Dataset Information

The contributions of the European Medicines Agency and its pediatric committee to the fight against childhood leukemia.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Although the diagnosis of childhood leukemia is no longer a death sentence, too many patients still die, more with acute myeloid leukemia than with acute lymphoblastic leukemia. The European Union pediatric legislation was introduced to improve pharmaceutical treatment of children, but some question whether the European Medicines Agency (EMA) approach is helping children with leukemia. Some have even suggested that the decisions of EMA pediatric committee (PDCO) are counterproductive. This study was designed to investigate the impact of PDCO-issued pediatric investigation plans (PIPs) for leukemia drugs. METHODS:All PIPs listed under "oncology" were downloaded from the EMA website. Non-leukemia decisions including misclassifications, waivers (no PIP), and solid tumors were discarded. The leukemia decisions were analyzed, compared to pediatric leukemia trials in the database http://www.clinicaltrials.gov, and discussed in the light of current literature. RESULTS:The PDCO leukemia decisions demand clinical trials in pediatric leukemia for all new adult drugs without prioritization. However, because leukemia in children is different and much rarer than in adults, these decisions have resulted in proposed studies that are scientifically and ethically questionable. They are also unnecessary, since once promising new compounds are approved for adults, more appropriate, prioritized pediatric leukemia trials are initiated worldwide without PDCO involvement. CONCLUSION:EMA/PDCO leukemia PIPs do little to advance the treatment of childhood leukemia. The unintended negative effects of the flawed EMA/PDCO's standardized requesting of non-prioritized testing of every new adult leukemia drug in children with relapsed or refractory disease expose these children to questionable trials, and could undermine public trust in pediatric clinical research. Institutions, investigators, and ethics committees/institutional review boards need to be skeptical of trials triggered by PDCO. New, better ways to facilitate drug development for pediatric leukemia are needed.

SUBMITTER: Rose K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4640230 | biostudies-literature | 2015

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The contributions of the European Medicines Agency and its pediatric committee to the fight against childhood leukemia.

Rose Klaus K Walson Philip D PD

Risk management and healthcare policy 20151105

<h4>Background</h4>Although the diagnosis of childhood leukemia is no longer a death sentence, too many patients still die, more with acute myeloid leukemia than with acute lymphoblastic leukemia. The European Union pediatric legislation was introduced to improve pharmaceutical treatment of children, but some question whether the European Medicines Agency (EMA) approach is helping children with leukemia. Some have even suggested that the decisions of EMA pediatric committee (PDCO) are counterpro ...[more]

PMID: 26604845

Similar Datasets

Project description:: On September 20, 2012, a marketing authorization valid throughout the European Union (EU) was issued for decitabine for the treatment of adult patients aged 65 years and older with newly diagnosed de novo or secondary acute myeloid leukemia (AML) who are not candidates for standard induction chemotherapy. Decitabine is a pyrimidine analog incorporated into DNA, where it irreversibly inhibits DNA methyltransferases through covalent adduct formation with the enzyme. The use of decitabine was studied in an open-label, randomized, multicenter phase III study (DACO-016) in patients with newly diagnosed de novo or secondary AML. Decitabine (n = 242) was compared with patient's choice with physician's advice (n = 243) of low-dose cytarabine or supportive care alone. The primary endpoint of the study was overall survival. The median overall survival in the intent-to-treat (ITT) population was 7.7 months among patients treated with decitabine compared with 5.0 months for those in the control arm (hazard ratio [HR], 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69-1.04; p = .1079). Mature survival data after an additional year of follow-up were consistent with these results, with a median overall survival of 7.7 months in patients treated with decitabine and 5.0 months in the control arm (HR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.68-0.99; p = .0373). Secondary endpoints, including response rates, progression-free survival, and event-free survival, were increased in favor of decitabine when compared with control treatment. The most common adverse drug reactions reported during treatment with decitabine are pyrexia, anemia, thrombocytopenia, febrile neutropenia, neutropenia, nausea, and diarrhea. This paper summarizes the scientific review of the application leading to approval of decitabine in the EU. The detailed scientific assessment report and product information (including the summary of product characteristics) for this product are available on the EMA website (http://www.ema.europa.eu).Acute myeloid leukemia (AML) remains an area of significant unmet need, especially in older patients. Older patients and those with comorbidities are often considered ineligible for standard induction therapy, and outcome for these patients is poor. Decitabine has favorable effects in terms of overall survival, which were considered clinically meaningful in the context of a manageable toxicity profile and after consideration of the lack of therapeutic alternatives for these patients. Decitabine is widely used in the treatment of AML in patients aged >60 years, as per current guidelines, including the European LeukemiaNet and the U.S. National Cancer Comprehensive Network.

Project description:ObjectivesStratified medicine is often heralded as the future of clinical practice. Key part of stratified medicine is the use of predictive biomarkers, which identify patient subgroups most likely to benefit (or least likely to experience harm) from an intervention. We investigated how many and what predictive biomarkers are currently included in European Medicines Agency (EMA) licensing.SettingEMA licensing.ParticipantsIndications and contraindications of all drugs considered by the EMA and published in 883 European Public Assessment Reports and Pending Decisions.Primary and secondary outcome measuresData were collected on: the type of the biomarker, whether it selected a subgroup of patients based on efficacy or toxicity, therapeutic area, marketing status, date of licensing decision, date of inclusion of the biomarker in the indication or contraindication and on orphan designation.Results49 biomarker-indication-drug (B-I-D) combinations were identified over 16 years, which included 37 biomarkers and 41 different drugs. All identified biomarkers were molecular. Six drugs (relating to 10 B-I-D combinations) had an orphan designation at the time of licensing. The identified B-I-D combinations were mainly used in cancer and HIV treatment, and also in hepatitis C and three other indications (cystic fibrosis, hyperlipoproteinaemia type I and methemoglobinaemia). In 45 B-I-D combinations, biomarkers were used as predictive of drug efficacy and in four of drug toxicity. It appeared that there was an increase in the number of B-I-D combinations introduced each year; however, the numbers were too small to identify any trends.ConclusionsGiven the large body of literature documenting research into potential predictive biomarkers and extensive investment into stratified medicine, we identified relatively few predictive biomarkers included in licensing. These were also limited to a small number of clinical areas. This might suggest a need for improvement in methods of translation from laboratory findings to clinical practice.

Project description:AimsWe have previously described the European Medicines Agency's (EMA) and the US Food and Drug Administration's guidelines, each for a specific psychiatric indication, on how to design pivotal drug trials used in new drug applications. Here, we report on our efforts over 3 years to retrieve conflicts of interest declarations from EMA. We wanted to assess potential internal industry influence judged as the proportion of guideline committee members with industry conflicts of interest.MethodsWe submitted Freedom of Information requests in February 2020 to access EMA's lists of committee members (and their declared conflicts of interest) involved in drafting the 13 'Clinical efficacy and safety' guidelines available on EMA's website pertaining to psychiatric indications. In our request, we did not specify the exact EMA committees. Here, we describe the received documents and report the proportion of members with industry interests (i.e. defined as any financial industry relationship). It is a follow-up paper to our first report (http://doi.org/10.1017/S2045796021000147).ResultsAfter 2 years and 9 months (November 2022), the EMA sent us member lists and corresponding conflicts of interest declarations from the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human use (CHMP) from 2012, 2013 and 2017. These member lists pertained to 3 of the 13 requested guidelines (schizophrenia, depression and autism spectrum disorder). The 10 remaining guidelines were published before 2011 and EMA stated that they needed to require permission from their expert members (with unknown retrieval rate) and foresaw excessive workload and long wait. Therefore, we withdrew our request. The CHMPs from 2012, 2013 and 2017 had from 34 to 36 members; 39%-44% declared any interests and we judged 14%-18% as having industry interests. For the schizophrenia guideline, we identified two members with industry interests to companies who submitted feedback on the guideline. We did not receive declarations from the Central Nervous System (CNS) Working Party, the CHMP appointed expert group responsible for drafting and incorporating feedback into the guidelines.ConclusionsAfter almost 3 years, we received information, which only partly addressed our request. We recommend EMA to improve transparency by publishing the author names and their corresponding conflicts of interest declarations directly in the 'Clinical efficacy and safety' guidelines and to not remove conflicts of interest declarations after 1 year from their website to reduce the risk of stealth corporate influence during the development of these influential guidelines.

Dataset Information

The contributions of the European Medicines Agency and its pediatric committee to the fight against childhood leukemia.

Publications

The contributions of the European Medicines Agency and its pediatric committee to the fight against childhood leukemia.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets