Dataset Information

Preclinical efficacy in therapeutic area guidelines from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency: a cross-sectional study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE:Therapeutic area guidelines (TAGs) published by the EMA and the FDA offer guidance in planning the launch of a trial in a certain indication. We assessed and compared the guidance on preclinical efficacy of all available TAGs from EMA and FDA. EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH:EMA and FDA websites and databases were searched for all TAGs. A mixed deductive and inductive approach was applied to analyse and cluster content for preclinical efficacy. KEY RESULTS:A total of 114 EMA and 120 FDA TAGs were identified, covering 126 indications. Our core finding is that 75% of EMA TAGs and 58% from the FDA TAGs do not offer any guidance on preclinical efficacy. TAGs varied widely on the extent, nature and detail of guidance. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS:Guidance on preclinical efficacy in a consistent, comprehensive and explicit way that still allows for justified deviations is an important but neglected aspect of transparency for drug development. This transparency would help sponsors in designing preclinical studies and in negotiating more efficiently with regulators.

SUBMITTER: Langhof H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6193882 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Nov

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Preclinical efficacy in therapeutic area guidelines from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency: a cross-sectional study.

Langhof Holger H Chin William Wei Lim WWL Wieschowski Susanne S Federico Carole C Kimmelman Jonathan J Strech Daniel D

British journal of pharmacology 20181001 22

<h4>Background and purpose</h4>Therapeutic area guidelines (TAGs) published by the EMA and the FDA offer guidance in planning the launch of a trial in a certain indication. We assessed and compared the guidance on preclinical efficacy of all available TAGs from EMA and FDA.<h4>Experimental approach</h4>EMA and FDA websites and databases were searched for all TAGs. A mixed deductive and inductive approach was applied to analyse and cluster content for preclinical efficacy.<h4>Key results</h4>A to ...[more]

PMID: 30153701

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceFor patients with cancer treated with palliative intent, quality of life (QOL) is a critical aspect of treatment decision-making, alongside survival. However, regulatory approval can be based solely on survival measures or antitumor activities, without QOL evidence.ObjectiveTo investigate whether recently approved oncology therapies demonstrate clinically meaningful improvements in QOL.Evidence reviewThis systematic review study identified oncology drug indications approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) from January 2006 to December 2017 and supporting clinical trials (QOL publications identified to October 2019). Indications were evaluated for the presence of published QOL evidence; QOL benefits according to the American Society of Clinical Oncology Value Framework version 2.0 (ASCO-VF) and European Society of Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale version 1.1 (ESMO-MCBS) QOL bonus criteria; and clinically meaningful improvements in QOL beyond minimal clinically important differences. Hematology trials were not evaluated by ESMO-MCBS. Associations between QOL evidence and approval year were examined using logistic regression models.FindingsIn total, 214 FDA-approved (77 [36%] hematological) and 170 EMA-approved (52 [31%] hematological) indications were included. QOL evidence was published for 40% and 58% of FDA- and EMA-approved indications, respectively. QOL bonus criterion for ASCO-VF and ESMO-MCBS was met in 13% and 17% of FDA-approved and 21% and 24% of EMA-approved indications, respectively. Clinically meaningful improvements in QOL beyond minimal clinically important differences were noted in 6% and 11% of FDA- and EMA-approved indications, respectively. Availability of published QOL evidence at the time of approval increased over time for EMA (odds ratio [OR], 1.13; P = .03), however not for FDA (OR, 1.10; P = .12). Over time, no increase in awarded QOL bonuses or clinically meaningful improvements in QOL were found.Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this systematic review suggest that approved systemic oncology therapies often do not have published evidence to suggest QOL improvement, despite its recognized importance. Of indications with evidence of statistical improvement, few have demonstrated clinically meaningful improvements.

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:Background and objective: Irrational use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) is the main cause of adverse effects-associated hospitalizations among all medication groups leading to extremely increased costs for health care. Pharmacoepidemiological studies can partly reveal such issues and encourage further decisions. Therefore, the aim of our study was to evaluate the utilization of non-opioid analgesics (ATC classification N02B and M01A) in Lithuania, and to compare it with that of other Baltic and Scandinavian countries in terms of compliance to the WHO pain treatment guidelines and the EMA safety recommendations on NSAID use. Materials and methods: The dispensing data were obtained from the sales analysis software provider in the Baltic countries (SoftDent, Ltd., Kaunas, Lithuania); State Medicine Control Agencies of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia; Norwegian Prescription Database; Swedish Database for Medicines; and Danish Prescription Database. Data included the utilization of both prescription and over-the-counter drugs. Utilization was expressed in defined daily doses (DDD)/1000 inhabitants/day. Results: During the 11-year period, the utilization of drugs belonging to the N02B and M01A groups increased by 22.8%, from 58.37 in 2005 to 71.68 DDD/1000 inhabitants/day in 2016 in Lithuania. Contrary to the WHO guidelines on pain management, all Baltic countries were more likely to use NSAIDs than other analgesics and antipyretics: in 2015, the drugs of the M01A group were used 6.04, 5.79, and 6.11 times more than those of N02B in Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia, respectively, whereas the Scandinavian countries preferred the N02B to the M01A group: in Denmark and Sweden, the utilization of other analgesics and antipyretics was 2.33 and 1.24, respectively, times higher than that of NSAIDs. In Norway, the use of both groups was similar. In the Scandinavian countries, paracetamol was the analgesic of first choice, whereas, in Lithuania, it took only the third place. The most popular drug in Lithuania was diclofenac, and its utilization accounted for 30.04% of all non-opioid analgesics in 2016. Although the European Medicines Agency (EMA) restricted the use of certain NSAIDs, i.e., cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitors, nimesulide, and diclofenac, their use consistently increased by 15.91, 2.83, and 1.41 times, respectively, showing incompliance with the international guidelines. Conclusions: Neither the EMA safety policy on NSAID use nor the WHO pain treatment guidelines had a sufficient impact on the rational use of NSAIDs in Lithuania. The use of NSAIDs restricted by the EMA (diclofenac, COX-2 inhibitors, nimesulide, and piroxicam) remains high or even increases, while the utilization of safer alternatives (paracetamol and naproxen) remains relatively low as compared with the Scandinavian countries. Incompliance with international guidelines may result in increased morbidity, mortality and higher costs for health care.

Dataset Information

Preclinical efficacy in therapeutic area guidelines from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency: a cross-sectional study.

Publications

Preclinical efficacy in therapeutic area guidelines from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency: a cross-sectional study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure