Abstract

Objectives

The development of accelerated approval programs for high morbidity and unmet need conditions has driven the use of single-arm studies in drug development. Regulatory and health technology assessment (HTA) agencies are recognizing that high-quality external control arms (ECAs), built using real-world data, can reduce uncertainties arising from single-arm studies. This review compared 7 case studies of regulatory and HTA agencies’ evaluations of oncology ECAs.

Methods

Food and Drug Administration multidisciplinary reviews for oncology submissions from 2014 to 2021 were screened to identify 7 cases (2 blinatumomab indications, avelumab, and erdafitinib, entrectinib, trastuzumab deruxtecan, and idecabtagene vicleucel) with ECAs to support efficacy claims. Regulatory (Food and Drug Administration, European Medicines Agency, Health Canada) and HTA (pan-Canadian Oncology Drug Review, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Federal Joint Committee, Haute Autorité de Santé, and Pharmaceutical Benefits Advisory Committee) submissions for these cases were reviewed. The decision makers’ ECA critiques and the level of influence on the decision were analyzed and categorized.

Results

Across case studies, selection bias and confounding were the most common ECA critiques. Nevertheless, agreement in critiques between and among regulators and HTA bodies was low. ECA influence on agencies’ decisions also varied.

Conclusions

Evaluating the same ECA evidence, agencies focused on methodologic issues (ie, selection bias and confounding), but were often not aligned on their critiques. Further research is needed to fully characterize how agencies evaluate ECAs. This study is a first step in critically evaluating agencies’ critiques of ECAs and highlights the need for future guidance development around ECA design and generation.