Methodological Characteristics of Clinical Trials Supporting the Marketing Authorisation of Advanced Therapies in the European Union.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Iglesias-Lopez C
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8668425 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundTo assess uncertainty in regulatory decision-making for orphan medicinal products (OMP), a summary of the current basis for approval is required; a systematic grouping of medical conditions may be useful in summarizing information and issuing recommendations for practice.MethodsA grouping of medical conditions with similar characteristics regarding the potential applicability of methods and designs was created using a consensus approach. The 125 dossiers for authorised OMP published between 1999 and 2014 on the EMA webpage were grouped accordingly and data was extracted from European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) to assess the extent and robustness of the pivotal evidence supporting regulatory decisions.Results88% (110/125) of OMP authorizations were based on clinical trials, with 35% (38/110) including replicated pivotal trials. The mean (SD) number of pivotal trials per indication was 1.4 (0.7), and the EPARs included a median of three additional non-pivotal supportive studies. 10% of OMPs (13/125) were authorised despite only negative pivotal trials. One-third of trials (53/159) did not include a control arm, one-third (50/159) did not use randomisation, half the trials (75/159) were open-label and 75% (119/159) used intermediate or surrogate variables as the main outcome. Chronic progressive conditions led by multiple system/organs, conditions with single acute episodes and progressive conditions led by one organ/system were the groups where the evidence deviated most from conventional standards. Conditions with recurrent acute episodes had the most robust datasets. The overall size of the exposed population at the time of authorisation of OMP?-?mean(SD) 190.5 (202.5)?-?was lower than that required for the qualification of clinically-relevant adverse reactions.ConclusionsThe regulatory evidence supporting OMP authorization showed substantial uncertainties, including weak protection against errors, substantial use of designs unsuited for conclusions on causality, use of intermediate variables, lack of a priorism and insufficient safety data to quantify risks of relevant magnitude. Grouping medical conditions based on clinical features and their methodological requirements may facilitate specific methodological and regulatory recommendations for the study of OMP to strengthen the evidence base.
| S-EPMC6238348 | 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
Project description:For regulatory approval of a new medicine, the gold standard for demonstration of efficacy has traditionally been a minimum of two positive, adequate, and well-controlled clinical trials. Nevertheless, drugs to treat cancer and rare diseases are usually approved based on a single and often uncontrolled pivotal trial. In contrast, little is known about single pivotal trial approvals for non-orphan, non-oncology drugs. Between 2012 and 2016, 23 novel therapeutic drugs were approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and/or the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for 27 non-orphan, non-oncology indications each based on a single pivotal trial. Although there was considerable variation in the nature and strength of the efficacy evidence supporting these drug approvals, the majority (85%) of the pivotal trials were randomized and controlled. For all superiority trials, the primary outcome was met with a statistical significance of P ≤ 0.005. Most approvals were supported by additional efficacy data from nonpivotal studies.
| S-EPMC6662549 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Philip Morris Products SA (PMPSA) submitted a premarket tobacco application (PMTA) to US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) seeking an order permitting it to market IQOS in the USA. US law requires FDA to deny marketing authorisation if applicants fail to demonstrate that their product is 'appropriate for the protection of the public health'. FDA issued a marketing order for IQOS in April 2019, which Philip Morris is using to promote IQOS outside the USA. We analysed FDA's Technical Project Lead Review and marketing order for IQOS, relevant law and guidance on PMTAs and independent research on the health impacts of IQOS. FDA found that the evidence PMPSA submitted did not demonstrate reduction in long-term disease risks and that IQOS aerosol emits toxins with carcinogenic and genotoxic potential, some at higher levels than conventional cigarettes. PMPSA did not appropriately consider the health impacts of dual use, the product's attractiveness to youth or data showing that consumers do not accurately perceive the addiction risks of IQOS. Despite FDA's own scientists' recommendations and independent research showing that IQOS presents serious risks to users including cytotoxic, genotoxic, hepatotoxic, cardiovascular and pulmonary risks, FDA concluded that IQOS is 'appropriate for the protection of the public health'. FDA's decision allowing IQOS to be marketed in the USA disregarded valid scientific evidence and misapplied the public health standard mandated by law. This decision may have important health impacts, influence marketing IQOS outside the USA and erode public confidence in FDA's future PMTA decisions.
| S-EPMC7952009 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) are potential game changers in modern medical care with an anticipated major impact for patients and society. They are a new drug class often referred to as "living drugs," and are based on complex components such as vectors, cells and even tissues. The production of such ATMPs involves innovative biotechnological methods. In this survey, we have assessed the perception of European citizens regarding ATMPs and health care in Europe, in relation to other important topics, such as safety and security, data protection, climate friendly energy supply, migration, and others. A crucial question was to determine to what extent European citizens wish to support public funding of innovations in healthcare and reimbursement strategies for ATMPs. To answer this, we conducted an online survey in 13 European countries (representative of 85.3% of the entire EU population including the UK in 2020), surveying a total of 7,062 European citizens. The survey was representative with respect to adult age groups and gender in each country. Healthcare had the highest ranking among important societal topics. We found that 83% of the surveyed EU citizens were in support of more public funding of technologies in the field of ATMPs. Interestingly, 74% of respondents are in support of cross-border healthcare for patients with rare diseases to receive ATMP treatments and 61% support the reimbursement of very expensive ATMPs within the European health care system despite the current lack of long-term efficacy data. In conclusion, healthcare is a top ranking issue for European Citizens, who additionally support funding of new technologies to enable the wider application of ATMPs in Europe.
| S-EPMC8576137 | biostudies-literature
Project description:AimIn 2006, Omnitrope (by Sandoz) was the first approved biosimilar in Europe. To date, 21 biosimilars for seven different biologics are on the market. The present study compared the clinical trials undertaken to obtain market authorization.MethodsWe summarized the findings of a comprehensive review of all clinical trials up to market authorization of approved biosimilars, using the European public assessment reports (EPARs) published by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). The features compared were, among others, the number of patients enrolled, the number of trials, the types of trial design, choice of endpoints and equivalence margins for pharmacokinetic (PK)/pharmacodynamic (PD) and phase III trials.ResultsThe variability between the clinical development strategies is high. Some differences are explainable by the characteristics of the product; if, for example, the PD marker can be assumed to predict the clinical outcome, no efficacy trials might be necessary. However, even for products with the same reference product, the sample size, endpoints and statistical models are not always the same.ConclusionsThere seems to be flexibility for sponsors regarding the decision as to how best to prove biosimilarity.
| S-EPMC5099555 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCancer is a serious global health problem and a major cause of death. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) has established several regulatory initiatives to expedite the development and authorization of drugs to ensure timely access of patients. In this study, we analyzed the procedural timelines of marketing authorization applications for anticancer drugs in the EU, with a specific focus to special regulatory programs, scientific advice and company size.MethodsAnticancer drugs that received an opinion from the EMA between January 2010 and December 2019 were included in the study. Public assessment reports were used to obtain publicly available information of the drugs.ResultsWe identified 96 applications for new anticancer drugs. 34 applications were granted access to at least one expedited program offered by the EMA. Total procedure time was reduced from average 370 to 200-215 days when accelerated assessment was granted. Granting of a conditional marketing authorization or an orphan designation, as well as having scientific advice, only mildly affected total procedure time. Average total procedure time of small companies was much longer compared with medium-sized and large companies (483 versus 356 days), which was caused by an increased clock stop time.ConclusionTotal procedure time for anticancer is mainly affected by the granting of accelerated assessment, which reduced the total procedure time, and company size, where total procedure time is much longer for small companies. Small companies are advised to have, and especially adhere to scientific advice to reduce procedure time and increase the chance of success.
| S-EPMC8238922 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells represent a potent new approach to treat haematological malignancies. Two CAR T-cell therapies, tisagenlecleucel and axicabtagene ciloleucel, have been approved in Europe and the USA, as well as several other countries, for the treatment of leukaemia and lymphoma. These approvals marked a major milestone in the field of cell and gene therapies. However, the clinical development and regulatory evaluation of these innovative therapies faced several challenges that are considered important lessons learned for future similar products. Here, we examine the products' non-clinical and clinical data packages to outline the challenges encountered during the regulatory evaluation process in Europe, and to provide an update on their performance after authorisation.
| S-EPMC7841982 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) require evaluation by the European Medicines Agency's Committee for Advanced Therapies prior to being placed on the European market, subject to a Marketing Authorisation granted by the European Commission. In common with other medicinal products, various regulatory pathways are available for taking ATMPs through clinical trials to market authorisation, and the regulatory pathway taken will depend on a product's characteristics and the target patient population. With the industry poised to deliver more late-stage clinical and commercial ATMPs for serious diseases with high unmet medical need (e.g., T cell immunotherapies for cancer), bringing medicines to patients through optimized regulatory strategies and expedited pathways is assuming greater importance. The European Medicines Agency's priority medicines (PRIME) scheme was introduced in 2016 specifically to enable this, and eligibility has been granted to 19 ATMPs as of the fourth quarter (Q4) 2018. Furthermore, two chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapies, Yescarta and Kymriah, have recently completed their journeys through the scheme to Marketing Authorisation. This review discusses how the regulatory pathway for any particular ATMP, with or without PRIME designation, is determined and navigated.
| S-EPMC6378853 | biostudies-other
Project description:PurposeThe aim of this study is to provide a comprehensive overview of the outcomes of marketing authorisation applications via the mutual recognition and decentralised procedures (MRP/DCP) and assess determinants of licensing failure during CMDh referral procedures.MethodsAll MRP/DCP procedures to the Co-ordination group for Mutual recognition and Decentralised procedures-human (CMDh) during the period from January 2006 to December 2013 were analysed. Reasons for starting referral procedures were scored. In addition, a survey under pharmaceutical companies was performed to estimate the frequency of licensing failure prior to CMDh referrals.ResultsDuring the study period, 10392 MRP/DCP procedures were finalized. Three hundred seventy-seven (3.6%) resulted in a referral procedure, of which 70 (19%) resulted in licensing failure, defined as refusal or withdrawal of the application. The frequency of CMDh referrals decreased from 14.5% in 2006 to 1.6% in 2013. Of all referrals, 272 (72%) were resolved through consensus within the CMDh, the remaining 105 (28%) were resolved at the level of the CHMP. Most referrals were started because of objections raised about the clinical development program. Study design issues and objections about the demonstration of equivalence were most likely to result in licensing failure. An estimated 11% of all MRP/DCP procedures resulted in licensing failure prior to CMDh referral.ConclusionWhereas the absolute number of MRP/DCP procedures resulting in a referral has reduced substantially over the past years, no specific time trend could be observed regarding the frequency of referrals resulting in licensing failure. Increased knowledge at the level of companies and regulators has reduced the frequency of late-stage failure of marketing applications via the MRP/DCP.
| S-EPMC4564446 | biostudies-literature