MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Access to new therapies: FDA accelerated approvals and the corresponding Canadian regulatory and funding decisions.

2020· article· en· W3032057138 on OpenAlexaffabout
Howard J. Lim, Melissa Hunt, Julia A. Beaver, Paul G. Kluetz, Christopher A. Gravel, Andrew Raven, Dean A. Regier, Cheryl Ho

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer AgencyHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFormularyDrug approvalNoticeRulemakingFood and drug administrationFamily medicinePharmacologyDrug

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e19066 Background: Accelerated approval (AA) by the FDA enables earlier access to promising new therapies while evidence generation is ongoing. Health Canada (HC) has a similar process with a Notice of Compliance conditional (NOCc) before full approval (NOC). Canada implemented health technology assessment (HTA) for determination of funding through the pan Canadian Oncology Drug Review (pCODR) in 2011. This study evaluated timelines and decisions from AA approval to HC NOC/c to HTA approval and formulary listing. Methods: FDA AA malignant hematology and oncology approvals from Jan 1 2000-Dec 31 2019 were reviewed. HC decisions were reviewed to determine submission/approval status and dates of NOC/c. pCODR decisions were reviewed to determine submission/approval status and dates of decision. First date of provincial formulary listing was collected. Results: In the 20 year time frame, there were 97 AA by the FDA. Current FDA status: 48 full approval, 44 pending verification and 5 withdrawn. Of the 92 AA that remain approved, HC status: 44 received NOC, 24 NOCc, 24 were not submitted for review, 2 currently under review. Of the 5 AA that were withdrawn; 3 were submitted to HC and received NOC/c and all were subsequently withdrawn. From 2011, 31 of 45 HC approved indications were reviewed at pCODR: 17 received a positive recommendation conditional on cost-effectiveness, 9 not recommended, 3 withdrawn by company, 2 pending final decision. Of the 10 not recommended/withdrawn, 6 were subsequently re-submitted and approved. Time from AA to NOC/c was 9.4 m, time from NOC/c to pCODR decision 15.0 m and time from pCODR decision to first formulary listing 18.4 m. Conclusions: Despite significant timeline differences between AA and HC NOC/c all indications that received AA submitted to Canada were granted regulatory approval. Since 2011, 74% of HC approved therapies submitted to pCODR were recommended and added to formularies. Collaboration between FDA and HC, independent regulatory agencies, through innovative programs such as FDA Project Orbis, may improve time from AA to NOC/c. Stringent criteria for HTA recommendation results in lower approval rates however, provision of additional data at re-submission may enable subsequent approval and adoption of treatment.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.089
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.980
Threshold uncertainty score0.516

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.089
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0040.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0290.004

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.818
GPT teacher head0.589
Teacher spread0.229 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
DomainEvaluation
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life→French-language works237,207→