Dataset Information

Technology forecast: advanced therapies in late clinical research, EMA approval or clinical application via hospital exemption.

ABSTRACT: Background: The umbrella term ATMPs (Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products) comprises cell therapies, gene therapeutics and tissue engineered products. After implementation of the Regulation 1394/2007, only a couple of products have obtained a centralized European marketing authorisation. Objectives: The aim of the presented study is to give an overview on ATMPs available within the European Union either via centralized marketing authorisation or via national Hospital exemption. Additionally, a forecast on innovative ATMPs in the process of EMA approval as well as in phase III and IV clinical trial is provided. Methods: Systematic literature search including 'grey literature' and database reviews as well as manual search following pre-defined search terms. Results: 8 ATMPs are currently available via centralized marketing authorisation. 6 new product launches are expected before 2020. At least 32 additional ATMPs are available in individual European Union member states via Hospital exemption. Another 31 potential ATMP candidates could be identified in industry-driven phase III research projects. Conclusion: Advanced therapeutic medicinal therapies are still in their early days, but constantly evolving. By 2020, innovative therapies targeting retinal dystrophy, ß-thalassemia, scleroderma, sickle-cell anaemia, adrenoleukodystrophy and leukaemia shall be available on the market.

SUBMITTER: Eder C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6493298 | biostudies-literature | 2019

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Technology forecast: advanced therapies in late clinical research, EMA approval or clinical application via hospital exemption.

Eder Claudia C Wild Claudia C

Journal of market access & health policy 20190419 1

<b>Background</b>: The umbrella term ATMPs (Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products) comprises cell therapies, gene therapeutics and tissue engineered products. After implementation of the Regulation 1394/2007, only a couple of products have obtained a centralized European marketing authorisation. <b>Objectives</b>: The aim of the presented study is to give an overview on ATMPs available within the European Union either via centralized marketing authorisation or via national Hospital exemption. Addi ...[more]

PMID: 31069029

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: In February 2009, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted Humanitarian Device Exemption (HDE) for deep brain stimulation (DBS) in the anterior limb of the internal capsule (ALIC) for the treatment of severely debilitating, treatment refractory obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). Despite its promise as a life altering treatment for patients with otherwise refractory, severely debilitating OCD, the use of DBS for the treatment of OCD has diminished since the FDA HDE endorsement and is now rarely performed even at busy referral centers. We sought to identify factors hindering OCD patients from receiving DBS therapy. Materials and Methods: University of Florida (UF) clinical research databases were queried to identify patients evaluated as potential candidates for OCD DBS from January 1, 2002 to July 30, 2020. A retrospective review of these patients' medical records was performed to obtain demographic information, data related to their OCD, and details relevant to payment such as third-party payer, study participation, evaluation prior to or after HDE approval, and any stated factors prohibiting surgical intervention. Results: Out of 25 patients with severe OCD identified as candidates for DBS surgery during the past 18 years, 15 underwent surgery. Prior to FDA HDE approval, 6 out of 7 identified candidates were treated. After the HDE, only 9 out of 18 identified candidates were treated. Seven of the 9 were funded by Medicare, 1 paid out of pocket, and 1 had "pre-authorization" from her private insurer who ultimately refused to pay after the procedure. Among the 10 identified OCD DBS candidates who were ultimately not treated, 7 patients-all with private health insurance-were approved for surgery by the interdisciplinary team but were unable to proceed with surgery due to lack of insurance coverage, 1 decided against surgical intervention, 1 was excluded due to medical comorbidities and excessive perceived surgical risk, and no clear reason was identified for 1 patient evaluated in 2004 during our initial NIH OCD DBS trial. Conclusion: Based on compelling evidence that DBS provides substantial improvement of OCD symptoms and markedly improved functional capacity in 2 out of 3 patients with severely debilitating, treatment refractory OCD, the FDA approved this procedure under a Humanitarian Device Exemption in 2009, offering new hope to this unfortunate patient population. A careful review of our experience with OCD DBS at the University of Florida shows that since the HDE approval, only 50% of the severe OCD patients (9 of 18) identified as candidates for this potentially life altering treatment have been able to access the therapy. We found the most common limiting factor to be failure of private insurance policies to cover DBS for OCD, despite readily covering DBS for Parkinson's disease, essential tremor, and even dystonia-another HDE approved indication for DBS. We have identified an inherent discrimination in the US healthcare system against patients with medication-refractory OCD who are economically challenged and do not qualify for Medicare. We urge policy makers, insurance companies, and hospital administrations to recognize this health care disparity and seek to rectify it.

Project description:BackgroundCardiovascular disease (CVD) has become an increasingly common limitation to effective anticancer therapy. Yet, whether CVD events were consistently reported in pivotal trials supporting contemporary anticancer drugs is unknown.ObjectivesThe authors sought to evaluate the incidence, consistency, and nature of CVD event reporting in cancer drug trials.MethodsFrom the Drugs@FDA, clinicaltrials.gov, MEDLINE, and publicly available U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug reviews, all reported CVD events across latter-phase (II and III) trials supporting FDA approval of anticancer drugs from 1998 to 2018 were evaluated. The primary outcome was the report of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as incident myocardial infarction, stroke, heart failure, coronary revascularization, atrial fibrillation, or CVD death, irrespective of treatment arm. The secondary outcome was report of any CVD event. Pooled reported annualized incidence rates of MACE in those without baseline CVD were compared with reported large contemporary population rates using relative risks. Population risk differences for MACE were estimated. Differences in drug efficacy using pooled binary endpoint hazard ratios on the basis of the presence or absence of reported CVD were also assessed.ResultsOverall, there were 189 trials, evaluating 123 drugs, enrolling 97,365 participants (58.5 ± 5 years, 46.0% female, 72.5% on biologic, targeted, or immune-based therapies) with 148,138 person-years of follow-up. Over a median follow-up of 30 months, 1,148 incidents of MACE (375 heart failure, 253 myocardial infarction, 180 strokes, 65 atrial fibrillation, 29 revascularizations, and 246 CVD deaths; 792 in the intervention vs. 356 in the control arm; p < 0.01) were reported from the 62.4% of trials noting any CVD. The overall weighted-average incidence was 542 events per 100,000 person-years (716 per 100,000 in the intervention arm), compared with 1,408 among similar-aged non-cancer trial subjects (relative risk: 0.38; p < 0.01), translating into a risk difference of 866. There was no association between reporting CVD events and drug efficacy (hazard ratio: 0.68 vs. 0.67; p = 0.22).ConclusionsAmong pivotal clinical trials linked to contemporary FDA-approved cancer drugs, reported CVD event rates trail expected population rates.

Project description:Clinically feasible multiparameter continuous physiological monitoring technologies are needed for use in resource-constrained African healthcare facilities to allow for early detection of critical events and timely intervention for major morbidities in high-risk neonates. We conducted a prospective clinical feasibility study of a novel multiparameter continuous physiological monitoring technology in neonates at Pumwani Maternity Hospital in Nairobi, Kenya. To assess feasibility, we compared the performance of Sibel's Advanced Neonatal Epidermal (ANNE) technology to reference technologies, including Masimo's Rad-97 pulse CO-oximeter with capnography technology for heart rate (HR), respiratory rate (RR), and oxygen saturation (SpO2) measurements and Spengler's Tempo Easy non-contact infrared thermometer for temperature measurements. We evaluated key performance criteria such as up-time, clinical event detection performance, and the agreement of measurements compared to those from the reference technologies in an uncontrolled, real-world setting. Between September 15 and December 15, 2020, we collected and analyzed 503 h of ANNE data from 109 enrolled neonates. ANNE's up-time was 42 (11%) h more for HR, 77 (25%) h more for RR, and 6 (2%) h less for SpO2 compared to the Rad-97. However, ANNE's ratio of up-time to total attached time was less than Rad-97's for HR (0.79 vs 0.86), RR (0.68 vs. 0.79), and SpO2 (0.69 vs 0.86). ANNE demonstrated adequate performance in identifying high and low HR and RR and high temperature events; however, showed relatively poor performance for low SpO2 events. The normalized spread of limits of agreement were 8.4% for HR and 52.2% for RR and the normalized root-mean-square deviation was 4.4% for SpO2. Temperature agreement showed a spread of limits of agreement of 2.8 °C. The a priori-identified optimal limits were met for HR and temperature but not for RR or SpO2. ANNE was clinically feasible for HR and temperature but not RR and SpO2 as demonstrated by the technology's up-time, clinical event detection performance, and the agreement of measurements compared to those from the reference technologies.

Project description:ImportanceClinical trial evidence used to support drug approval is typically the only information on benefits and harms that patients and clinicians can use for decision-making when novel cancer therapies become available. Various evaluations have raised concern about the uncertainty surrounding these data, and a systematic investigation of the available information on treatment outcomes for cancer drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is warranted.ObjectiveTo describe the clinical trial data available on treatment outcomes at the time of FDA approval of all novel cancer drugs approved for the first time between 2000 and 2016.Design, setting, and participantsThis comparative effectiveness study analyzed randomized clinical trials and single-arm clinical trials of novel drugs approved for the first time to treat any type of cancer. Approval packages were obtained from drugs@FDA, a publicly available database containing information on drug and biologic products approved for human use in the US. Data from January 2000 to December 2016 were included in this study.Main outcomes and measuresRegulatory and clinical trial characteristics were described. For randomized clinical trials, summary treatment outcomes for overall survival, progression-free survival, and tumor response across all therapies were calculated, and median absolute survival increases were estimated. Tumor types and regulatory characteristics were assessed separately.ResultsBetween 2000 and 2016, 92 novel cancer drugs were approved by the FDA for 100 indications based on data from 127 clinical trials. The 127 clinical trials included a median of 191 participants (interquartile range [IQR], 106-448 participants). Overall, 65 clinical trials (51.2%) were randomized, and 95 clinical trials (74.8%) were open label. Of 100 indications, 44 indications underwent accelerated approval, 42 indications were for hematological cancers, and 58 indications were for solid tumors. Novel drugs had mean hazard ratios of 0.77 (95% CI, 0.73-0.81; I2 = 46%) for overall survival and 0.52 (95% CI, 0.47-0.57; I2 = 88%) for progression-free survival. The median tumor response, expressed as relative risk, was 2.37 (95% CI, 2.00-2.80; I2 = 91%). The median absolute survival benefit was 2.40 months (IQR, 1.25-3.89 months).Conclusions and relevanceIn this study, data available at the time of FDA drug approval indicated that novel cancer therapies were associated with substantial tumor responses but with prolonging median overall survival by only 2.40 months. Approval data from 17 years of clinical trials suggested that patients and clinicians typically had limited information available regarding the benefits of novel cancer treatments at market entry.

Dataset Information

Technology forecast: advanced therapies in late clinical research, EMA approval or clinical application via hospital exemption.

Publications

Technology forecast: advanced therapies in late clinical research, EMA approval or clinical application via hospital exemption.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets