Search

Abstract Aims We have previously described the European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) and the US Food and Drug Administration’s guidelines, each for a specific psychiatric indication, on how to design pivotal drug trials used in new drug applications. Here, we report on our efforts over 3 years to retrieve conflicts of interest declarations from EMA. We wanted to assess potential internal industry influence judged as the proportion of guideline committee members with industry conflicts of interest. Methods We submitted Freedom of Information requests in February 2020 to access EMA’s lists of committee members (and their declared conflicts of interest) involved in drafting the 13 ‘Clinical efficacy and safety’ guidelines available on EMA’s website pertaining to psychiatric indications. In our request, we did not specify the exact EMA committees. Here, we describe the received documents and report the proportion of members with industry interests (i.e. defined as any financial industry relationship). It is a follow-up paper to our first report (http://doi.org/10.1017/S2045796021000147). Results After 2 years and 9 months (November 2022), the EMA sent us member lists and corresponding conflicts of interest declarations from the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human use (CHMP) from 2012, 2013 and 2017. These member lists pertained to 3 of the 13 requested guidelines (schizophrenia, depression and autism spectrum disorder). The 10 remaining guidelines were published before 2011 and EMA stated that they needed to require permission from their expert members (with unknown retrieval rate) and foresaw excessive workload and long wait. Therefore, we withdrew our request. The CHMPs from 2012, 2013 and 2017 had from 34 to 36 members; 39%–44% declared any interests and we judged 14%–18% as having industry interests. For the schizophrenia guideline, we identified two members with industry interests to companies who submitted feedback on the guideline. We did not receive declarations from the Central Nervous System (CNS) Working Party, the CHMP appointed expert group responsible for drafting and incorporating feedback into the guidelines. Conclusions After almost 3 years, we received information, which only partly addressed our request. We recommend EMA to improve transparency by publishing the author names and their corresponding conflicts of interest declarations directly in the ‘Clinical efficacy and safety’ guidelines and to not remove conflicts of interest declarations after 1 year from their website to reduce the risk of stealth corporate influence during the development of these influential guidelines.

As the first biologics produced by recombinant deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) technology were approved in the late 1980s and consequently the exclusive marketing rights of most of these biological medicinal products have expired or will expire very shortly, it is quite evident that biosimilars are being developed and marketed in developed as well as developing countries in line with these expiries. Hence, there is an explosion of published papers and scientific programs on biological medicinal products and biosimilar insulins in the last decade or so. Each of these papers or scientific programs generated more questions than providing clinically useful answers. The specific aim of the medical literature or scientific programs were blurred due to lot of attention (created by the innovators) directed towards confusing terminologies, past mishaps with biosimilars (in the era with the absence of regulatory guidelines for biosimilars) diverting our attention from the matters relevant to clinicians and patients. One of the principle reason behind this phenomenon has been our poor understanding of the manufacturing process, regulatory pathways, and study endpoints involved in developing a biosimilar in the present era. This drawback resulted in a nonsystematic approach in analyzing the biosimilars and apparently resulting in confusion. This review attempts at demystifying certain facets of frequently encountered information on biosimilars and acquire a personal understanding on the same, rather than depending on conflicting versions floated at different continuing medical educations (CMEs) and Diabetes Congresses.

The development of novel regulatory tools such as adaptive clinical trial design and utilization of real-world evidence are topics of high interest. Recently, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) introduced the Adaptive Pathways (AP) that represents an innovative tool in healthcare systems allowing the early dialogue with multiple stakeholders on promising and innovative medicinal products in areas with an high unmet medical need. The innovative aspect in the AP is the early involvement of several stakeholders such as pharmaceutical industry, the Academia, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies, and patient representatives bringing their real experience with the disease and their expectations about the treatment. AP is not a new licensing tool but an opportunity for a very early discussions, before starting the phase II studies, among all stakeholders, including regulators, companies, HTA bodies, and patient representatives on a new potential medicine in areas of high unmet medical need. The aim of this paper is to describe the evolution of the AP approach from the beginning of the pilot project to date, highlighting major advances, and achievement at European level.

Medicines receiving a conditional marketing authorization through Medicines Adaptive Pathways to Patients (MAPPs) will be a challenge for payers. The “introduction” of MAPPs is already seen by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) as a fait accompli, with payers not consulted or involved. However, once medicines are approved through MAPPs, they will be evaluated for funding by payers through different activities. These include Health Technology Assessment (HTA) with often immature clinical data and high uncertainty, financial considerations, and negotiations through different types of agreements, which can require monitoring post launch. Payers have experience with new medicines approved through conditional approval, and the fact that MAPPs present additional challenges is a concern from their perspective. There may be some activities where payers can collaborate. The final decisions on whether to reimburse a new medicine via MAPPs will have more variation than for medicines licensed via conventional processes. This is due not only to increasing uncertainty associated with medicines authorized through MAPPs but also differences in legal frameworks between member states. Moreover, if the financial and side-effect burden from the period of conditional approval until granting full marketing authorization is shifted to the post-authorization phase, payers may have to bear such burdens. Collection of robust data during routine clinical use is challenging along with high prices for new medicines during data collection. This paper presents the concept of MAPPs and possible challenges. Concerns and potential ways forward are discussed and a number of recommendations are presented from the perspective of payers.