Over the past couple of months, there has been a lot in the news, both for the lay public and targeting physicians, about the recommendation by the Oncology Drug Advisory Committee (ODAC)  to remove the FDA approval of (Avastin) bevacizumab for breast cancer based on the lack of demonstrated survival benefit.  Not surprisingly, this has been a contentious recommendation that has been criticized by many breast cancer patients and advocates, including physicians. 

   There is no question that having an approved indication rescinded is a big deal, as it is always problematic to lose an opportunity or privilege that was previously offered.  While likening the potential loss of an FDA approval for breast cancer has been heralded as an early step in a dreaded march toward rationing of health care and the beginning of death panels, its use in breast cancer has demonstrated a very different slippery slope.  Despite the fact that this is a very expensive medication with potentially significant toxicities that did not demonstrate a significant benefit in overall survival, even in the ECOG trial that led to its approval.  Moreover, as we might expect with a commercially available option, this approval leads to a slippery slope of use outside of the indication, such as continued therapy after a patient progresses on it.

Read the rest of this entry »

OK, I hope you all aren’t bored to tears by this topic by now, given two related posts in April and again earlier this month describing the “broken” clinical trials system and the challenges to performing clinical research in the current environment. However, I thought this would be a good follow up post to let all of you know that the laughably obstructionist policies in place that prevent timely processing of clinical trials are being recognized, and that something is being done to fix it.

Clinical trials designed to test new cancer therapies are the only way that potentially effective drugs can make if from research labs into cancer patients in dire need of help. In April I talked about a couple of recent papers (see link above) that documented the complicated process of opening a clinical trial, involving hundreds of distinct processes in the bureaucratic morass of review, and taking multiple years from submission to trial opening.

In an early release publication in the Journal of Clinical Oncology, a group led by Dr. Razelle Kurzrock at the M.D. Anderson Cancer Center in Houston describes a new streamlined process for getting a phase I trial approved and the first cancer patient enrolled in what must be a record time (aptly called “Project Zero Delay”). This paper begins with a very interesting review of the myriad problems with the current system. For example, the authors note an average of 4-5 years for a company to take a new drug from the lab through enough initial safety studies in animals to get to clinical trials. After that, there is another 7.5 years before a promising drug makes it to FDA approval! All of this while over half a million people per year are dying of cancer in the USA, and of course millions elsewhere. The group then describes many of the same details I mentioned in my initial post about the delays in getting a specific trial opened.

Project Zero Delay focuses just on this aspect of the problem, namely getting a single new trial open. MD Anderson took it upon itself to also look at the exorbitant delay in opening trials, and designed a plan to fix it. The first step MD Anderson took was to negotiate a master agreement with a particular pharmaceutical company that would cover all trials over a 3-5 period, designed to overcome the months of budget and contract negotiations that normally take place for a new trial.

Most of the remaining problems with this process can be related to sequential levels of bureaucracy. In other words, drug companies, academic institutions, and the federal government each have an enormous amount of steps necessary to produce what is known as an Investigational New Drug (IND) application and then to open the trial, and these operations are usually done sequentially (one after the other) rather than simultaneously to be efficient. Project Zero Delay was designed to have all regulatory processes happen in parallel rather than sequentially, so that when the final OK came from the FDA the trial could open immediately.

The protocol described in the paper was designed cooperatively with the company and the MD Anderson principle investigator (PI). As the PI of a number of trials myself, I can tell you that the way it normally works is I write a protocol and then send it back to the company for review. This can then start a back and forth review and re-review process that can literally take years. In this paper, the authors were able to streamline this by having the company and PI cooperate at the inception of the concept so that the protocol could be completed fast. Read the rest of this entry »