Investigational New Drugs

, Volume 31, Issue 2, pp 473–478

Differences in drug approval processes of 3 regulatory agencies: a case study of gemtuzumab ozogamicin

  • Tetsuya Tanimoto
  • Masaharu Tsubokura
  • Jinichi Mori
  • Monika Pietrek
  • Shunsuke Ono
  • Masahiro Kami
REVIEW

Summary

Major discrepancies concerning risk-benefit assessments and regulatory actions are frequent among regulatory agencies. We explored the differences by scrutinizing a case of gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO) in patients with acute myeloid leukaemia (AML). Assessment reports of GO were retrieved form the websites of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and Japanese regulatory agency, and we also reviewed published clinical trials. While GO was approved by the US FDA under the accelerated approval program in 2000, it was withdrawn from the market in 2010, based on the required post-marketing commitment failure. The EMA refused granting marketing authorization for GO in 2008 on the grounds that there were no randomised controlled trials (RCTs). GO was approved as an orphan drug in Japan in 2005, and the Japanese regulatory authority decided to continue with the approval in 2010 on the condition that post-marketing surveillance is strengthened. Under these situations, promising new results of RCTs appeared in 2011, and the role of GO in AML treatment was refocused worldwide. The stringent regulation may not be suitable in case of an orphan drug of targeted therapy, and more room should be kept to facilitate effective developments of new anti-neoplastic agents.

Keywords

Gemtuzumab ozogamicin Pharmaceutical and Medical Devices Agency and Ministry of Health Labour and Welfare of Japan Regulatory Agency The European Medicines Agency The US Food and Drug Administration 

References

  1. 1.
    Goozner M (2010) FDA increases focus on postmarketing studies. J Natl Cancer Inst 102(17):1302–1304PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Young RC (2010) Cancer clinical trials—a chronic but curable crisis. N Engl J Med 363(4):306–309PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Richey EA, Lyons EA, Nebeker JR et al (2009) Accelerated approval of cancer drugs: improved access to therapeutic breakthroughs or early release of unsafe and ineffective drugs? J Clin Oncol 27(26):4398–4405PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Boon WP, Moors EH, Meijer A, Schellekens H (2010) Conditional approval and approval under exceptional circumstances as regulatory instruments for stimulating responsible drug innovation in Europe. Clin Pharmacol Ther 88(6):848–853PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Shibuya K, Hashimoto H, Ikegami N et al (2011) Future of Japan’s system of good health at low cost with equity: beyond universal coverage. Lancet 378(9798):1265–1273PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Walter RB, Appelbaum FR, Estey EH, Bernstein ID (2012) Acute myeloid leukemia stem cells and CD33-targeted immunotherapy. Blood 119(26):6198–208Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    The US Food and Drug Administration. Drug Approvals and Databases, Mylotarg (gemtuzumab ozogamicin) Injection. [accessed May 30, 2012]; Available from: http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2000/21174_Mylotorg.cfm
  8. 8.
    The European Medicines Agency. European public assessment reports, Mylotarg. [accessed May 30, 2012]; Available from: http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/medicines/human/medicines/000705/human_med_000915.jsp&murl=menus/medicines/medicines.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058001d125&jsenabled=false
  9. 9.
    Pharmaceutical and Medicines Agency. Drug Approvals and Databases, Mylotarg Injection. [accessed May 30, 2012]; Available from: http://www.info.pmda.go.jp/shinyaku/P200500021/53039600_21700AMY00219_Q100_3.pdf
  10. 10.
    The US Food and Drug Administration. Pfizer Voluntarily Withdraws Cancer Treatment Mylotarg from U.S. Market. [accessed May 30, 2012]; Available from: http://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm216448.htm
  11. 11.
    Pharmaceutical and Medicines Agency. Assessment report, Mylotarg. [accessed May 30, 2012]; Available from: http://www.pmda.go.jp/english/service/pdf/precautions/PMDSI-277.pdf
  12. 12.
    Sievers EL, Larson RA, Stadtmauer EA et al (2001) Efficacy and safety of gemtuzumab ozogamicin in patients with CD33-positive acute myeloid leukemia in first relapse. J Clin Oncol 19(13):3244–3254PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Petersdorf S, Kopecky K, Stuart RK et al (2009) Preliminary results of Southwest Oncology Group Study S0106: An international intergroup phase 3 randomized trial comparing the addition of gemtuzumab ozogamicin to standard induction therapy versus standard induction therapy followed by a second randomization to post-consolidation gemtuzumab ozogamicin versus no additional therapy for previously untreated acute myeloid leukemia. Blood (ASH Annual Meeting Abstracts) 114:790Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Burnett AK, Hills RK, Milligan D et al (2011) Identification of patients with acute myeloblastic leukemia who benefit from the addition of gemtuzumab ozogamicin: results of the MRC AML15 trial. J Clin Oncol 29(4):369–377PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kobayashi Y, Tobinai K, Takeshita A et al. Phase I/II study of humanized anti-CD33 antibody conjugated with calicheamicin, gemtuzumab ozogamicin, in relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia: final results of Japanese multicenter cooperative study. Int J Hematol;89(4):460–469Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Announcement of the Japanese Society of Medical Oncology. On the Registration System of Mylotarg. [accessed May 30, 2012]; Available from: http://www.jsmo.or.jp/news/jsmo/20110810.html
  17. 17.
    Castaigne S, Pautas C, Terre C et al (2011) Fractionated doses of Gemtuzumab Ozogamicin (GO) combined to standard chemotherapy (CT) improve event-free and overall survival in newly-diagnosed de novo AML patients aged 50–70 years old: a prospective randomized phase 3 trial from the Acute Leukemia French Association (ALFA). Blood (ASH Annual Meeting Abstracts) 118:6Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Castaigne S, Pautas C, Terre C et al (2012) Effect of gemtuzumab ozogamicin on survival of adult patients with de-novo acute myeloid leukaemia (ALFA-0701): a randomised, open-label, phase 3 study. Lancet 379:1508–1516PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Burnett AK, Hills RK, Hunter A et al (2011) The addition of gemtuzumab ozogamicin to intensive chemotherapy in older patients with AML produces a significant improvement in overall survival: results of the UK NCRI AML16 randomized trial. Blood (ASH Annual Meeting Abstracts) 118:582Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lo-Coco F, Cimino G, Breccia M et al (2004) Gemtuzumab ozogamicin (Mylotarg) as a single agent for molecularly relapsed acute promyelocytic leukemia. Blood 104(7):1995–1999PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Breccia M, Cimino G, Diverio D et al (2007) Sustained molecular remission after low dose gemtuzumab-ozogamicin in elderly patients with advanced acute promyelocytic leukemia. Haematologica 92(9):1273–1274PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chevallier P, Delaunay J, Turlure P et al (2008) Long-term disease-free survival after gemtuzumab, intermediate-dose cytarabine, and mitoxantrone in patients with CD33(+) primary resistant or relapsed acute myeloid leukemia. J Clin Oncol 26(32):5192–5197PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Taksin AL, Legrand O, Raffoux E et al (2007) High efficacy and safety profile of fractionated doses of Mylotarg as induction therapy in patients with relapsed acute myeloblastic leukemia: a prospective study of the alfa group. Leukemia 21(1):66–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Lowenberg B, Pabst T, Vellenga E et al (2011) Cytarabine dose for acute myeloid leukemia. N Engl J Med 364(11):1027–1036PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Clarke WT, Marks PW (2010) Gemtuzumab ozogamicin: is there room for salvage? Blood 116:2618–2619PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kell WJ, Burnett AK, Chopra R et al (2003) A feasibility study of simultaneous administration of gemtuzumab ozogamicin with intensive chemotherapy in induction and consolidation in younger patients with acute myeloid leukemia. Blood 102:4277–4283PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Amadori S, Suciu S, Willemze R et al (2004) Sequential administration of gemtuzumab ozogamicin and conventional chemotherapy as first line therapy in elderly patients with acute myeloid leukemia: a phase II study (AML-15) of the EORTC and GIMEMA leukemia groups. Haematologica 89:950–956PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Larson RA, Sievers EL, Stadtmauer EA et al (2005) Final report of the efficacy and safety of gemtuzumab onogamicine (Mylotarg) in patients with CD33-positive acute myeloid leukemia in first recurrence. Cancer 104:1442–1452PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Amadori S, Suciu S, Stasi R et al (2005) Gemtuzumab Ozogamicin (Mylotarg) as single-agent treatment for frail patients 61 years of age and older with acute myeloid leukemia: final results of AML-15B, a phase 2 study of the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer and Gruppo Italiano Malattie Ematologiche dell’Adulto Leukemia Groups. Leukemia 19:1768–1773PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lowenberg B, Beck J, Graux C et al (2010) Gemtuzumab ozogamicin as postremission treatment in AML at 60 years of age or more: results of a multicenter phase 3 study. Blood 115:2586–2591PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Fernandez HF, Sun Z, Litzow MR et al (2011) Autologous transplantation gives encouraging results for young adults with favorable-risk acute myeloid leukemia, but is not improved with gemtuzumab ozogamicin. Blood 117:5306–5313PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Brunnberg U, Mohr M, Noppeney R et al (2012) Induction therapy of AML with ara-C plus daunorubicin versus ara-C plus gemtuzumab ozogamicin: a randomized phase II trial in elderly patients. Ann Oncol 23:990–996PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Tanimoto T, Kusumi E, Ono S (2012) Regulatory review of novel therapeutics. N Engl J MedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tetsuya Tanimoto
    • 1
  • Masaharu Tsubokura
    • 1
  • Jinichi Mori
    • 2
  • Monika Pietrek
    • 3
  • Shunsuke Ono
    • 4
  • Masahiro Kami
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Social Communication System for Advanced Clinical Research, Institute of Medical ScienceThe University of TokyoMinato-ku, TokyoJapan
  2. 2.Tokyo Metropolitan Cancer and Infectious CentreKomagome HospitalTokyoJapan
  3. 3.Pietrek Associates GmbHWeinheimGermany
  4. 4.Laboratory of Pharmaceutical Regulatory Science, Graduate School of Pharmaceutical SciencesThe University of TokyoTokyoJapan

Personalised recommendations