Public trust on regulatory decisions: The European Medicines Agency and the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine label.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Dal-Re R
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8190873 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Public trust on regulatory decisions: The European Medicines Agency and the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine label.
Dal-Ré Rafael R Launay Odile O
Vaccine 20210604 30
Similar Datasets
Project description:Over the first half of March 2021, the majority of European governments suspended Astrazeneca’s Vaxzevria vaccine as a precaution following media reports of rare blood clots. We analyse the impact of the European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) March 18th statement assuring the public of the safety of Vaxzevria and the immediate reinstatement of the vaccine by most countries on respondents’ intention to get vaccinated. By relying on survey data collected in Luxembourg and neighbouring areas between early March and mid-April, we observe that the willingness to be vaccinated was severely declining in the days preceding the EMA statement. We implement a regression discontinuity design exploiting the time at which respondents completed the survey and find that the vaccine reinstatement substantially restored vaccination intentions.
| S-EPMC9710792 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimsTo systematically assess the level of evidence for psychotropic drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA).MethodsCross-sectional analysis of all European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) and meta-analyses of the many studies reported in these EPARs. Eligible EPARs were identified from the EMA's website and individual study reports were requested from the Agency when necessary. All marketing authorisation applications (defined by the drug, the route of administration and given indications) for psychotropic medications for adults (including drugs used in psychiatry and addictology) were considered. EPARs solely based on bioequivalence studies were excluded. Our primary outcome measure was the presence of robust evidence of comparative effectiveness, defined as at least two 'positive' superiority studies against an active comparator. Various other features of the approvals were assessed, such as evidence of non-inferiority v. active comparator and superiority v. placebo. For studies with available data, effect sizes were computed and pooled using a random effect meta-analysis for each dose of each drug in each indication.ResultsTwenty-seven marketing authorisations were identified. For one, comparative effectiveness was explicitly considered as not needed in the EPAR. Of those remaining, 21/26 (81%) did not provide any evidence of superiority against an active comparator, 2/26 (8%) were based on at least two trials showing superiority against active comparator and three (11%) were based on one positive trial; 1/26 provided evidence for two positive non-inferiority analyses v. active comparator and seven (26%) provided evidence for one. In total, 20/27 (74%) evaluations reported evidence of superiority v. placebo with two or more trials. Among the meta-analyses of initiation studies against active comparator (57 available comparisons), the median effect size was 0.051 (range -0.503; 0.318). Twenty approved evaluations (74%) reported evidence of superiority v. placebo on the basis of two or more initiation trials and seven based on a single trial. Among meta-analyses of initiation studies against placebo (125 available comparisons), the median effect size was -0.283 (range -0.820; 0.091). Importantly, among the 89 study reports requested on the EMA website, only 19 were made available 1 year after our requests.ConclusionsThe evidence for psychiatric drug approved by the EMA was in general poor. Small to modest effects v. placebo were considered sufficient in indications where an earlier drug exists. Data retrieval was incomplete after 1 year despite EMA's commitment to transparency. Improvements are needed.
| S-EPMC7214735 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTransparency and reproducibility are expected to be normative practices in clinical trials used for decision-making on marketing authorisations for new medicines. This registered report introduces a cross-sectional study aiming to assess inferential reproducibility for main trials assessed by the European Medicines Agency.MethodsTwo researchers independently identified all studies on new medicines, biosimilars and orphan medicines given approval by the European Commission between January 2017 and December 2019, categorised as 'main studies' in the European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs). Sixty-two of these studies were randomly sampled. One researcher retrieved the individual patient data (IPD) for these studies and prepared a dossier for each study, containing the IPD, the protocol and information on the conduct of the study. A second researcher who had no access to study reports used the dossier to run an independent re-analysis of each trial. All results of these re-analyses were reported in terms of each study's conclusions, p-values, effect sizes and changes from the initial protocol. A team of two researchers not involved in the re-analysis compared results of the re-analyses with published results of the trial.ResultsTwo hundred ninety-two main studies in 173 EPARs were identified. Among the 62 studies randomly sampled, we received IPD for 10 trials. The median number of days between data request and data receipt was 253 [interquartile range 182-469]. For these ten trials, we identified 23 distinct primary outcomes for which the conclusions were reproduced in all re-analyses. Therefore, 10/62 trials (16% [95% confidence interval 8% to 28%]) were reproduced, as the 52 studies without available data were considered non-reproducible. There was no change from the original study protocol regarding the primary outcome in any of these ten studies. Spin was observed in the report of one study.ConclusionsDespite their results supporting decisions that affect millions of people's health across the European Union, most main studies used in EPARs lack transparency and their results are not reproducible for external researchers. Re-analyses of the few trials with available data showed very good inferential reproducibility.Trial registrationhttps://osf.io/mcw3t/.
| S-EPMC9119701 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDrug regulators assess and describe uncertainties regarding treatment outcomes and the benefit-risk balance of newly authorised medicines. We aimed to evaluate the type and number of uncertainties described in the benefit-risk assessment for initial marketing authorisations of oncology medicines assessed by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). We also aimed to develop a systematic classification of uncertainties to contribute to improved communication about uncertainties.Materials and methodsWe included all medicines containing a new active substance assessed by the EMA and granted an initial marketing authorisation by the European Commission in 2011-2022 for an oncology indication. We extracted characteristics of these oncology medicines and uncertainties described under the benefit-risk balance section of European public assessment reports. Uncertainties were categorised and their frequencies stratified according to time of marketing authorisation, and medicine and regulatory characteristics.ResultsIn total, 121 oncology medicines were included for which 800 (median 6, range 0-23) uncertainties were identified. Uncertainties were classified into five categories: safety (n = 404, 51%), efficacy (n = 322, 40%), pharmacology (n = 58, 7%), use in clinical practice (n = 10, 1%), and quality (n = 6, 1%). Among 27 subcategories, most uncertainties were related to specific adverse events (n = 156, 20%), effect size (n = 155, 20%), safety in subpopulations (n = 124, 16%), or efficacy in subpopulations (n = 88, 11%). The type of medicine (P = 0.012), type of marketing authorisation (P = 0.001), and year of marketing authorisation (P = 0.007) were associated with the number of uncertainties per medicine, with the highest number observed for cell and gene therapies [8 (3-23)], medicines granted conditional marketing authorisation [7 (3-23)], and medicines authorised in 2019-2022 [7 (2-23)].ConclusionAt the time of initial marketing authorisation of oncology medicines, uncertainties about their benefit-risk balance most often concerned safety aspects, followed by efficacy. The number of uncertainties was highest for cell and gene therapies, conditionally authorised medicines, and medicines authorised in recent years.
| S-EPMC11696770 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The recent Regulation (EU) 2019/1381, published on the 6th September 2019, aims to improve the transparency and sustainability of the EU risk assessment in the food chain by amending the General Food Law Regulation (EC 178/2002) and a number of other regulations related to the food sector. This Regulation is introduced as a response to the Fitness Check of the General Food Law Regulation as well as a response to public concerns expressed by a European Citizens' Initiative on glyphosate and pesticides. This article evaluates the amendments introduced by Regulation 2019/1381with respect to the institutional and regulatory environment in the food chain and more specifically concerning the risk assessment procedure. For this purpose, we perform a comparison of the institutional and organizational characteristics of the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) in relation to the processes of risk assessment and risk evaluation, especially the processes surrounding genetically modified foods and pesticides, and how these characteristics affect the politicization of these processes. We conclude that the risk assessment process followed by EFSA would have benefitted and become more effective and less politicized, if the recent Regulation 2019/1381 had introduced some of EMA's institutional structures and methods on risk evaluation.
| S-EPMC7155385 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe European Medicines Agency (EMA) interacts with many different stakeholders involved in the development of drugs, including academic researchers. In recent years, EMA has collaborated more closely with academia, inter alia by taking part in external research projects such as those set up under the Horizon 2020 program in general and the Innovative Medicines Initiative in particular. The aim of this study was to evaluate the perceived added value of EMA's involvement in these projects, both from the perspective of the Agency's participating Scientific Officers and of the coordinators of the consortia that undertook them.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted with the coordinators of 21 ongoing or recently finalized projects in which EMA has participated, as well as with the Agency experts contributing to them.ResultsIn total, 40 individuals were interviewed, of whom 23 were project coordinators and 17 were EMA staff members. While most of the projects were reported to suffer from delays due to the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, the consortia adapted to the circumstances and their members still expected to deliver on their objectives. EMA's input into the projects ranged from providing guidance by reviewing documents and attending meetings to creating project materials and disseminating them. The frequency of communication between EMA and the consortia varied widely. The projects generated a diverse set of outputs, which encompassed new or improved medicinal products, methodological standards, research infrastructures, and educational tools. All of the coordinators expressed that EMA's contributions to their projects had increased the scientific relevance of their consortium's work, and the EMA experts found that the knowledge and the deliverables produced by the projects were valuable, taking into consideration the time they had invested into them. In addition, interviewees highlighted some actions which could be taken to increase the regulatory significance of the project outcomes.ConclusionEMA's engagement in external research projects benefits the consortia conducting them and supports the Agency's mission to foster scientific excellence and advance regulatory science.
| S-EPMC10267977 | biostudies-literature
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.
| S-EPMC3913033 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo assess the use, and evaluate the usefulness, of non-interventional studies and routinely collected healthcare data in postmarketing assessments conducted by the European Medicines Agency (EMA).DesignWe reviewed and systematically assessed all referrals to the EMA made due to safety or efficacy concerns that were evaluated between 1 January 2013 and 30 June 2017. We extracted information from the assessment report and the referral notification. Two reviewers independently assessed the contribution of non-interventional evidence to decision-making.ResultsThe preliminary evidence leading to the assessment in 52 eligible referrals was mostly from spontaneous reports (cited in 26 of 52 referrals) and randomised trials (22/52). In contrast, many evidence types were used for the full assessment. Non-interventional studies were frequently used in the full assessment for the evaluation of product safety (31/52) and product efficacy (18/52). In particular, non-interventional studies were relied on for the evaluation of safety and efficacy in subgroups, the evaluation of safety relating to a rare adverse event, understanding product usage and misuse and for evaluation of the effectiveness of risk minimisation measures. The most common recommendations were changes to product information (43/52) and marketing authorisation withdrawal or suspension (12/52). In the majority of referrals, non-interventional evidence was judged to contribute to the decision made (30/52) and in three referrals it was the primary source of evidence.ConclusionsEuropean regulatory decision-making relies on multiple evidence types, particularly randomised trials, spontaneous reports and non-interventional studies. Non-interventional studies had an important role particularly for the characterisation and quantification of adverse events, the evaluation of product usage and for evaluating the effectiveness of regulatory action to minimise risk.
| S-EPMC6830614 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To address unresolved questions about drug safety and efficacy at the time of approval, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) may require that manufacturers conduct additional studies during the postmarketing period. As a growing proportion of new cancer drugs are approved on the basis of limited evidence of clinical benefit, timely completion of postmarketing requirements is important. We used publicly available regulatory documents to evaluate key characteristics of pivotal studies supporting EMA-approved cancer drugs from 2004-2014 and assessed completion rates of postmarketing data collection requirements after a minimum of 5 years. From 2004-2014, 79% (45/57) of EMA-approved cancer drugs had to fulfill postmarketing requirements. Pivotal trials supporting the approval of cancer drugs with postmarketing requirements were less likely to have randomized designs (41/61, 67% vs. 11/11, 100%), include an active comparator (20/61, 33% vs. 10/11, 91%), or measure overall survival as the primary study end point (18/61, 30% vs. 6/11, 55%) compared with pivotal trials for drugs without postmarketing requirements. Among 200 postmarketing requirements, almost half were designed to assess drug safety. After a minimum of 5 years, 60% (121/200) of requirements were completed, 10% (19/200) were ongoing, and 30% (60/200) were delayed. About half (40/75, 53%) of postmarketing requirements for new clinical studies were completed on time. Delays in the completion of postmarketing requirements often did not impact the likelihood of drugs receiving permanent marketing authorization (87%, 39/45) after 5 years. Our findings highlight the need for EMA to better enforce its authority to require timely completion of postmarketing requirements and studies.
| S-EPMC9540185 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Mobility is defined as the ability to independently move around the environment and is a key contributor to quality of life, especially in older age. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of mobility as a decisive outcome for the marketing authorisation of drugs by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Fifteen therapeutic areas which commonly lead to relevant mobility impairments and alter the quantity and/or the quality of walking were selected: two systemic neurological diseases, four conditions primarily affecting exercise capacity, seven musculoskeletal diseases and two conditions representing sensory impairments. European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) published by the EMA until September 2020 were examined for mobility endpoints included in their 'main studies'. Clinical study registries and primary scientific publications for these studies were also reviewed. Four hundred and eighty-four EPARs yielded 186 relevant documents with 402 'main studies'. The EPARs reported 153 primary and 584 secondary endpoints which considered mobility; 70 different assessment tools (38 patient-reported outcomes, 13 clinician-reported outcomes, 8 performance outcomes and 13 composite endpoints) were used. Only 15.7% of those tools distinctly informed on patients' mobility status. Out of 402, 105 (26.1%) of the 'main studies' did not have any mobility assessment. Furthermore, none of these studies included a digital mobility outcome. For conditions with a high impact on mobility, mobility assessment was given little consideration in the marketing authorisation of drugs by the EMA. Where mobility impairment was considered to be a relevant outcome, questionnaires or composite scores susceptible to reporting biases were predominantly used.
| S-EPMC8789320 | biostudies-literature