It has to be a substantial improvement over SOC on
Post# of 154016
(Total Views: 574)
Posted On: 01/06/2022 5:48:42 PM
Re: Evil Rabbit #114052
It has to be a substantial improvement over SOC on one or more clinically significant endpoints so I doubt that safety would be a decider, but I could be wrong.
And as to 2MartiniGi's post. You can't get a rolling review for BTD but here is a case of a drug that was denied at first but got BTD a year+ later:
And as to 2MartiniGi's post. You can't get a rolling review for BTD but here is a case of a drug that was denied at first but got BTD a year+ later:
Quote:
Ariad’s initial BTD application for AP26113 in indication of anaplastic lymphoma
kinase (ALK)-positive NSCLC was denied in August 2013. This initial BTD request was based on an analysis of 24 evaluable patients in the phase I segment of a multi-center Phase I/II trial....
The FDA denied this initial BTD request due to the “relatively short follow-up” and small patient population in its trial. But one year later in October 2014, Ariad submitted additional clinical data from phase II segment of the same phase I/II trial.
The request on BTD status was based on an analysis of 72 evaluable patients.... Based on those additional submitted clinical data the FDA finally granted BTD status for AP26113.
(5)
(0)