Search

Older people are often affected by impaired organ and bodily functions resulting in multimorbidity and polypharmacy, turning them into the main user group of many medicines. Very often, medicines have not specifically been developed for older people, causing practical medication problems for them like limited availability of easy to swallow formulations, easy to open packaging and dosing instructions for enteral administration. In 2020, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) published a reflection paper 'Pharmaceutical development of medicines for use in the older population', which discusses how the emerging needs of an ageing European population can be addressed by medicines regulation. The paper intends to help industry to better consider the needs of older people during pharmaceutical/clinical medicines development by summarising data on the most relevant topics, providing early suggestions on how to move forward and prompting expert discussions and studies into knowledge gaps. Topics include patient acceptability, (dis)advantages of an administration route, formulation, dosage form, packaging, dosing device and user instruction. While the paper is directed at older people and the pharmaceutical industry, the reflections are also relevant to younger patients with similar disease‐related needs and of value to other stakeholders parties, e.g., healthcare professionals, academics, patients and caregivers, as the paper makes clear what can be expected from industry and where collaborative work is needed. This commentary provides an overview of the different steps in the development of the reflection paper, discusses points considered most controversial and/or subject to (multidisciplinary) expert discussions and indicates their value for real world clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The recent benefit–risk framework (BRF) developed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is intended to improve the clarity and consistency in communicating the reasoning behind the FDA's decisions, acting as an important advancement in US drug regulation. In the PDUFA VI implementation plan, the FDA states that it will continue to explore more structured or quantitative decision analysis approaches; however, it restricts their use within the current BRF that is purely qualitative. By contrast, European regulators and researchers have been long exploring the use of quantitative decision analysis approaches for evaluating drug benefit–risk balance. In this paper, we show how quantitative modelling, backed by decision theory, could complement and extend the FDA's BRF to better support the appraisal of evidence and improve decision outcomes. After providing relevant scientific definitions for benefit–risk assessment and describing the FDA and European Medicines Agency (EMA) frameworks, we explain the components of and differences between qualitative and quantitative approaches. We present lessons learned from the EMA experience with the use of quantitative modelling and we provide evidence of its benefits, illustrated by a real case study that helped to resolve differences of judgements among EMA regulators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The medicines regulatory environment is evolving rapidly in response to the changing environment. Advances in science and technology have led to a vast field of increasingly complicated pharmaceutical and medical device products; increasing globalization of the pharmaceutical industry, advances in digital technology and the internet, changing patient populations, and shifts in society also affect the regulatory environment. In the UK, the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) regulates medicines, medical devices and blood products to protect and improve public health, and supports innovation through scientific research and development. It works closely with other bodies in a single medicines network across Europe and takes forward UK health priorities. This paper discusses the range of initiatives in the UK and across Europe to support innovation in medicines regulation. The MHRA leads a number of initiatives, such as the Innovation Office, which helps innovators to navigate the regulatory processes to progress their products or technologies; and simplification of the Clinical Trials Regulations and the Early Access to Medicines Scheme, to bring innovative medicines to patients faster. The Accelerated Access Review will identify reforms to accelerate access for National Health Service patients to innovative medicines and medical technologies. PRIME and Adaptive Pathways initiatives are joint endeavours within the European regulatory community. The MHRA runs spontaneous reporting schemes and works with INTERPOL to tackle counterfeiting and substandard products sold via the internet. The role of the regulator is changing rapidly, with new risk-proportionate, flexible approaches being introduced. International collaboration is a key element of the work of regulators, and is set to expand. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In their paper, Istvan and colleagues hint at the similarities between the regulation policies of flunitrazepam and zolpidem to draw conclusions about zolpidem's use. Indeed, of the about 1400 cases of hospitalization for addiction to high doses of benzodiazepines and the like in our institution, none were due to flunitrazepam, while more than half of them were due to lormetazepam. Https://doi.org/10.1007/s11739-020-02538-2 5 Lugoboni F, Bertoldi A, Casari R, Mantovani E, Morbioli L, Tamburin S. Adult attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and quality of life in high-dose benzodiazepine and related Z-drug users. [Extracted from the article]

The development of specific drug therapy for children was a paradigm‐changing event that transformed paediatric medical practice. However, a series of tragedies involving drug treatment for children resulted in a gap developing between drug regulation and practice, with the majority of drugs used in child healthcare being used off‐label, rendering children therapeutic orphans. Over the past two decades changes in drug regulation led by the US Food and Drug Administration and followed by the European Union's European Medicines Agency have led to substantial changes in how new drugs with potential use in children are studied and labelled. While these changes have substantially improved labelling for new drugs, there has been much less progress with older drugs. Although the unique challenges of conducting clinical research in children have been addressed by novel clinical trial designs, many of these innovations have not been translated into approaches accepted for the drug approval process. The regulations applying to the need for paediatric studies currently are only applicable in the United States and the European Union, and there is less impetus for paediatric labelling in other jurisdictions. This impacts on a number of issues beyond labelling, including the availability of child‐friendly formulations. Finally, the impact of Brexit on paediatric drug studies in the UK remains unclear and is subject to ongoing negotiations between the UK government and the European Union. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Scientific advice (SA) is an important tool offered by regulators to help developers generate robust evidence on a medicine's benefits and risks. Drawing on accumulated experience and looking at the SA provided by the European Medicines Agency in 2018 to advanced therapy medicinal products originally developed by public bodies, we discuss most commonly raised issues and the complexity and timings of the questions posed. Earlier and more frequent SA could help advanced therapy medicinal product developers to pre‐empt delays at the marketing authorisation stage. Carefully addressing quality and nonclinical issues before entering the pivotal phase of development will clear the path for a smooth clinical development and successful marketing authorisation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.15497 The journey of drug development is a long and arduous one, even beyond drug approval. Medicines availability, prescribing, and utilization are impacted by costs, health policies/drug regulation, drugs, and therapeutic committees in the hospitals, patient-prescriber relationship, formulation ease, and finally the understanding gained by the patient themselves. Figures from the editors selected issue highlights will be displayed each month in the journal image carousel on the BJCP homepage http://bpspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/hub/journal/10.1111/(ISSN)1365-2125/ Spoorthy. [Extracted from the article]

Noninferiority trials are used to assess whether the effect of a new drug is not worse than an active comparator by more than a noninferiority margin. If the difference between the new drug and the active comparator does not exceed this prespecified margin, noninferiority can be concluded. This margin must be specified based on clinical and statistical reasoning; however, it is considered as one of the most challenging steps in the design of noninferiority trials. Regulators recommend that the margin should be defined based on the historical evidence of the active comparator (the latter is often the well-established standard treatment of the disease), which can be performed by different approaches. There are several factors and assumptions that need to be accounted for during the process of defining the margin and during the analysis of noninferiority. Three methods are commonly used to analyse noninferiority trials: the fixed-margin method; the point-estimate method; and the synthesis method. This article provides an overview of analysing noninferiority and choosing the noninferiority margin. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]