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]

Increased global longevity requires a re‐evaluation of current structures in society to adapt to the consequential demographic shift. As (very) old people are prone to impaired human organ and body functions resulting in, for example, multimorbidity, polypharmacy, hospitalisation and problems in medication management, it is increasingly acknowledged that re‐evaluations should include the suitability of pharmaceutical patient care as one of the cornerstones of public health. Following the 2011 European Medicines Agency (EMA) Geriatric Strategy, in 2017 the EMA published the draft "Reflection paper on the pharmaceutical development of medicines for use in the older population". The draft paper was opened for public consultation and specific attention and feedback (either supportive or with a proposal for revision) was asked on three design aspects: tablet breaking, drug administration through enteral feeding tubes and medication management. Following publication, the draft paper was presented at two public conferences attended by participants from different disciplines. This manuscript is intended to draw the attention of different stakeholder parties to the urgent need to collaborate on the emerging issues arising from increasing longevity and multimorbidity, and especially those associated with pharmaceutical patient care and drug product design, including the need for collaborative research into existing or emerging knowledge gaps. The manuscript focuses on the three aforementioned aspects of pharmaceutical development (tablet breaking, drug administration through enteral feeding tubes and medication management) as these highly relate to medication safety and efficacy and constitute persistent and typical challenges for older people, caregivers and healthcare professionals in daily clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Adopted guidelines reflect a harmonised European approach to a specific scientific issue and should reflect the most recent scientific knowledge. However, whilst EU regulations are mandatory for all member states and EU directives must be followed by national laws in line with the directive, EMA guidelines do not have legal force and alternative approaches may be taken, but these obviously require more justification. This new series of the BJCP, developed in collaboration with the EMA, aims to address this issue by providing an annotated version of some relevant EMA guidelines and regulatory documents by experts. Hopefully, this will help in promoting their diffusion and in opening a forum for discussion with our readers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Guidelines establish a framework for how therapeutics and vaccines are developed, assessed and approved. They influence which innovations are likely to be approved in the European Union (EU), and thus, they have an impact on the pipeline decisions taken by research‐based industry. This study analyses the level of acceptance for changes suggested by stakeholders within the authoring groups at the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Methods: We looked at 87 guidelines from EMA Working Parties (WPs) launched for consultation between 2013 and 2017. Acceptance of stakeholder proposals and the time between the end of consultation and guideline adoption were studied as well as the openness of different WPs to accept changes. Results: Adoption of a guideline after the close of public consultation took at least 4 months, with an average of 12–16 months. The number of accepted and rejected comments were nearly equal across the stakeholders, with government having slightly higher chance for acceptance. Academia and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) had generally higher chances to have their comments accepted for general and indication‐level guidelines. Government and individual companies had highest acceptance for molecule‐level guidelines and trade associations for indication‐level guidelines. Only a third of the comments related to scientific content of the guideline. Conclusion: This pattern of progress in regulatory science at EMA demonstrates the essential and interrelated role of academia, industry, government and civil society—described as the quadruple helix model—to promote establishment of a strong innovation ecosystem in Europe. [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]

Aims: There is a trend for more flexibility in timing of evidence generation in relation to marketing authorization, including the option to complete phase III trials after authorization or not at all. This paper investigated the relation between phase II and III clinical trial efficacy in oncology. Methods: All oncology drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency (2007–2016) were included. Phase II and phase III trials were matched based on indication and treatment and patient characteristics. Reported objective response rates (ORR), median progression‐free survival (PFS) and median overall survival (OS) were analysed through weighted mixed‐effects regression with previous treatment, treatment regimen, blinding, randomization, marketing authorization type and cancer type as covariates. Results: A total of 81 phase II‐III matches were identified including 252 trials. Mean (standard deviation) weighted difference (phase III minus II) was −4.2% (17.4) for ORR, 2.1 (6.7) months for PFS and −0.3 (5.1) months for OS, indicating very small average differences between phases. Differences varied substantially between individual indications: from −46.6% to 47.3% for ORR, from −5.3 to 35.9 months for PFS and from −13.3 to 10.8 months for OS. All covariates except blinding were associated with differences in effect sizes for at least 1 outcome. Conclusions: The lack of marked average differences between phases may encourage decision‐makers to regard the quality of design and total body of evidence instead of differentiating between phases of clinical development. The large variability emphasizes that replication of study findings remains essential to confirm efficacy of oncology drugs and discern variables associated with demonstrated effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A biosimilar is a high quality biological medicine shown to be in essence the same as an original product. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) paved the way in the regulatory arena by creating a safeguarding framework for the development of biosimilars. Biosimilar is thus a regulatory term that alludes to the evidence-based studies required to demonstrate such very high similarity. They are therefore not innovative products but the pathway laid down by the EMA for their approval represented a new paradigm. This has brought some confusion and has cast doubts among healthcare professionals about the scientific evidence behind their authorization. Many papers have been published to clarify the concept, and to reassure those professionals, but misconceptions frequently still arise. Unfortunately, this prevents biosimilars from deploying their full therapeutic added value. This paper is intended to approach those misconceptions from a new angle, by explaining what a biosimilar is not...and why. A biosimilar is neither a generic, nor an original product. It is not a biobetter or a 'stand-alone'. Therefore, it should not be managed as such therapeutically, commercially or from a healthcare policy viewpoint. The EMA's criteria were acknowledged by other agencies, but a significant regulatory gap with a vast majority of regulatory bodies still remains. This leaves room for the so-called non-original biologics (NOB), i.e. non-biosimilar biologics, to be launched in many regions. Raising awareness of what a biosimilar is and what it is not, will generate trust in biosimilars among healthcare professionals and will ultimately benefit patients [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2016, the European Medicines Agency published the conclusions of its pilot on adaptive pathways, with products in early stages of development still building up to their marketing authorisation. Adaptive pathways rests on three principles: iterative development; gathering evidence through real‐life use to supplement clinical trial data; and early engagement of patients, payers and health technology assessment bodies in discussions on a medicine's development. While the pilot has now finished, the practical system‐wide implications of employing the adaptive pathways approach are not known and further consideration of these three principles is required. In this paper we used the three principles that underpin adaptive pathways to discuss main scientific and European policy developments likely to determine progress on further implementing adaptive pathways in the European setting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

IMPROVING AVAILABILITY OF MEDICINES AND MEDICAL DEVICES Shortages of medicines have been a problem in the EU and globally long before the pandemic. Moreover, EMA and ETF members have contributed to scientific and regulatory initiatives by EU bodies such as the directorate-general of the European Commission, the HERA and the EU member states to purchase and use available medicines. With the emergence of COVID-19 in early 2019, the European Union (EU) was confronted with unexpected challenges on many fronts. Finally, the high number of medicines developed and assessed for COVID-19 as opposed to previous emergencies, as well as the duration of the COVID-19 pandemic, have clearly highlighted the need for the EU network to become more agile and to better use available resources in Europe. [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]

The disposition of a drug is driven by various processes, such as drug metabolism, drug transport, glomerular filtration and body composition. These processes are subject to developmental changes reflecting growth and maturation along the paediatric continuum. However, knowledge gaps exist on these changes and their clinical impact. Filling these gaps may aid better prediction of drug disposition and creation of age‐appropriate dosing guidelines. We present innovative approaches to study these developmental changes in relation to drug metabolism and transport. First, analytical methods such as including liquid chromatography–mass spectrometry for proteomic analyses allow quantitation of the expressions of a wide variety of proteins, e.g. membrane transporters, in a small piece of organ tissue. The latter is specifically important for paediatric research, where tissues are scarcely available. Second, innovative study designs using radioactive labelled microtracers allowed study—without risk for the child—of the oral bioavailability of compounds used as markers for certain drug metabolism pathways. Third, the use of modelling and simulation to support dosing recommendations for children is supported by both the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration. This may even do away with the need for a paediatric trial. Physiologically based pharmacokinetics models, which include age‐specific physiological information are, therefore, increasingly being used, not only to aid paediatric drug development but also to improve existing drug therapies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Gene therapy medicinal products have the potential to provide curative treatment for many diseases with current limited therapeutic options. As advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs), these therapies undergo a centralised, single European Union authorisation by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), but the risks and potential harm to the environment and population at large are weighted in each application, and different interpretations at national level exist. A streamlined procedure is now in place to facilitate a consistent approach for the assessment of the environmental risks of medicines containing genetically modified organisms for both clinical trial applications and marketing authorisation applications. This article provides an overview of basic requirements across the EU, an overview of the new streamlined process and discusses available guidance for developers with particular emphasis on marketing authorisation applications. All these initiatives are aimed to remove hurdles for ATMP developers and facilitate faster access to patients. [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]

Aim: To retrospectively analyse hospital outpatient treatment (HOT) withdrawal due to unacceptable toxicity at our hospital. Information regarding unacceptable toxicity leading to treatment withdrawal was recorded. Methods: HOT interruptions because of unacceptable toxicity were identified from the Register of Patients and Treatments (RPT) (January 2014 to December 2017). Information regarding the demographic and clinical characteristics of patients, adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and drug treatments was retrieved from electronic health records. Causality and previous knowledge of ADRs were assessed according to the Spanish Pharmacovigilance System algorithm. Information regarding HOT risk management plans (RMPs) and their classification as inverted black triangle medicines was obtained from the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Results: HOTs were withdrawn due to unacceptable toxicity in 136 (1.5%) registries corresponding to 135 (1.7%) patients. Fifty‐one different HOTs (38.6% of those registered) were involved in 240 ADR/HOT pairs: 24 (47%) were additional monitoring medicines and 37 (72.5%) were EMA RMPs. The most frequent medicines involved in ADRs were lenalidomide (30, 12.5%) (mainly neutropenia, thrombocytopenia and bicytopenia), bevacizumab (19, 7.9%) (mainly venous and pulmonary thromboembolism) and sunitinib (13, 5.4%) (mainly thromboembolic events, diarrhoea and worsening of chronic renal failure). Cytopenia (40, 17.3%), diarrhoea (15, 6.5%), asthenia (9, 3.9%) and neuropathy (6, 2.6%) were the most frequent ADRs. All ADRs were severe, 10 (6 patients) had been poorly described or were unknown and only 9 (5 patients) had been reported by spontaneous notification. Conclusions: Valuable information regarding severe and unknown ADRs was obtained from the RPT. Such registers are useful tools to complement spontaneous ADR notifications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: Dose adjustment for drugs eliminated by the kidneys generally assume a linear relationship between renal drug clearance (CLR) and glomerular filtration rate (GFR). This assumption may not hold for drugs that undergo extensive tubular secretion where nonlinearity in drug handling is expected. The aim of this study is to determine if renal drug study designs recommended by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) could distinguish linear from nonlinear renal drug handling. Methods: In this simulation and estimation study, the study designs based on the EMA and FDA guidelines for Phase I renal drug studies were evaluated for their ability to discriminate a linear from a nonlinear relationship between CLR and GFR. The number of subjects for each simulated study ranged from 4 to 960. Power, relative standard error and bias were calculated. Results: Study designs under the EMA and FDA guidelines required ≥8 and ≥48 subjects, respectively, to achieve ≥80% power to discriminate a linear from nonlinear relationship between CLR and GFR. The relative standard error of estimated parameters were 13–37 and 17–44% for the designs with 24 subjects under the EMA and FDA guidelines, respectively. The bias in parameter estimates under the EMA designs were not evident, however, they were biased (13–21%) under the FDA designs. Conclusion: The EMA design was found to require fewer subjects (n = 8) compared to the FDA (n = 48) to discriminate linear from nonlinear drug renal handling at ≥80% study power while both the designs perform poorly for the parameter precision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Regulatory science underpins the objective evaluation of medicinal products. It is therefore imperative that regulatory science and expertise remain at the cutting edge so that innovations of ever‐increasing complexity are translated safely and swiftly into effective, high‐quality therapies. We undertook a comprehensive examination of the evolution of science and technology impacting on medicinal product evaluation over the next 5–10 years and this horizon‐scanning activity was complemented by extensive stakeholder interviews, resulting in a number of significant recommendations. Highlighted in particular was the need for expertise and regulatory science research to fill knowledge gaps in both more fundamental, longer‐term research, with respect to technological and product‐specific challenges. A model is proposed to realise these objectives in Europe, comprising a synergistic relationship between the European Medicines Agency, the European Medicines Regulatory Network and academic research centres to establish a novel regulatory science and innovation platform. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The effects of biologics on reproduction/lactation are mostly unknown although many patients that receive biologics are women of reproductive age. The first objective of this study was to investigate the publicly available data on pregnancy/lactation before and after marketing authorization in Europe of biologics for the indications of rheumatologic inflammatory autoimmune diseases and inflammatory bowel disease. Secondary objectives included the assessment of the clinical relevance of the provided data and comparison of initial and post‐authorization data. Methods: Initial and post‐authorization data were extracted from the European Public Assessment Reports and the latest versions of Summary of Product Characteristics using publicly available documents on the European Medicines Agency's website. Four sections were categorized regarding pregnancy outcomes: pre‐clinical/animal studies, human female fertility, pregnancy‐related outcomes and congenital malformations in the human fetus. Three sections were categorized regarding lactation outcomes: pre‐clinical/animal studies, excretion in human breast milk and absorption in children through breastfeeding. The clinical applicability of each category was scored by specified criteria, based on scientific literature, and further as defined by the authors. Results: For the 16 included biologics, post‐authorization data were delivered only for adalimumab, certolizumab pegol, etanercept and infliximab. For the 12 remaining biologics limited data on pregnancy and lactation during the post‐marketing period of 2–21 years were available. Conclusions: In this article several suggestions are provided for improving a multidisciplinary approach to these issues. The initiation of suitable registries by marketing authorization holders and data transparency for clinicians and academics are highly endorsed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Biosimilars of low molecular weight heparins (LMWHs) are more alike the originator than different branded LMWHs. The latter differ largely in molecular weight, anti‐FXa/anti‐FIIa ratio and antithrombin binding. The Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency guidelines are sufficient for the clinical use of high quality LMWHs. However, the Food and Drug Administration guideline lacks the results of a phase I clinical trial in the approval process. Most information about biosimilars is available for enoxaparin given that many biosimilars of enoxaparin have received market access. The guidelines of many International Thrombosis Societies for LMWH biosimilars are too stringent, not updated and impractical for formulary uptake discussions. This review gives background information on critical factors for the formulary uptake process of LMWHs with special attention for the use of the System of Objectified Judgment Analysis/Infomatrix model. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Sponsors and regulators have more than 10 years of experience with the development of biosimilars in Europe. However, the regulatory pathway is still evolving. The present article provides an update on biosimilar development in practice by reviewing the clinical development programmes of recently approved biosimilars in Europe. Methods: We used the European public assessment reports (EPARs) which are published by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for a comparison of the clinical development programmes of the 37 approved biosimilars in Europe. Here, we present novel strategies in the development of biosimilars by focusing specifically on the 17 biosimilars that have gained approval in the last year, but we also compare additional key characteristics for all approved biosimilars. Results: The high variability of the clinical development strategies that we found previously was confirmed in the present analysis. Compared with earlier biosimilar applications, more nonstandard development strategies have been used recently. This includes, for example, applications without any studies in patients, and more complex study designs. During this study, we found that the EPARs for biosimilars seem to be improving; however, we identified important details which were still often missing. We provide a proposal for a checklist of the minimum information that should be included in biosimilar EPARs for giving the general public insights into the rationale for the approval of biosimilars. Conclusions: European regulators still seem to be open to consider approaches that differ from the guidelines or previous applications, as long as justification is provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The parallel regulatory–health technology assessment scientific advice (PSA) procedure allows manufacturers to receive simultaneous feedback from both EU regulators and health technology assessment (HTA) bodies on development plans for new medicines. The primary objective of the present study is to investigate whether PSA is integrated in the clinical development programmes for which advice was sought. Methods: Contents of PSA provided by regulators and HTA bodies for each procedure between 2010 and 2015 were analysed. The development of all clinical studies for which PSA had been sought was tracked using three different databases. The rate of uptake of the advice provided by regulators and HTA bodies was assessed on two key variables: comparator/s and primary endpoint. Results: In terms of uptake of comparator recommendations at the time of PSA in the actual development, our analysis showed that manufacturers implemented comparators to address both the needs of regulators and of at least one HTA body in 12 of 21 studies. For primary endpoints, in all included studies manufacturers addressed both the needs of the regulators and at least one HTA body. Conclusions: One of the key findings of this analysis is that manufacturers tend to implement changes to the development programme based on both regulatory and HTA advice with regards to the choice of primary endpoint and comparator. It also confirms the challenging choice of the study comparator, for which manufacturers seem to be more inclined to satisfy the regulatory advice. Continuous research efforts in this area are of paramount importance from a public health perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim In 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. Methods We 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. Results The 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. Conclusions There seems to be flexibility for sponsors regarding the decision as to how best to prove biosimilarity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background In 2010, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) initiated a pilot project on parallel scientific advice with Health Technology Assessment bodies (HTABs) that allows manufacturers to receive simultaneous feedback from both the European Union (EU) regulators and HTABs on their development plans for medicines. Aims The present retrospective qualitative analysis aimed to explore how the parallel scientific advice system is working and levels of commonality between the EU regulators and HTABs, and among HTABs, when applicants obtain parallel scientific advice from both a regulatory and an HTA perspective. Methods We analysed the minutes of discussion meetings held at the EMA between 2010, when parallel advice was launched, and 1 May 2015, when the cutoff date for data extraction was set. The analysis was based on predefined criteria and conducted at two different levels of comparison: the answers of the HTABs vs. those of the regulators, and between the answers of the participating HTA agencies. Results The analysis was based on 31 procedures of parallel scientific advice. The level of full agreements was highest for questions on patient population (77%), while disagreements reached a peak for questions on the study comparator (30%). With regard to comparisons among HTABs, there was a high level of agreement for all domains. Conclusions There is evident commonality, in terms of evidence requirements between the EU regulators and participating HTABs, as well as among HTABs, on most aspects of clinical development. Indeed, regardless of the question content, the analysis showed that a high level of overall agreement was reached through the process of parallel scientific advice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the European Medicines Agency ( EMA), the involvement of patients has been increasingly recognized as valuable and necessary. Specifically in scientific committees, patients through patient representatives are actively involved in deliberations and decision making processes. These scientific committees are meant to ensure that licensed medicines have a positive benefit-risk ratio in favour of the patients and users. To investigate what the contributions are of patient representatives in benefit-risk assessment, we interviewed 15 scientific committee members, 10 of whom are/were EU-state regulatory representatives and five are/were patient representatives. We asked the participants questions related to the benefit-risk assessment tasks of their committees, the connection between patient representatives and the patient perspective, and the contribution of patient representatives in the various benefit-risk assessments tasks. We found that the contribution of patient representatives benefit-risk assessment may be a variable of the benefits and the risks involved in the drug such that the necessity of their contribution is strongly felt when both benefits and risks are high, when benefits are almost equal or are equal to risks and when both benefits and risks are low. In terms of the various benefit-risk tasks, patient representatives contribute to benefit-risk analysis by providing criteria that help define the benefit-risk picture. In benefit-risk evaluation, patient representatives aid in providing a specific basis for the values and weights given to specific benefits and risks and in decision making, they provide what may be a crucial patient perspective in terms of the acceptability of risks. Hence, patient representatives provide a specific expertise in these scientific committees. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AIMS: In the EU, development of new medicines for children should follow a prospectively agreed paediatric investigation plan (PIP). Finding the right dose for children is crucial but challenging due to the variability of pharmacokinetics across age groups and the limited sample sizes available. We examined strategies adopted in PIPs to support paediatric dosing recommendations to identify common assumptions underlying dose investigations and the attempts planned to verify them in children. METHODS: We extracted data from 73 PIP opinions recently adopted by the Paediatric Committee of the European Medicines Agency. These opinions represented 79 medicinal development programmes and comprised a total of 97 dose investigation studies. We identified the design of these dose investigation studies, recorded the analyses planned and determined the criteria used to define target doses. RESULTS: Most dose investigation studies are clinical trials (83 of 97) that evaluate a single dosing rule. Sample sizes used to investigate dose are highly variable across programmes, with smaller numbers used in younger children (< 2 years). Many studies (40 of 97) do not pre-specify a target dose criterion. Of those that do, most (33 of 57 studies) guide decisions using pharmacokinetic data alone. CONCLUSIONS: Common assumptions underlying dose investigation strategies include dose proportionality and similar exposure-response relationships in adults and children. Few development programmes pre-specify steps to verify assumptions in children. There is scope for the use of Bayesian methods as a framework for synthesizing existing information to quantify prior uncertainty about assumptions. This process can inform the design of optimal drug development strategies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Poor-quality medicines present a serious public health problem, particularly in emerging economies and developing countries, and may have a significant impact on the national clinical and economic burden. Attention has largely focused on the increasing availability of deliberately falsified drugs, but substandard medicines are also reaching patients because of poor manufacturing and quality-control practices in the production of genuine drugs (either branded or generic). Substandard medicines are widespread and represent a threat to health because they can inadvertently lead to healthcare failures, such as antibiotic resistance and the spread of disease within a community, as well as death or additional illness in individuals. This article reviews the different aspects of substandard drug formulation that can occur (for example, pharmacological variability between drug batches or between generic and originator drugs, incorrect drug quantity and presence of impurities). The possible means of addressing substandard manufacturing practices are also discussed. A concerted effort is required on the part of governments, drug manufacturers, charities and healthcare providers to ensure that only drugs of acceptable quality reach the patient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]