Dataset Information

Regulatory review of novel therapeutics--comparison of three regulatory agencies.

ABSTRACT: The upcoming reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act focuses on improving the review process for new drug applications at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).Using publicly available information from the FDA, the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and Health Canada, we compared the time for completion of the first review and the total review time for all applications involving novel therapeutic agents approved by the three regulatory agencies from 2001 through 2010 and determined the geographic area in which each novel therapeutic agent was first approved for use.There were 510 applications for novel therapeutic agents approved from 2001 through 2010--225 by the FDA, 186 by the EMA, and 99 by Health Canada; among the applications, there were 289 unique agents. The median length of time for completion of the first review was 303 days (interquartile range, 185 to 372) for applications approved by the FDA, 366 days (interquartile range, 310 to 445) for those approved by the EMA, and 352 days (interquartile range, 255 to 420) for those approved by Health Canada (P<0.001 for the comparison across the three agencies). The median total review time was also shorter at the FDA than at the EMA or Health Canada (P=0.002). Among the 289 unique novel therapeutic agents, 190 were approved in both the United States and Europe (either by the EMA or through the mutual recognition process), of which 121 (63.7%) were first approved in the United States; similarly, 154 were approved in both the United States and Canada, of which 132 (85.7%) were first approved in the United States.For novel therapeutic agents approved between 2001 and 2010, the FDA reviewed applications involving novel therapeutics more quickly, on average, than did the EMA or Health Canada, and the vast majority of these new therapeutic agents were first approved for use in the United States. (Funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts.).

SUBMITTER: Downing NS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3504361 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Regulatory review of novel therapeutics--comparison of three regulatory agencies.

Downing Nicholas S NS Aminawung Jenerius A JA Shah Nilay D ND Braunstein Joel B JB Krumholz Harlan M HM Ross Joseph S JS

The New England journal of medicine 20120516 24

<h4>Background</h4>The upcoming reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act focuses on improving the review process for new drug applications at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).<h4>Methods</h4>Using publicly available information from the FDA, the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and Health Canada, we compared the time for completion of the first review and the total review time for all applications involving novel therapeutic agents approved by the three regulatory agencies fro ...[more]

PMID: 22591257

Similar Datasets

Project description:There are currently four anti-cancer medicinal products approved for a tissue-agnostic indication. This is an indication based on a common biological characteristic rather than the tissue of origin. To date, the regulatory experience with tissue-agnostic approvals is limited. Therefore, we compared decision-making aspects of the first tissue-agnostic approvals between the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), European Medicines Agency (EMA) and Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA). Post-marketing measures (PMMs) related to the tissue-agnostic indication were of specific interest. The main data source was the publicly available review documents. The following data were collected: submission date, approval date, clinical trials and datasets, and PMMs. At the time of data collection, the FDA and PMDA approved pembrolizumab, larotrectinib, and entrectinib for a tissue-agnostic indication, while the EMA approved larotrectinib and entrectinib for a tissue-agnostic indication. There were differences in analysis sets (integrated vs. non-integrated), submission dates and requests for data updates between agencies. All agencies had outstanding issues that needed to be addressed in the post-market setting. For pembrolizumab, larotrectinib and entrectinib, the number of imposed PMMs varied between one and eight, with the FDA requesting the most PMMs compared to the other two agencies. All agencies requested at least one PMM per approval to address the remaining uncertainties related to the tissue-agnostic indication. The FDA and EMA requested data from ongoing and proposed trials, while the PMDA requested data from use-result surveys. Confirmation of benefit in the post-marketing setting is an important aspect of tissue-agnostic approvals, regardless of agency. Nonetheless, each approach to confirm benefit has its inherent limitations. Post-marketing data will be essential for the regulatory and clinical decisions-making of medicinal products with a tissue-agnostic indication.

Project description:Pharmacogenomics, which is defined as the study of changes in the properties of DNA and RNA associated with drug response, enables the prediction of the efficacy and adverse effects of drugs based on patients’ specific genetic mutations. For the safe and effective use of drugs, it is important that pharmacogenomic information is easily accessible to clinical experts and patients. Therefore, we examined the pharmacogenomic information provided on drug labels in Korea, Europe, Japan, and the United States (US). The selection of drugs that include pharmacogenomic information was based on the drug list that includes genetic information from the Korea Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) websites. Drug labels were retrieved from the sites of MFDS, FDA, European Medicines Agency, and Japanese Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency. Drugs were classified as per the Anatomical Therapeutic Chemical code, and the biomarkers, labeling sections, and necessity of genetic tests were determined. In total, 348 drugs were selected from 380 drugs with available pharmacogenomic information in Korea and the US after applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Of these drugs, 137, 324, 169, and 126 were with pharmacogenomics information in Korea, the US, Europe, and Japan, respectively. The most commonly represented drug class was antineoplastic and immunomodulating agents. Regarding the classification as per the mentioned biomarkers, the cytochrome P450 enzyme was the most frequently mentioned information, and the targeted anticancer drugs most commonly required genetic biomarker testing. The reasons for differences in drug labeling information based on country include differences in mutant alleles according to ethnicity, frequencies at which drug lists are updated, and pharmacogenomics-related guidelines. Clinical experts must continuously strive to identify and report mutations that can explain drug efficacy or side effects for safe drug use.

Project description:Aim: Regulatory and health technology assessment (HTA) agencies have increasingly published frameworks, guidelines, and recommendations for the use of real-world evidence (RWE) in healthcare decision-making. Variations in the scope and content of these documents, with updates running in parallel, may create challenges for their implementation especially during the market authorization and reimbursement phases of a medicine's life cycle. This environmental scan aimed to comprehensively identify and summarize the guidance documents for RWE developed by most well-established regulatory and reimbursement agencies, as well as other organizations focused on healthcare decision-making, and present their similarities and differences. Methods: RWE guidance documents, including white papers from regulatory and HTA agencies, were reviewed in March 2024. Data on scope and recommendations from each body were extracted by two reviewers and similarities and differences were summarized across four topics: study planning, choosing fit-for-purpose data, study conduct, and reporting. Post-authorization or non-pharmacological guidance was excluded. Results: Forty-six documents were identified across multiple agencies; US FDA produced the most RWE-related guidance. All agencies addressed specific and often similar methodological issues related to study design, data fitness-for-purpose, reliability, and reproducibility, although inconsistency in terminologies on these topics was noted. Two HTA bodies (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence [NICE] and Canada's Drug Agency) each centralized all related RWE guidance under a unified framework. RWE quality tools and checklists were not consistently named and some differences in preferences were noted. European Medicines Agency, NICE, Haute Autorité de Santé, and the Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care included specific recommendations on the use of analytical approaches to address RWE complexities and increase trust in its findings. Conclusion: Similarities in agencies' expectations on RWE studies design, quality elements, and reporting will facilitate evidence generation strategy and activities for manufacturers facing multiple, including global, regulatory and reimbursement submissions and re-submissions. A strong preference by decision-making bodies for local real-world data generation may hinder opportunities for data sharing and outputs from international federated data networks. Closer collaboration between decision-making agencies towards a harmonized RWE roadmap, which can be centrally preserved in a living mode, will provide manufacturers and researchers clarity on minimum acceptance requirements and expectations, especially as novel methodologies for RWE generation are rapidly emerging.

Project description:The need to optimize drug development and facilitate faster access for patients has ignited discussions around the importance of improving interactions between health technology assessment (HTA) bodies and regulatory agencies. In this study, we conducted a systematic review to examine processes, progress, outcomes, and challenges of harmonization/interaction initiatives between HTA bodies and regulatory agencies. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the International Pharmaceutical Abstracts database were searched up to 21 October 2019. Searches for gray literature (working papers, commissioned reports, policy documents, etc.) were performed via Google scholar and several institutional websites. An online cross-sectional survey was also conducted among HTA (n = 22) and regulatory agencies (n = 6) across Europe to supplement the systematic review. Overall, we found that while there are areas of divergence, there has been progress over time in narrowing the gap in evidentiary requirements for HTA bodies and regulatory agencies. Most regulatory agencies (4/6; 67%) and half (11/22, 50%) of the HTA bodies reported having a formal link for "collaborating" with the other. Several mechanisms such as early tripartite dialogues, parallel submissions (reviews), adaptive licensing pathways, and postauthorization data generation have been explored as avenues for improving collaboration. A number of pilot initiatives have shown positive effects of these models to reduce the time between regulatory and HTA decisions, which may translate into faster access for patients to life-saving therapies. Thus, future approaches aimed at improving harmonization/interaction between HTA bodies and regulatory agencies should build on these existing models/mechanisms while examining their long-term impacts. Several barriers including legal, organizational, and resource-related factors were also identified, and these need to be addressed to achieve greater alignment in the current regulatory and reimbursement landscape.

Dataset Information

Regulatory review of novel therapeutics--comparison of three regulatory agencies.

Publications

Regulatory review of novel therapeutics--comparison of three regulatory agencies.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets