度,总体利用率超过90%;中国的加速审评起步较晚,但总体利用率接近美国。有条件批准和突破性疗法的使用率还相对较低。灵活运用快速审评方法,获得监管部门对使用替代终点的认可,实现实时审评和指导,是中国加快新药研发的关键。
[Expedited program and utilization for anticancer drug approval in China and the United States].
Objective: To systematically summarize and comparatively analyze the development, establishment and usage of oncology drugs speedy review approaches in China and in the United States between 2012 and 2021. Methods: Based on National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) websites, the development and current status of the speedy review approaches were consulted and summarized. Approved oncology drugs in China and in the United States (87 in China, 118 in the United States) over the past decade were analyzed using chi-square test for group comparison. Results: Five speedy approaches have been established in China and in the United States, three of which are the same, priority review, conditional approval or accelerated approval and breakthrough therapy. The rest two are special review and approval, special examination and approval in China, and fast track and real-time oncology review in the United States. Compared to the United States, speedy review approaches in China set up late (1992 vs. 2005). The overall utilization rates of the oncology drugs speedy review approaches were similar between the China and United States (90.8% vs. 92.4%, P=0.800) in the previous 10 years, and priority review have highest utilization rates in both China and the United States without significant group difference (77.0% vs. 82.2%, P=0.381); relatively low utilization rates of conditional approval (31.0% vs. 44.9%, P=0.041) and breakthrough therapy (2.3% vs. 50.0%, P<0.001) were seen in China. 52.9% of new drugs applied for special examination and approval in China and 40.7% of new drugs applied for fast track in the United States. Overall, the priority review both in China and the United States are stable, with a similar average annual utilization rate (84.8% vs. 83.7%); accelerated approval and breakthrough therapies in the United States fluctuate wildly, but the situation is tending towards stability in the last 3 years. Conclusions: Both China and the United States have established a relatively complete accelerated review system, with an overall utilization rate over 90%; China's accelerated review started late, although the overall utilization rate is close to that of the United States. The utilization rates of conditional approval and breakthrough therapy are still relatively low. Flexible usage of speedy review approaches, gaining regulatory recognition to use alternative endpoints, achieving real-time review and guidance are keys to accelerate new drug development in China.