Dataset Information

Mobility endpoints in marketing authorisation of drugs: what gets the European medicines agency moving?

ABSTRACT:

Background

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).

Methods

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.

Results

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.

Conclusions

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.

SUBMITTER: Jaeger SU

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8789320 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:With the implementation of the new EU regulation on in vitro diagnostics (IVDR) in May 2022, notified bodies will be required to assess Companion Diagnostics (CDx). The EMA and national medicines agencies will be consulted on the performance and safety of CDx. In this paper, we report on our systematic review on how the EMA has dealt with CDx in dossiers for marketing authorization procedures, in 2017-2019, and in scientific advice procedures in 2016-2020, prior to the implementation of the new IVDR. Out of 167 medicines approved or refused by the EMA, CDx played a role for 20 medicines during assessment. Both European public assessment reports (EPARs) and the internal day 80 and day 120 assessment reports (ARs) of the EMA centralized marketing authorization procedures for these 20 medicines were analyzed in detail to determine how CDx were assessed. Likewise, in 46 of 159 cases in which scientific advice was provided, CDx were mentioned in the question-and-answer section of the scientific advice, and these were analyzed in an analogous manner. Our analysis indicates that clinical performance and analytical performance of the CDx were the most-discussed topics, being discussed 11 and seven times in the 20 EPARs and 59 and 29 times in the ARs, respectively. For scientific advice, clinical and analytical performance was discussed 65 and 22 times in the 46 retrieved mentions of scientific advice. Other aspects in relation to CDx were discussed as well, although at a lower frequency, in assessment reports and scientific advice. Overall, our analysis demonstrates that, despite the absence of an obligation from a legal point of view, EMA has gained experience on the assessment of CDx, most notably regarding its analytical and clinical performance. This experience may be useful in situations in which the EMA and national agencies of EU member states will formally be consulted by notified bodies regarding the performance and safety of CDx. In addition, the issues raised in the EPARs, ARs and scientific advice reports provide insight for applicants on aspects of CDx that need careful consideration.

Project description:BackgroundPrompted by the Covid-19 pandemic and the need to ensure timely and safe access to medicines during a pandemic, the aim of this study was to compare and contrast the EU and US regulations, processes, and outcomes pertaining to the granting of accelerated Marketing Authorizations (MAs) for COVID-19 vaccines and treatments with a view to determining how effective these regulations were in delivering safe medicines in a timely manner.MethodsMAs for medicines approved for Covid-related indications in the first two pandemic years (March 2020-February 2022) were identified using the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) websites. Authorization reports and utilized regulations were reviewed to determine and compare approval timelines, facilitated pathways, accepted clinical evidence, and effectiveness of the regulations by assessing them against time and safety standards.ResultsBy the end of February 2022, the EMA and FDA had granted 12 and 14 MAs, respectively. Two EU and two US approvals were issued in relation to new indications for already-approved treatments; the remaining ones were first-time approvals of novel vaccines and treatments. The median time to approval was 24 days for the EMA's conditional MAs and 36 days for the USFDA's Emergency Use Authorizations (EUA) for all Covid-19 medicines. This is compared with 23 and 28 days, respectively, specifically for first-time novel vaccines and treatments authorized by both USFDA and EMA. The USFDA and EMA differed markedly in terms of the time taken to approve new indications of already-approved treatment; the USFDA took 65 days for such approval, compared with 133 days for the EMA. Where MAs were issued by both authorities, USFDA approvals were issued before EMA approvals; applications for approval were submitted to the FDA before submission to the EMA. Three EU and two US MAs were based on data from two or more phase 3 clinical trials; the remaining ones were based on single trial data. Only six EU and four US trials had been completed by the time of authorization. This was in line with regulations. While the applicable regulations shared many similarities, there were marked differences. For instance, the EU's conditional MA regulation pertains only to first approvals of new treatments. It does not cover new indications of already-approved treatments. This contrasts with the US, where the EUA regulation applies to both types of applications, something that may have impacted approval timelines. Overall, both EU and US utilized regulations were considered to be effective. For most cases, utilizing such regulations for Covid-19 MAs resulted in faster approval timelines compared to standard MAs. They were flexible enough to manage the process of granting emergency approvals while maintaining strict requirements and allowing comprehensive reviews of the supporting evidence.ConclusionUS and EU regulations were effective in ensuring timely accelerated market access to Covid-19 medicines during the pandemic without compromising the approval standards related to safety or efficacy. The population in both regions will receive comparable access to medicines during a pandemic if sponsors submit their applications to both authorities in parallel.

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.

Project description:ObjectivesTo evaluate the added benefit and revenues of oncology drugs, explore their association, and investigate potential discrepancies between added benefit and revenues across different approval pathways of the European Medicines Agency (EMA).DesignRetrospective cohort study.SettingOncology drugs and their indications approved by the EMA between 1995 and 2020.Main outcome measuresAdded benefit was evaluated using ratings published by seven organisations: health technology assessment agencies from the United States, France, Germany, and Italy, two medical oncology societies, and a drug bulletin. All retrieved ratings were recategorised using a four point ranking scale to indicate negative or non-quantifiable, minor, substantial, or major added benefit. Revenue data were extracted from publicly available financial reports and compared with published estimates of research and development (R&D) costs. Finally, the association between added benefit and revenue was evaluated. All analyses were performed within the overall study cohort, and within subgroups based on the EMA approval pathway: standard marketing authorisation, conditional marketing authorisation, and authorisation under exceptional circumstances.Results131 oncology drugs with 166 indications were evaluated for their added benefit by at least one organisation within the required timeframe, yielding a total of 458 added benefit ratings; 189 (41%) were negative or non-quantifiable. The median time to offset the median R&D costs ($684m, £535m, €602m, adjusted to 2020 values) was three years; 50 of 55 (91%) drugs recovered these costs within eight years. Drugs with higher added benefit ratings generally had greater revenues. Negative or non-quantifiable added benefit ratings were more frequent for conditional marketing authorisations and authorisations under exceptional circumstances than for standard marketing authorisations (relative risk 1.53, 95% confidence interval 1.23 to 1.89). Conditional marketing authorisations generated lower revenues and took longer to offset R&D costs than standard marketing authorisations (four years compared with three years).ConclusionsWhile revenues seem to align with added benefit, most oncology drugs recover R&D costs within a few years despite providing little added benefit. This is particularly true for drugs approved through conditional marketing authorisations, which inherently appear to lack comprehensive evidence. Policy makers should evaluate whether current regulatory and reimbursement incentives effectively promote development of the most effective drugs for patients with the greatest needs.

Project description:BackgroundIn situations of unmet medical need or in the interests of public health, expedited approval pathways, including conditional marketing authorisation (CMA) and accelerated assessment (AA), speed up European Medicines Agency (EMA) marketing authorisation recommendations for medicinal products. CMAs are based on incomplete benefit-risk assessment data and authorisation remains conditional until regulator-imposed confirmatory postmarketing measures are fulfilled. For products undergoing AA, complete safety and efficacy data should be available, and postauthorisation measures may include only standard requirements of risk management and pharmacovigilance plans. In the pivotal trials supporting products assessed by expedited pathways, surrogate endpoints reduce drug development time compared with waiting for the intended clinical outcomes. Whether surrogate endpoints supporting products authorised through CMA and AA pathways reliably predict clinical benefits of therapy has not been studied systematically. Our objectives were to determine the extent to which surrogate endpoints are used and to assess whether their validity had been confirmed according to published hierarchies.Methods and findingsWe used European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) to identify the primary endpoints in the pivotal trials supporting products authorised through CMA or AA pathways during January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2018. We excluded products that were vaccines, topical, reversal, or bleeding prophylactic agents or withdrawn within the study time frame. Where pivotal trials reported surrogate endpoints, we conducted PubMed searches for evidence of validity for predicting clinical outcomes. We used 2 published hierarchies to assess validity level. Surrogates with randomised controlled trials supporting the surrogate-clinical outcome relationship were rated as 'validated'. Fifty-one products met the inclusion criteria; 26 underwent CMAs, and 25 underwent AAs. Overall, 26 products were for oncology indications, 10 for infections, 8 for genetic disorders, and 7 for other systems disorders. Five products (10%), all AAs, were authorised based on pivotal trials reporting clinical outcomes, and 46 (90%) were authorised based on surrogate endpoints. No studies were identified that validated the surrogate endpoints. Among a total of 49 products with surrogate endpoints reported, most were rated according to the published hierarchies as being 'reasonably likely' (n = 30; 61%) or of having 'biological plausibility' (n = 46; 94%) to predict clinical outcomes. EPARs did not consistently explain the nature of the pivotal trial endpoints supporting authorisations, whether surrogate endpoints were validated or not, or describe the endpoints to be reported in the confirmatory postmarketing studies. Our study has limitations: we may have overlooked relevant validation studies; the findings apply to 2 expedited pathways and may not be generalisable to products authorised through the standard assessment pathway.ConclusionsThe pivotal trial evidence supporting marketing authorisations for products granted CMA or AA was based dominantly on nonvalidated surrogate endpoints. EPARs and summary product characteristic documents, including patient information leaflets, need to state consistently the nature and limitations of endpoints in pivotal trials supporting expedited authorisations so that prescribers and patients appreciate shortcomings in the evidence about actual clinical benefit. For products supported by nonvalidated surrogate endpoints, postauthorisation measures to confirm clinical benefit need to be imposed by the regulator on the marketing authorisation holders.