(P 217) SARCOMA DRUG APPROVALS IN LATIN AMERICA COMPARED TO THE FDA AND EMA: AN ANALYSIS BY THE LACOG SARCOMA GROUP

Objective: Drug approval processes by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) often shape regulatory decisions globally. This study describes the particularities of drug approval of systemic therapies for sarcomas by the FDA and EMA and compares them with those of three Latin American regulatory authorities: Brazil's ANVISA, Argentina's ANMAT, and Mexico's COFEPRIS. The aim is to elucidate the similarities and differences in approval practices, which may inform future regulatory strategies in these regions.

Methods: We conducted a comprehensive review of all cancer drugs approved by the FDA and EMA for the treatment of sarcoma over the past 15 years and matched to approvals in Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico. These countries were chosen due to their population size and the accessibility of their health agencies’ databases. The regulatory agencies’ websites were consulted for the registration of drugs approved between January 1st, 2009, and January 1st, 2024. We analyzed the characteristics of studies, availability of approvals based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs), overall survival (OS), and the interval between FDA and EMA approvals compared to each of the three assessed Latin American regulatory agencies. Additionally, we included drugs granted tissue-agnostic approval, recognizing the potential necessity for sarcoma treatments to be guided by biomarker-driven decisions.

Results: Over the past 15 years, 19 drugs have been approved for by the FDA to treat sarcomas, and 13 by the EMA. The FDA led the approvals, granting authorization to 18 of these treatments first, with Trabectedin being the sole exception, approved earlier by the EMA and COFEPRIS. Mifamurtide is the only new drug against sarcoma licensed by the EMA but not by the FDA. During this period Argentina approved 8 of these drugs, Mexico 7, and Brazil 6. When comparing the median approval times, there was a 3.03-year interval from the FDA to the Latin American agencies (range: -6 to 5.7 years) and a 3.22-year interval from the EMA (range: -0.2 to 11.8 years). Phase 3 trial-based approvals constituted 83.3% for COFEPRIS, 75% for ANMAT, 66.7% for ANVISA, 61.5% for EMA, and 36.8% for FDA. Regarding approvals contingent on OS data, ANMAT had 37.5%, ANVISA: 33.3%, COFEPRIS 28.5%, compared to EMA 23%, and FDA 10.5%. Additionally, within this timeframe, 52.3% of FDA approvals were contingent on biomarkers, compared to 50% for EMA, 10.5% for ANVISA, and 5.2% for both ANMAT and COFEPRIS.

Conclusion: The observed discrepancies in drug approval timelines and the lower number of drug approvals in Latin American countries, as compared to those by the FDA and EMA, may exacerbate disparities in treatment accessibility for sarcoma patients in these regions. Approvals of sarcoma drugs by regulatory agencies of Latin American countries were more frequently conditioned to phase 3 trials and overall survival benefit.