Regulatory withdrawal of medicines marketed with uncertain benefits

the bevacizumab case study

Agnes Vitry, Tuan Nguyen, Vikki Entwistle, Elizabeth Roughead

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

12 Citations (Scopus)
4 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background: Withdrawal of conditional regulatory approval or subsidization of new medicines when subsequent evidence does not confirm early trial results may not be well understood or accepted by the public. We present a case study of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)’s decision to withdraw the indication of bevacizumab for the treatment of advanced breast cancer and include an analysis of the reactions of stakeholders with a view to identifying opportunities for improving risk management for new medicines with conditional approval or funding.
Methods: We drew on a range of information sources, including FDA documents, medical journals and media reports, to describe the evidentiary basis of the FDA decisions. We analysed the reactions and perspectives of the stakeholders.
Results: In 2008 bevacizumab was granted conditional approval for treatment of advanced breast cancer by the FDA pending submission of supplementary satisfactory evidence. In 2011 the FDA decision to withdraw the indication was met with a hostile reaction from many clinicians and cancer survivors. There were different interpretations of the therapeutic value of bevacizumab with strong beliefs among cancer survivors that the medicine was effective and potential harm was manageable. High expectations of the public may have been encouraged by overly positive media reports and limited understanding by the public of the complexity of the scientific evaluation of new medicines and of the regulatory processes.
Conclusions: Improving understanding and acceptance of approval or coverage schemes conditional to evidence development may require the development of risk management plans by regulatory and funding institutions. They may include a range of strategies such as requirements for formal patient acknowledgment of the conditional availability of the medicine, ‘black-triangle’ equivalent labels that identify full approval is based on pending evidence, and ongoing communication with the media, public and health professionals.
Original languageEnglish
Article number25
Number of pages11
JournalJournal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice
Volume8
Early online date19 Oct 2015
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 19 Oct 2015

Fingerprint

United States Food and Drug Administration
Risk Management
Survivors
Communications Media
Medicine
Breast Neoplasms
Neoplasms
Therapeutics
Public Health
Bevacizumab

Keywords

  • pharmaceutical policy
  • managed entry agreement
  • medicine subsidization
  • coverage with evidence development

Cite this

Regulatory withdrawal of medicines marketed with uncertain benefits : the bevacizumab case study. / Vitry, Agnes ; Nguyen, Tuan; Entwistle, Vikki; Roughead, Elizabeth.

In: Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice , Vol. 8, 25, 19.10.2015.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{a2b3ae599b6d4912bc0e1a6ccbcb74ba,
title = "Regulatory withdrawal of medicines marketed with uncertain benefits: the bevacizumab case study",
abstract = "Background: Withdrawal of conditional regulatory approval or subsidization of new medicines when subsequent evidence does not confirm early trial results may not be well understood or accepted by the public. We present a case study of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)’s decision to withdraw the indication of bevacizumab for the treatment of advanced breast cancer and include an analysis of the reactions of stakeholders with a view to identifying opportunities for improving risk management for new medicines with conditional approval or funding.Methods: We drew on a range of information sources, including FDA documents, medical journals and media reports, to describe the evidentiary basis of the FDA decisions. We analysed the reactions and perspectives of the stakeholders. Results: In 2008 bevacizumab was granted conditional approval for treatment of advanced breast cancer by the FDA pending submission of supplementary satisfactory evidence. In 2011 the FDA decision to withdraw the indication was met with a hostile reaction from many clinicians and cancer survivors. There were different interpretations of the therapeutic value of bevacizumab with strong beliefs among cancer survivors that the medicine was effective and potential harm was manageable. High expectations of the public may have been encouraged by overly positive media reports and limited understanding by the public of the complexity of the scientific evaluation of new medicines and of the regulatory processes. Conclusions: Improving understanding and acceptance of approval or coverage schemes conditional to evidence development may require the development of risk management plans by regulatory and funding institutions. They may include a range of strategies such as requirements for formal patient acknowledgment of the conditional availability of the medicine, ‘black-triangle’ equivalent labels that identify full approval is based on pending evidence, and ongoing communication with the media, public and health professionals.",
keywords = "pharmaceutical policy, managed entry agreement, medicine subsidization, coverage with evidence development",
author = "Agnes Vitry and Tuan Nguyen and Vikki Entwistle and Elizabeth Roughead",
note = "Acknowledgements Professor Elizabeth Roughead is funded by a Future Fellowship from the Australian Research Council. The views expressed are those of the authors, the sponsor had no role in the preparation of the manuscript.",
year = "2015",
month = "10",
day = "19",
doi = "10.1186/s40545-015-0046-2",
language = "English",
volume = "8",
journal = "Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice",
issn = "2052-3211",
publisher = "BioMed Central",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Regulatory withdrawal of medicines marketed with uncertain benefits

T2 - the bevacizumab case study

AU - Vitry, Agnes

AU - Nguyen, Tuan

AU - Entwistle, Vikki

AU - Roughead, Elizabeth

N1 - Acknowledgements Professor Elizabeth Roughead is funded by a Future Fellowship from the Australian Research Council. The views expressed are those of the authors, the sponsor had no role in the preparation of the manuscript.

PY - 2015/10/19

Y1 - 2015/10/19

N2 - Background: Withdrawal of conditional regulatory approval or subsidization of new medicines when subsequent evidence does not confirm early trial results may not be well understood or accepted by the public. We present a case study of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)’s decision to withdraw the indication of bevacizumab for the treatment of advanced breast cancer and include an analysis of the reactions of stakeholders with a view to identifying opportunities for improving risk management for new medicines with conditional approval or funding.Methods: We drew on a range of information sources, including FDA documents, medical journals and media reports, to describe the evidentiary basis of the FDA decisions. We analysed the reactions and perspectives of the stakeholders. Results: In 2008 bevacizumab was granted conditional approval for treatment of advanced breast cancer by the FDA pending submission of supplementary satisfactory evidence. In 2011 the FDA decision to withdraw the indication was met with a hostile reaction from many clinicians and cancer survivors. There were different interpretations of the therapeutic value of bevacizumab with strong beliefs among cancer survivors that the medicine was effective and potential harm was manageable. High expectations of the public may have been encouraged by overly positive media reports and limited understanding by the public of the complexity of the scientific evaluation of new medicines and of the regulatory processes. Conclusions: Improving understanding and acceptance of approval or coverage schemes conditional to evidence development may require the development of risk management plans by regulatory and funding institutions. They may include a range of strategies such as requirements for formal patient acknowledgment of the conditional availability of the medicine, ‘black-triangle’ equivalent labels that identify full approval is based on pending evidence, and ongoing communication with the media, public and health professionals.

AB - Background: Withdrawal of conditional regulatory approval or subsidization of new medicines when subsequent evidence does not confirm early trial results may not be well understood or accepted by the public. We present a case study of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)’s decision to withdraw the indication of bevacizumab for the treatment of advanced breast cancer and include an analysis of the reactions of stakeholders with a view to identifying opportunities for improving risk management for new medicines with conditional approval or funding.Methods: We drew on a range of information sources, including FDA documents, medical journals and media reports, to describe the evidentiary basis of the FDA decisions. We analysed the reactions and perspectives of the stakeholders. Results: In 2008 bevacizumab was granted conditional approval for treatment of advanced breast cancer by the FDA pending submission of supplementary satisfactory evidence. In 2011 the FDA decision to withdraw the indication was met with a hostile reaction from many clinicians and cancer survivors. There were different interpretations of the therapeutic value of bevacizumab with strong beliefs among cancer survivors that the medicine was effective and potential harm was manageable. High expectations of the public may have been encouraged by overly positive media reports and limited understanding by the public of the complexity of the scientific evaluation of new medicines and of the regulatory processes. Conclusions: Improving understanding and acceptance of approval or coverage schemes conditional to evidence development may require the development of risk management plans by regulatory and funding institutions. They may include a range of strategies such as requirements for formal patient acknowledgment of the conditional availability of the medicine, ‘black-triangle’ equivalent labels that identify full approval is based on pending evidence, and ongoing communication with the media, public and health professionals.

KW - pharmaceutical policy

KW - managed entry agreement

KW - medicine subsidization

KW - coverage with evidence development

U2 - 10.1186/s40545-015-0046-2

DO - 10.1186/s40545-015-0046-2

M3 - Article

VL - 8

JO - Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice

JF - Journal of Pharmaceutical Policy and Practice

SN - 2052-3211

M1 - 25

ER -