The idea of a breakthrough therapy was promoted to speed approvals of medicines that held promise for treating a life-threatening disease and demonstrated substantial improvement over existing drugs. However, a new study finds that while cancer drugs considered to be breakthroughs were approved more quickly, they were not safer, more novel, or more effective than drugs not given this designation.

The study examined 58 new cancer medicines that were approved by the Food and Drug Administration between 2012 and 2017. Of these, 25 — or 43 percent — received breakthrough therapy designation. The median time to a first FDA approval was 5.2 years for drugs that given a breakthrough designation versus 7.1 years for cancer medicines that were not considered to be breakthroughs.

Unlock this article by subscribing to STAT Plus and enjoy your first 30 days free!

GET STARTED

What is it?

STAT Plus is STAT's premium subscription service for in-depth biotech, pharma, policy, and life science coverage and analysis. Our award-winning team covers news on Wall Street, policy developments in Washington, early science breakthroughs and clinical trial results, and health care disruption in Silicon Valley and beyond.

What's included?

  • Daily reporting and analysis
  • The most comprehensive industry coverage from a powerhouse team of reporters
  • Subscriber-only newsletters
  • Daily newsletters to brief you on the most important industry news of the day
  • Online intelligence briefings
  • Frequent opportunities to engage with veteran beat reporters and industry experts
  • Exclusive industry events
  • Premium access to subscriber-only networking events around the country
  • The best reporters in the industry
  • The most trusted and well-connected newsroom in the health care industry
  • And much more
  • Exclusive interviews with industry leaders, profiles, and premium tools, like our CRISPR Trackr.

Leave a Comment

Please enter your name.
Please enter a comment.

  • What nonsense is this, insisting “for real world evidence” rather than simply accepting the outcome$ of a defined process? How’s a pharma unicorn supposed to make a billion or two?
    Meanwhile, among other items in shortage, sterile water is an on-going problem according to FDA – I wonder if it’s because there are “no billions in that?”

A roundup of STAT’s top stories of the day in science and medicine

Privacy Policy