Faculty of Medicine, University of Basel, Basel, Switzerland.
Oncology Department, Departament de Medicina de la Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona, Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau, Institut d'Investigació Biomèdica Sant Pau, Barcelona, Spain.
PLoS One. 2022 Jun 10;17(6):e0268545. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0268545. eCollection 2022.
It is unknown to what extent cancer drugs approved in Switzerland by the Swissmedic fulfil criteria of clinical benefit according to the European Society of Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (ESMO-MCBS), the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework version 2 (ASCO-VF) and the Swiss OLUtool v2 (OLUtool).
An electronic search identified studies that led to marketing authorisations in Switzerland 2010-2019. Studies were evaluated according to ESMO-MCBS, ASCO-VF and OLUtool. Substantial benefit for ESMO-MCBS, was defined as a grade A or B for (neo)adjuvant intent and 4 or 5 for palliative intent. For ASCO-VF and OLUtool clinical benefit was defined as score ≥45 and A or B, respectively. Concordance between the frameworks was calculated with Cohen's Kappa (κ). Factors associated with clinical benefit were evaluated by logistic regression.
In the study period, 48 drugs were approved for 92 evaluable indications, based on 100 studies. Ratings for ESMO-MCBS, ASCO-VF and OLUtool could be performed for 100, 86, and 97 studies, respectively. Overall, 39 (39%), 44 (51%), 45 (46%) of the studies showed substantial clinical benefit according to ESMO-MCBS v1.1, ASCO-VF, OLUtool criteria, respectively. There was fair concordance between ESMO-MCBS and ASCO-VF in the palliative setting (κ = 0.31, P = 0.004) and moderate concordance between ESMO-MCBS and OLUtool (κ = 0.41, P<0.001). There was no significant concordance between ASCO-VF and OLUtool (κ = 0.18, P = 0.12). Factors associated with substantial clinical benefit in multivariable analysis were HRQoL benefit reported as secondary outcome for ESMO-MCBS and the ASCO-VF and blinded studies for OLUtool.
At the time of approval, only around half of the trials supporting marketing authorisation of recently approved cancer drugs in Switzerland meet the criteria for substantial clinical benefit when evaluated with ESMO-MCBS, ASCO-VF or OLUtool. There was at best only moderate concordance between the grading systems.
目前尚不清楚瑞士药品管理局批准的瑞士药品在多大程度上符合欧洲肿瘤内科学会临床获益量表 1.1 版(ESMO-MCBS)、美国临床肿瘤学会价值框架 2 版(ASCO-VF)和瑞士 OLUtool v2(OLUtool)的临床获益标准。
通过电子检索确定了 2010 年至 2019 年在瑞士获得上市许可的研究。根据 ESMO-MCBS、ASCO-VF 和 OLUtool 对研究进行评估。ESMO-MCBS 中,实质性获益定义为辅助或新辅助治疗意向为 A 或 B 级,姑息治疗意向为 4 或 5 级。ASCO-VF 和 OLUtool 中,临床获益定义为评分≥45 分且为 A 或 B 级。采用 Cohen's Kappa(κ)计算框架之间的一致性。通过逻辑回归评估与临床获益相关的因素。
在研究期间,根据 100 项研究,有 48 种药物获批 92 项可评估适应证。可以对 100 项、86 项和 97 项研究进行 ESMO-MCBS、ASCO-VF 和 OLUtool 评分,分别有 39(39%)、44(51%)和 45(46%)项研究显示出实质性的临床获益。在姑息治疗中,ESMO-MCBS 和 ASCO-VF 的一致性为中等(κ=0.31,P=0.004),而 ESMO-MCBS 和 OLUtool 的一致性为良好(κ=0.41,P<0.001)。ASCO-VF 和 OLUtool 之间没有显著的一致性(κ=0.18,P=0.12)。多变量分析中,与实质性临床获益相关的因素包括 ESMO-MCBS 中报告的 HRQoL 获益作为次要终点和 ASCO-VF 及 OLUtool 的盲法研究。
在瑞士,最近批准的癌症药物获得上市许可的临床试验中,只有大约一半在使用 ESMO-MCBS、ASCO-VF 或 OLUtool 评估时符合实质性临床获益标准。这些分级系统之间最多只有中度的一致性。