Search

Background: The new European Medicines Agency (EMA) Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS), based on the Clinical Trials Regulation (CTR EU 536/2014), came into full effect on 31 January 2022 and was intended to provide an easier, more streamlined approach to the registration of clinical trials taking place in Europe. Using the experience gained on the new regulatory framework from three multi-national European clinical research studies of outbreak-prone infectious diseases, this article describes the advantages and shortcomings of the new clinical trial submission procedure. Methods: We report the time to approval, size of the application dossier, and number of requests for information (RFIs) for each study. We also explore the experience of each study within the regulatory framework and its use of CTIS to document the real-world, practical consequences of the system on individual studies. The study assesses the experience of three multi-country studies conducted in Europe working within the EU and non-EU regulatory environments. Results: While the time to regulatory and ethical approval has improved since the implementation of the new regulation, the timelines for approvals are still unacceptably slow, particularly for studies being conducted in the context of an evolving outbreak. Within the new regulatory approval procedure, there is evidence of conflicting application requirements, increased document burden, barriers to submitting important modifications, and debilitating technical hurdles. Conclusions: CTIS promised to lower the administrative bar, but unfortunately this has not been achieved. There are challenges that need to be urgently confronted and addressed for international research collaborators to effectively manage health crises in the future. While the value of multi-national outbreak research is clear, the limitations and delays imposed by the system, which raise challenging ethical questions about the regulation, are prejudicial to all clinical research, especially publicly funded academic studies. This report is relevant to both regulators and clinical researchers. It is hoped that these findings can help improve pan-European clinical trials, especially for the purpose of epidemic preparedness and response. Trial registration: This paper references experiences gained during management of three pan-European trials: EU-SolidAct's Bari-SolidAct (CT No. 2022-500385-99-00 - 15 March 2022) and AXL-SolidAct (CT No. 2022-500363-12-00 - 19 April 2022), and MOSAIC (CT No. 2022-501132-42-00 - 22 June 2022). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Electronic informed consent (eIC) may offer various advantages compared to paper-based informed consent. However, the regulatory and legal landscape related to eIC provides a diffuse image. By drawing from the perspectives of key stakeholders in the field, this study aims to inform the creation of a European guidance framework on eIC in clinical research. Methods: Focus group discussions and semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 participants from six stakeholder groups. The stakeholder groups included representatives of ethics committees, data infrastructure organizations, patient organizations, and the pharmaceutical industry as well as investigators and regulators. All were involved in or knowledgeable about clinical research and were active in one of the European Union Member States or at a pan-European or global level. The framework method was used for data analysis. Results: Stakeholders underwrote the need for a multi-stakeholder guidance framework addressing practical elements related to eIC. According to the stakeholders, a European guidance framework should describe consistent requirements and procedures for implementing eIC on a pan-European level. Generally, stakeholders agreed with the definitions of eIC issued by the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration. Nevertheless, it was raised that, in a European guidance framework, it should be emphasized that eIC aims to support rather than replace the personal interaction between research participants and the research team. In addition, it was believed that a European guidance framework should include details on the legality of eIC across European Union Member States and the responsibilities of an ethics committee in the eIC assessment process. Although stakeholders supported the idea to include detailed information on the type of eIC-related materials to be submitted to an ethics committee, opinions varied on this regard. Conclusion: The creation of a European guidance framework is a much needed factor to advance eIC implementation in clinical research. By collecting the views of multiple stakeholder groups, this study advances recommendations that may facilitate the development of such a framework. Particular consideration should go to harmonizing requirements and providing practical details related to eIC implementation on a European Union-wide level. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In line with the European Paediatric Regulation, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) asks for investigation of a medicine's acceptability in paediatric medicines development. A standardised acceptability testing method combining the outcome of "swallowability" and "palatability" assessments to a "composite endpoint on acceptability" was recently developed. Before this method's suitability for selection of the most acceptable drug formulation of a new medicine for children can be broadly recommended, the acceptance and relevance of such established acceptability needs the critical review and input from young patients with understanding of the medicines development methodology. The benefit of involving patients in drug product development, clinical research and innovation is well established. Methods: During a focus group meeting with the KIDS Barcelona (young people advisory group, age 16–23 years) the suitability of the "composite endpoint on acceptability" methodology was assessed. Via electronic questionnaires the importance of involving patients in the medicines development and in the acceptability method development was investigated. Questions on how best to determine palatability and swallowability were asked. The relevance of all EMA-listed acceptability elements was assessed via coloured and numbered stickers and questionnaires. Results: The results showed that the involvement of young people in the medicines and acceptability method development was rated high. The group worked out that a 5-point smiley Likert Scale is preferred for assessing acceptability by 6–11 year old patients, while a Visual Analogue Scale is preferred for collecting adolescents' opinion. The ranking of the EMA-listed acceptability elements showed that palatability and swallowability are the most relevant parameters, while colour of the medicine was rated as least relevant. These results, established face-to-face, were confirmed in a repeat of the ranking through an electronic questionnaire, completed by the participants individually and remotely, 5 weeks later. Conclusion: This work reinforced the need and value to involve young people in the medicines lifecycle, and specifically in this acceptability method development. As next step other focus group meetings with more young people from different European countries are planned. Plain English Summary: Before a new medicine is authorized, its acceptability by children must be investigated according to law. An acceptability testing method combining the outcomes of "swallowability" and "palatability" assessments was recently developed. During a focus group meeting with KIDS Barcelona (young people advisory group, age 16–23 years) their opinion on the suitability of the method and the relevance of patient engagement in the medicines development process were assessed with paper-based and electronic questionnaires. Questions on how best to determine palatability and swallowability were asked. The importance of different elements that typically affect acceptability was rated. The order of relevance of those listed acceptability elements was assessed using coloured and numbered stickers and questionnaires. The results showed that the involvement of young people in the medicines and acceptability method development was rated high. The group worked out that a 5-point smiley Likert Scale that allows for marking a choice between total agreement and total disagreement is preferred for assessing acceptability by 6–11 year old patients. A Visual Analogue Scale (scale consisting of a 10 cm long line on which a mark has to be placed at the desired position, between total agreement and total rejection) is preferred for collecting adolescents' (12–18 years) opinion. The ranking of acceptability elements showed that palatability and swallowability of a new medicine are the most relevant parameters, and colour the least. The clarity of the outcome reinforced the benefit of involving young people in the development of medicines relevant for children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the EU, clinical assessors, rapporteurs and the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use are obliged to assess the ethical aspects of a clinical development program and include major ethical flaws in the marketing authorization deliberation processes. To this date, we know very little about the manner that these regulators put this obligation into action. In this paper, we intend to look into the manner and the extent that ethical issues discovered during inspection have reached the deliberation processes.Methods: To gather data, we used the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board database and first searched for the inspections, and their accompanying site inspection reports and integrated inspection reports, related to central marketing authorization applications (henceforth, application/s) of drugs submitted to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) from 2011 to 2015. We then extracted inspection findings that were purely of ethical nature, i.e., those that did not affect the benefit/risk balance of the study (issues related to informed consent, research ethics committees, and respect for persons). Only findings graded at least major by the inspectorate were included. Lastly, to identify how many of the ethically relevant findings (ERFs) reach the application deliberation processes, we extracted the relevant joint response assessment reports and reviewed the sections that discussed inspection findings.Results: From 2011 to 2015, there were 390 processed applications, of which 65 had inspection reports and integrated inspection reports accessible via the database of the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board. Of the 65, we found ERFs in 37 (56.9%). The majority of the ERFs were graded as major and half of the time it was informed-consent related. A third of these findings were related to research ethics committee processes and requirements. Of the 37 inspections with ERFs, 30 were endorsed in the integrated inspection reports as generally GCP compliant. Day 150 joint response assessment reports and Day 180 list of outstanding issues were reviewed for all 37 inspections, and none of the ERFs were carried over in any of the assessment reports or list of outstanding issues.Conclusion: None of the ethically relevant findings, all of which were graded as major or critical in integrated inspection reports, were explicitly carried over to the joint assessment reports. This calls for more transparency in EMA application deliberations on how ERFs are considered, if at all, in the decision-making processes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Detecting safety signals attributed to a drug in scientific literature is a fundamental issue in pharmacovigilance. The constant increase in the volume of publications requires the automation of this tedious task, in order to find and extract relevant articles from the pack. This task is critical, as serious Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs) still account for a large number of hospital admissions each year. Objectives: The aim of this study is to develop an augmented intelligence methodology for automatically identifying relevant publications mentioning an established link between a Drug and a Serious Adverse Event, according to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) definition of seriousness. Methods: The proposed pipeline, called LiSA (for Literature Search Application), is based on three independent deep learning models supporting a precise detection of safety signals in the biomedical literature. By combining a Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) algorithms and a modular architecture, the pipeline achieves a precision of 0.81 and a recall of 0.89 at sentences level in articles extracted from PubMed (either abstract or full-text). We also measured that by using LiSA, a medical reviewer increases by a factor of 2.5 the number of relevant documents it can collect and evaluate compared to a simple keyword search. In the interest of re-usability, emphasis was placed on building a modular pipeline allowing the insertion of other NLP modules to enrich the results provided by the system, and extend it to other use cases. In addition, a lightweight visualization tool was developed to analyze and monitor safety signal results. Conclusions: Overall, the generic pipeline and the visualization tool proposed in this article allows for efficient and accurate monitoring of serious adverse drug reactions from the literature and can easily be adapted to similar pharmacovigilance use cases. To facilitate reproducibility and benefit other research studies, we also shared a first benchmark dataset for Serious Adverse Drug Events detection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Regulatory agencies, such as the European Medicines Agency and Health Canada, are requiring the public sharing of clinical trial reports that are used to make drug approval decisions. Both agencies have provided guidance for the quantitative anonymization of these clinical reports before they are shared. There is limited empirical information on the effectiveness of this approach in protecting patient privacy for clinical trial data.Methods: In this paper we empirically test the hypothesis that when these guidelines are implemented in practice, they provide adequate privacy protection to patients. An anonymized clinical study report for a trial on a non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug that is sold as a prescription eye drop was subjected to re-identification. The target was 500 patients in the USA. Only suspected matches to real identities were reported.Results: Six suspected matches with low confidence scores were identified. Each suspected match took 24.2 h of effort. Social media and death records provided the most useful information for getting the suspected matches.Conclusions: These results suggest that the anonymization guidance from these agencies can provide adequate privacy protection for patients, and the modes of attack can inform further refinements of the methodologies they recommend in their guidance for manufacturers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The nonclinical as well as clinical development of orphan drugs is difficult, owing to unknown pathophysiology and the absence of animal models. Both, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Guidance and European Medicines Agency (EMA) Guidelines, for orphan drug development describe non-clinical studies, but lack specific information, such as animal species and study design. Against this background, this study aimed to elucidate efficient methods for evaluating nonclinical efficacy based on a review report of orphan drugs approved in Japan. Results: A total of 184 orphan drugs, including 84 anticancer and 100 non-anticancer drugs, approved in Japan from January 2010 to December 2019 were investigated. Some anticancer drugs progressed to clinical development without distinct efficacy data in nonclinical studies. Patient-derived cells have been used for some drugs due to a lack of established cell lines. Cells used for non-clinical studies were devised for drugs indicated for cancers resistant to prior therapies, tumours with specific amino acid mutations in the target molecules, and solid tumours with specific biomarkers. For some non-anticancer drugs, similar disease animal models and normal animals were used for evaluation, since animal models did not exist. Biomarkers have been used specifically for evaluation in normal animals and as endpoints in some clinical trials. Conclusions: It was possible to evaluate drug efficacy by flexibly designing nonclinical studies according to disease characteristics for potentials orphan drugs. These approaches, which are not described in detail in the EMA Guideline or FDA Guidance, may thus lead to approval. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The action of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) is the subject of intense research in the field of regenerative medicine, including their potential use in companion animals, such as dogs. To ensure the safety of canine MSC batches for their application in regenerative medicine, a quality control test must be conducted in accordance with Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP). Based on guidance provided by the European Medicines Agency, this study aimed to develop and validate a highly sensitive and robust, nucleic acid-based test panel for the detection of various canine pathogens. Analytical sensitivity, specificity, amplification efficiency, and linearity were evaluated to ensure robust assessment. Additionally, viable spike-in controls were used to control for optimal nucleic acid extraction. The conventional PCR-based and real-time PCR-based pathogen assays were evaluated in a real-life setting, by direct testing MSC batches. Results: The established nucleic acid-based assays displayed remarkable sensitivity, detecting 100–1 copies/reaction of template DNA. They also exhibited high specificity and efficiency. Moreover, highly effective nucleic acid isolation was confirmed by the sensitive detection of spike-in controls. The detection capacity of our optimized and validated methods was determined by direct pathogen testing of nine MSC batches that displayed unusual phenotypes, such as reduced cell division or other deviating characteristics. Among these MCS batches of uncertain purity, only one tested negative for all pathogens. The direct testing of these samples yielded positive results for important canine pathogens, including tick-borne disease-associated species and viral members of the canine infectious respiratory disease complex (CIRDC). Notably, samples positive for the etiological agents responsible for enteritis (CPV), leptospirosis (Leptospira interrogans), and neosporosis (Neospora caninum) were also identified. Furthermore, we conducted biosafety evaluation of 12 MSC batches intended for therapeutic application. Eleven MSC batches were found to be free of extraneous agents, and only one tested positive for a specific pathogen, namely, canine parvovirus. Conclusion: In this study, we established and validated reliable, highly sensitive, and accurate nucleic acid-based testing methods for a broad spectrum of canine pathogens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Therapeutic use of an unauthorised drug (or of an authorised drug for an unauthorised indication) for patients with a life-threating disease is permitted outside a clinical trial as an Expanded Access Programme (EAP).The regulations regarding EAPs is not the same all over the world. For example, the recommendation of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in EU countries also includes within EAPs patients who have been treated in a clinical trial and who wish to continue the treatment. Nevertheless, the patients treated in a clinical trial could have the option of continuing treatment for an extended period in an Open-label Extension study, aimed to generate long-term data on efficacy, safety, tolerability and administration.The aims of this paper - based on the difficulties and incoherence encountered by an Italian Ethic Committee (EC) during the authorisation process of EAPs - are: understanding the origin of this misclassification by analysing differences and similarities among USA, European and Italian regulations concerning EAPs; and showing difficulties in classifying international study protocols as a consequence of the lack of harmonisation of definitions.We performed a critical review of the current USA, European and Italian regulations and we analysed some practical cases by retrieving protocols from Clinicaltrials.gov and the Italian Clinical Trials Registry (OsSC) containing in the title the keywords 'Expanded Access Programme', "'Expanded Access', 'Open-label Extension study' or 'Early Access'.We observed that the Food and Drug Administration ( FDA) definition of EAP is very clear while the EMA definition is similar to that of an Open-label Extension study. This lack of a clear definition generates misclassification and it is possible to find an EAP with an efficacy or safety endpoint; or an EAP managed as a clinical trial; or an EAP classified in Clinical Trials Registries as a phase II, III or IV clinical trial.The internationalisation of the studies requires a harmonisation on a global level of legislation and definitions to eliminate misclassification of protocols. For this reason, the authors suggest that: a) the EMA definition should be harmonised with the FDA definition of EAPs, b) European regulation, even if optional, should be adopted in a compulsory way by national regulations. Moreover, separate registries for both EAPs and clinical trials should be organised. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The evaluation of clinical evidence takes account of health benefit (efficacy and safety) and the degree of certainty in the estimate of benefit. In orphan indications practical and ethical challenges in conducting clinical trials, particularly in paediatric patients, often limit the available evidence, rendering structured evaluation challenging. While acknowledging the paucity of evidence, regulators and reimbursement authorities compare the efficacy and safety of alternative treatments for a given indication, often in the context of the benefits of other treatments for similar or different conditions. This study explores the feasibility of using the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) Evidence Rating Matrix for Comparative Clinical Effectiveness in structured assessment of both the magnitude of clinical benefit (net health benefit, NHB) and the certainty of the effect estimate in a sample of orphan therapies for paediatric indications. Results: Eleven systemic therapies with European Medicines Agency (EMA) orphan medicinal product designation, licensed for 16 paediatric indications between January 2017 and March 2020 were identified using OrphaNet and EMA databases and were selected for evaluation with the ICER Evidence Rating Matrix: burosumab; cannabidiol; cerliponase alfa; chenodeoxycholic acid (CDCA); dinutuximab beta; glibenclamide; metreleptin; nusinersen; tisagenlecleucel; velmanase alfa; and vestronidase alfa. EMA European Public Assessment Reports, PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Clinical Key, and conference presentations from January 2016 to April 2021 were searched for evidence on efficacy and safety. Two of the identified therapies were graded as "substantial" NHB: dinutuximab beta (neuroblastoma maintenance) and nusinersen (Type I SMA), and one as "comparable" NHB (CDCA). The NHB grade of the remaining therapies fell between "comparable" and "substantial". No therapies were graded as having negative NHB. The certainty of the estimate ranged from "high" (dinutuximab beta in neuroblastoma maintenance) to "low" (CDCA, metreleptin and vestronidase alfa). The certainty of the other therapies was graded between "low" and "high". The ICER Evidence Rating Matrix overall rating "A" (the highest) was given to two therapies, "B+" to 6 therapies, "C+" to five therapies, and "I" (the lowest) to three therapies. The scores varied between rating authors with mean agreement over all indications of 71.9% for NHB, 56.3% for certainty and 68.8% for the overall rating. Conclusions: Using the ICER Matrix to grade orphan therapies according to their treatment benefit and certainty is feasible. However, the assessment involves subjective judgements based on heterogenous evidence. Tools such as the ICER Matrix might aid decision makers to evaluate treatment benefit and its certainty when comparing therapies across indications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Without vaccination, an estimated 1 in 3 individuals will develop herpes zoster (HZ) in their lifetime. Increased risk of HZ is attributed to impaired cell-mediated immunity, as observed in age-related immunosenescence or in individuals immunocompromised due to disease or immunosuppressive treatments. Most vaccination guidelines recommend HZ vaccination in all adults ≥ 50 years of age, although Shingrix® was recently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in individuals aged ≥ 18 years who are or will be at increased risk of HZ due to immunodeficiency or immunosuppression caused by known disease or therapy, followed by approval by the European Medicines Agency for use in immunocompromised individuals aged ≥ 18 years. Chronic respiratory diseases are also risk factors for HZ. A new meta-analysis reported 24% and 41% increased risks of HZ in those with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD), respectively, compared with healthy controls. Asthma and COPD increase a person's risk of HZ and associated complications at any age and may be further elevated in those receiving inhaled corticosteroids. Despite the increased risks, there is evidence that HZ vaccination uptake in those aged ≥ 50 years with COPD may be lower compared with the age-matched general population, potentially indicating a lack of awareness of HZ risk factors among clinicians and patients. The 2022 Global Initiative for Chronic Lung Disease report recognizes that Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended to vaccinate those aged ≥ 50 years against HZ, although health systems should consider the inclusion of all adults with asthma or COPD into their HZ vaccination programs. Further research into HZ vaccine efficacy/effectiveness and safety in younger populations is needed to inform vaccination guidelines. Highlights: Re-activation of the latent varicella zoster virus manifests as herpes zoster (HZ), which is associated with burdensome symptoms and can lead to complications Risk factors for HZ are often associated with a decline in cell-mediated immunity, as observed with ageing, immunocompromised conditions, immunosuppressive therapy and chronic conditions that compromise the immune system Several chronic conditions, including chronic respiratory conditions such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD), increase an individual's risk of HZ and the associated complications HZ vaccination is effective at reducing HZ occurrence, with guidelines generally recommending their use in those ≥ 50 years of age and in at-risk adult populations There is some evidence that use of inhaled corticosteroids, which is often used to manage asthma or COPD, can independently increase a person's risk of developing HZ The increased risk of HZ and its complications in those with asthma and COPD suggests that these populations may benefit from HZ vaccination, although cost–benefit analyses in those < 50 years of age are lacking Plain Language Summary: What is the context? After experiencing chickenpox, the varicella-zoster virus remains in the body and can be reactivated years later in a form called herpes zoster, more commonly known as shingles. Although shingles is more common in people aged ≥ 50 years, it is also more likely to occur in people with immune systems that do not work normally, which may include those with respiratory conditions such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD). This disease can be prevented by vaccination. Therefore, it is important for doctors to know which patients are at increased risk of shingles and who could be considered for vaccination. What is new? This review is the first to summarize the risk of shingles in people with asthma or COPD, drawing together evidence from across the world. It also evaluates the recommended use of different shingles vaccines in these patients, with a focus on two widely used vaccines: Zostavax® (ZVL) and Shingrix® (RZV). Asthma or COPD can make people more likely to develop shingles and related medical complications, even in younger people. Most guidelines recommend vaccination against this disease for those aged 50 years and above, with some also recommending vaccination in people aged 18–49 years who may be at higher risk of shingles. There is limited information on the benefit of shingles vaccination in those aged ≤ 50 years with asthma or COPD, but their increased risk of developing shingles suggests they may also benefit from inclusion in vaccination programs. What is the impact? The data presented in the review suggest that people with asthma or COPD aged 18–49 years could benefit from shingles vaccination. This group is not currently included in most vaccination guidelines, despite the evidence of increased risk of shingles and its complications. More information is needed on the risks and benefits of vaccinating this group to determine if it would be cost-effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the Danish Veterinary Statistics Program, VetStat, sales data on medicinal products prescribed for veterinary consumption is collected. The Danish Food and Veterinary Administration (DVFA) manages the database and each purchase contains detailed product-specific information linked with a species-specific ID. National surveillance systems are also implemented or being developed in the other European Union Member States. By 2029, all Member States are required to report data on antimicrobial usage for companion animals to the European Medicines Agency. This study aimed to assess the challenges encountered when using the VetStat database to quantify antimicrobial use in Danish companion animals. Raw VetStat data were propagated by the DVFA and originated from veterinary practitioners and Danish pharmacies. Results: Comprehensive estimates of antimicrobial use in Danish companion animals were not readily available due to database construct. Antimicrobials sold for use in companion animals (linked to a companion animal ID) comprised a large number of products licensed solely for horses or livestock, while data assigned a replacement code encompassed both topical and peroral antimicrobials licensed for companion animals. Additionally, antimicrobials sold from pharmacies to veterinary practitioners presented the biggest challenge in data retrieval and validation. Treatment data are only transferred to VetStat through the billing systems when Danish veterinarians are treating livestock, but not companion animals. Information on products sold for in-house use in companion animals is only available from pharmacy records without a species-specific ID. As a result, parenteral antimicrobials with multi-species authorization utilized by small animal veterinary practitioners are not accounted for in the overall estimate for companion animals. Conclusions: Owing to the database structure and requirements for data entry, antimicrobial use in companion animals is an approximation. The actual consumption may be significantly higher than what is currently calculated from the database, as the majority of parenteral products are not included. Consumption data can be measured more accurately provided treatment data from veterinary practitioners in small or mixed practices are transferred to the database through the billing system. This would equal the legal requirements for Danish veterinary practitioners treating livestock. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Transparency and reproducibility are expected to be normative practices in clinical trials used for decision-making on marketing authorisations for new medicines. This registered report introduces a cross-sectional study aiming to assess inferential reproducibility for main trials assessed by the European Medicines Agency.Methods: Two researchers independently identified all studies on new medicines, biosimilars and orphan medicines given approval by the European Commission between January 2017 and December 2019, categorised as 'main studies' in the European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs). Sixty-two of these studies were randomly sampled. One researcher retrieved the individual patient data (IPD) for these studies and prepared a dossier for each study, containing the IPD, the protocol and information on the conduct of the study. A second researcher who had no access to study reports used the dossier to run an independent re-analysis of each trial. All results of these re-analyses were reported in terms of each study's conclusions, p-values, effect sizes and changes from the initial protocol. A team of two researchers not involved in the re-analysis compared results of the re-analyses with published results of the trial.Results: Two hundred ninety-two main studies in 173 EPARs were identified. Among the 62 studies randomly sampled, we received IPD for 10 trials. The median number of days between data request and data receipt was 253 [interquartile range 182-469]. For these ten trials, we identified 23 distinct primary outcomes for which the conclusions were reproduced in all re-analyses. Therefore, 10/62 trials (16% [95% confidence interval 8% to 28%]) were reproduced, as the 52 studies without available data were considered non-reproducible. There was no change from the original study protocol regarding the primary outcome in any of these ten studies. Spin was observed in the report of one study.Conclusions: Despite their results supporting decisions that affect millions of people's health across the European Union, most main studies used in EPARs lack transparency and their results are not reproducible for external researchers. Re-analyses of the few trials with available data showed very good inferential reproducibility.Trial Registration: https://osf.io/mcw3t/. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a common and chronic eye condition characterized by the presence of progressive degenerative abnormalities in the central retina (macula). Notably, neovascular, or wet, AMD (nAMD) occurs when new, abnormal blood vessels grow under the macula causing scarring of the macula itself and resulting in a loss of central vision, visual distortion, and an impaired capacity of perceiving colour contrast and intensity. Brolucizumab, a new generation anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) monoclonal antibody, was approved by the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of nAMD. The aim of this analysis is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness profile of brolucizumab, compared to the main therapeutic alternative available (aflibercept), for the treatment of nAMD.Methods: The simulation of costs and outcomes was carried out using a Markov model over a time horizon of 15 years. In base-case, treatment effectiveness inputs for brolucizumab and aflibercept were extracted from the HAWK and HARRIER studies and from a network meta-analysis. The Italian National Healthcare Service (NHS) perspective was considered, therefore only healthcare direct costs (treatment acquisition, administration, adverse events, disease monitoring) were analysed. In the alternative scenarios, the societal perspective and a prolonged time horizon were considered. Model robustness was tested through sensitivity analyses.Results: In the base-case analysis, brolucizumab was dominant over aflibercept (+ 0.11 years QALY gained and -€15,679 costs). Both one-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness and reliability of base-case results. The results of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that when the willingness to pay is equal to €50,000 per QALY gained, brolucizumab would be dominant in 84% of simulations and in the remaining simulations brolucizumab would be cost-effective compared to aflibercept. Results of the alternative scenarios and sensitivity analyses confirmed the results of base-case.Conclusion: The cost-utility analysis shows that brolucizumab is dominant over aflibercept. Treatment with brolucizumab reduces the economic impact of nAMD and determined a slight increase of quality-adjusted survival. This analysis gives a high level of confidence that the treatment with brolucizumab would reduce the burden of intravitreal injections, compared to aflibercept, a relevant therapeutic alternative in Italy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Tivozanib (Fotivda) is an anti-angiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitor that was denied access to the US market by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In contrast, it was granted approval by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for the treatment of Renal Cell Carcinoma in adults. Given the conflicting decisions from these regulatory agencies, the objectives of the following study are (i) to critically review the evidence supporting the approval of tivozanib; (ii) to analyse the dissemination of this evidence in the literature by way of a citation analysis.Methods: Pivotal trials were searched by two independent reviewers using Medline, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov and the European Public Assessment Report. The risk of bias for each trial was then inductively assessed. Articles citing any of these trials were identified using Web of Sciences. Finally, the quality of the citations was evaluated by two independent reviewers according to standard data extraction methods.Results: The search for primary evidence identified two pivotal studies: TIVO-1 upon which the FDA and the EMA decisions were based, and TIVO-3 which was conducted after the agencies' decisions had been issued. The TIVO-1 trial presented several limitations that compromised causal inference, in relation to (i) design (absence of blinding, inappropriate comparator, and one-way crossover), (ii) poor internal consistency in the results for the primary endpoint, (iii) a discrepancy between a benefit observed for progression-free survival (HR: 0.80, 95% CI [0.64-0.99]) and the absence of difference for overall survival (HR: 1.25, 95% CI [0.95 - 1.62]). Our citation search protocol identified 229 articles that cited TIVO-1 in the 7 years following its publication, among which 151 (65.9%) citing articles discussing efficacy. Presence of spin was identified in 64 (42.4%) of these 151 citing articles, and 39 (25.8%) additional articles citing results without providing enough elements to interpret the TIVO-1 results.Conclusion: EMA's approval was based on a single pivotal trial presenting critical limitations, rendering the results from the trial potentially inconclusive. The broad dissemination of TIVO-1 results in the scientific literature may have been affected by spin or results were presented in an inadequate critical manner. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chinese herbal medicines (CHMs) have unique advantages in the prevention and treatment of diseases, which are widely recognized in the world. More and more CHMs are becoming increasingly popular in the international markets. However, the quality control of CHMs is a significant issue for their acceptance and recognition in the international market. This review mainly focuses on the quality requirements for CHMs to enter the European Union (EU) market. Both Chinese and European regulations and quality controls are compared. Firstly, the EU medicinal regulatory system and relevant regulations were reviewed. Secondly, the key factors of the quality control of CHMs, including Chinese herbal drugs, extracts and products were compared with those of European herbal medicines in the EU market. Subsequently, three main registration routes for herbal medicinal products including Chinese herbal medicinal products entering the EU were introduced. Furthermore, the legal status of traditional Chinese medicine granules in the EU was also discussed. Through the comparison of the key quality factors for CHMs in China and the EU, the similarities and differences in terms of quality requirements and regulations are addressed, which provides a reference for the development of CHMs into the EU market. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Tissue-agnostic drug development provides a paradigm shift in precision medicine and requires innovative trial designs. However, outcome selection for such trials can prove challenging. The objectives of this review were to: (i) Identify and map core outcome sets (COS), across 11 immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) in order to facilitate the selection of relevant outcomes across the conditions for innovative trials of tissue-agnostic drug therapies. (ii) Compare outcomes or endpoints recommended by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) to identify and highlight similarities and differences.Methods: The Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET), International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM), FDA and EMA databases were searched from inception to 28th December 2019. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts of retrieved entries and conducted the subsequent full text screening. Hand searching of the reference lists and citation searching of the selected publications was conducted. The methodological quality of the included peer-reviewed articles was independently assessed by the reviewers based on the items of the COS-Standards for Development recommendations (COS-STAD) checklist. Core outcomes from the included publications were extracted and mapped across studies and conditions. Regulatory guidance from FDA and EMA, where available for clinical trials for the IMIDs, were obtained from their databases and recommendations on outcomes to measure directly compared.Results: Forty-four COS publications were included in the final analysis. Outcomes such as disease activity, pain, fatigue, quality of life, physical function, work limitation/productivity, steroid use and biomarkers were recommended across majority of the conditions. There were significant similarities and differences in FDA and EMA recommendations. The only instance where either regulatory body directly referenced a COS was for jSLE-both referenced the Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organization (PRINTO) COS.Conclusions: The findings from this systematic review provide valuable information to inform outcome selection in tissue-agnostic trials for IMIDs. There is a need for increased collaboration between regulators and COS developers and inclusion of regulators as key stakeholders in COS development to enhance the quality of COS.Trial Registration: Not registered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aims: The Enhanced Passive Safety Surveillance is a requirement of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for seasonal influenza vaccines, aiming to rapidly detect any significant change in frequency or severity of expected reactogenicity or allergic events prior to widespread use of a vaccine in any particular year. The aim of this surveillance was to assess the quadrivalent inactivated split-virion influenza vaccine (IIV4) during routine immunization in Finland, as per the national immunization program for 2019/20. The primary objective was to investigate the suspected adverse drug reactions (ADR) occurring within 7 days following vaccination.Methods: Passive surveillance of individuals vaccinated with IIV4 was conducted within the first 4 to 6 weeks of the influenza season in Finland. Potential ADRs were reported via phone or posted adverse event forms. The vaccinee reporting rate and ADR reporting rate were calculated and compared with the known or expected safety data in order to identify any change which was clinically significant.Results: Data were collected from 939 individuals, with 56 reports received for 163 suspected ADRs. Of these, 38 individuals reported 117 suspected ADRs within 7 days following vaccination, corresponding to an ADR reporting rate of 12.46% (95% CI: 10.41, 14.74%); vaccination-site pain, vaccination-site reaction, and pyrexia were the most frequently reported ADRs. The 18-to-65 years of age category had an ADR reporting rate of 12.56%, the over-65 years of age category had an ADR reporting rate of 16.22%, and no ADRs were reported for individuals aged 6 months to 18 years. No serious suspected ADRs were reported at any time post-vaccination, and the ADR rates were comparable to those reported for IIV4 in the 2018/19 seasonal assessment. The frequency of suspected ADRs was generally aligned with those reported in the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC), with the exception of asthenia, somnolence, and erythema, which were slightly higher. No reporting pattern by type, frequency, or severity was identified for the suspected ADRs.Conclusions: No clinically significant changes in what is known or expected for IIV4 was reported for the 2019/20 season, which supports the overall safety profile. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: An estimand defines the target of estimation for a clinical trial through specification of the treatment, target population, variable, population-level summary and of the strategies for intercurrent events. A carefully defined estimand aligns the clinical trial design and analysis with the scientific question of interest and adequately accounts for so-called intercurrent events. The ICH E9(R1) addendum suggests five estimand strategies. We evaluated to what extent current practice in drug development and regulatory assessment fits in the estimand framework.Methods: We systematically evaluated what estimands, especially what strategies for intercurrent events are advised in European Medicines Agency disease guidelines, used in sponsors' trials and additionally requested by the European Medicines Agency in assessment dossiers. We selected four therapeutic areas: nervous system, oncology, cardiovascular diseases and respiratory diseases. For each, we evaluated all disease guidelines with approved drugs, the dossiers of the most recently approved drugs matching the guidelines and corresponding regulatory questions.Results: Strategies for intercurrent events were present in 18 (53%) of 34 guidelines, in all 34 sponsor documentations and in 15 (44%) of 34 sets of regulatory questions. Treatment policy was advised in 13 (38%) guidelines and was applied in 9 corresponding sponsor documentations. Of these 9, it was the sole strategy in 4 cases and accompanied by another strategy in 5 cases. Hypothetical strategy was not advised in guidelines. However, it was the leading strategy applied in 25 (74%) sponsor documentations. Composite strategy was advised in 3 (9%) guidelines and applied accompanied by another strategy in 2 corresponding sponsor documentations. While on treatment strategy was not advised in guidelines, but was applied in 2 sponsor documentations. Principal stratum strategy was advised in 2 guidelines but not applied in corresponding sponsor documentations. Of the regulatory questions, treatment policy was present in 2 cases (6%), hypothetical in 6 cases (18%), composite in 6 cases (18%) and while on treatment in 1 case (3%).Conclusions: Estimand attributes are present in guidelines, sponsor documentations and regulatory questions, but not described as estimands. Treatment policy was most often advised in guidelines, but hypothetical was the leading strategy applied in sponsor documentations. Thus, results indicate not a full concordance between the regulatory target of estimation and what is actually estimated. The lack of concordance was mostly due to limitations in collection of intercurrent events data to enable a treatment policy strategy. There is, therefore, a need to better define estimands at the design stage and throughout the applications dossiers and assessment reports. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Oncolytic viruses are playing an increasingly important role in cancer immunotherapy applications. Given the preclinical and clinical efficacy of these virus-based therapeutics, there is a need for fast, simple, and inexpensive downstream processing methodologies to purify biologically active viral agents that meet the increasingly higher safety standards stipulated by regulatory authorities like the Food and Drug Administration and the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products. However, the production of virus materials for clinical dosing of oncolytic virotherapies is currently limited—in quantity, quality, and timeliness—by current purification technologies. Adsorption of virus particles to solid phases provides a convenient and practical choice for large-scale fractionation and recovery of viruses from cell and media contaminants. Indeed, chromatography has been deemed the most promising technology for large-scale purification of viruses for biomedical applications. The implementation of new chromatography media has improved process performance, but low yields and long processing times required to reach the desired purity are still limiting. Results: Here we report the development of an interference chromatography-based process for purifying high titer, clinical grade oncolytic Newcastle disease virus using NatriFlo® HD-Q membrane technology. This novel approach to optimizing chromatographic performance utilizes differences in molecular bonding interactions to achieve high purity in a single ion exchange step. Conclusions: When used in conjunction with membrane chromatography, this high yield method based on interference chromatography has the potential to deliver efficient, scalable processes to enable viable production of oncolytic virotherapies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cabozantinib was approved by the European Medicines Agency and the Federal Drug Administration as an option for sorafenib-resistant advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, increasing overall survival and progression-free survival compared with placebo. We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of cabozantinib in the second-line setting for patients with an advanced hepatocellular carcinoma from the German statutory health insurance perspective compared with an US scenario using US prices.Methods: A Markov model was developed to compare the costs and effectiveness of cabozantinib with best supportive care in the second-line treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma over a lifetime horizon. Health outcomes were measured in discounted life years and discounted quality-adjusted life years. Survival probabilities were estimated using parametric survival distributions based on CELESTIAL trial data. Utilities were derived from the literature. Costs contained drugs, monitoring and adverse events measured in US Dollars. Model robustness was addressed in univariable, scenario and probabilistic sensitivity analyses.Results: Cabozantinib generated a gain of 0.18 life years (0.15 quality-adjusted life years) compared with best supportive care. The total mean cost per patient was $56,621 for cabozantinib and $2064 for best supportive care in the German model resulting in incremental cost-effectiveness ratios for cabozantinib of $306,778/life year and $375,470/quality-adjusted life year. Using US prices generated costs of $177,496 for cabozantinib and $4630 for best supportive care and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of $972,049/life year and $1,189,706/quality-adjusted life year.Conclusions: Our analysis established that assuming a willingness-to-pay threshold of $163,371/life year (quality-adjusted life year) for the German model and $188,559/life year (quality-adjusted life year) for the US model, cabozantinib is not cost-effective compared with best supportive care. Sensitivity analyses showed that cabozantinib was not cost-effective in almost all our scenarios. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Unwanted anticholinergic effects are both underestimated and frequently overlooked. Failure to identify adverse drug reactions (ADRs) can lead to prescribing cascades and the unnecessary use of over-the-counter products. The objective of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to explore and quantify the frequency and severity of ADRs associated with amitriptyline vs. placebo in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving adults with any indication, as well as healthy individuals. Methods: A systematic search in six electronic databases, forward/backward searches, manual searches, and searches for Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) approval studies, will be performed. Placebo-controlled RCTs evaluating amitriptyline in any dosage, regardless of indication and without restrictions on the time and language of publication, will be included, as will healthy individuals. Studies of topical amitriptyline, combination therapies, or including < 100 participants, will be excluded. Two investigators will screen the studies independently, assess methodological quality, and extract data on design, population, intervention, and outcomes ((non-)anticholinergic ADRs, e.g., symptoms, test results, and adverse drug events (ADEs) such as falls). The primary outcome will be the frequency of anticholinergic ADRs as a binary outcome (absolute number of patients with/without anticholinergic ADRs) in amitriptyline vs. placebo groups. Anticholinergic ADRs will be defined by an experienced clinical pharmacologist, based on literature and data from Martindale: The Complete Drug Reference. Secondary outcomes will be frequency and severity of (non-)anticholinergic ADRs and ADEs. The information will be synthesized in meta-analyses and narratives. We intend to assess heterogeneity using meta-regression (for indication, outcome, and time points) and I2 statistics. Binary outcomes will be expressed as odds ratios, and continuous outcomes as standardized mean differences. Effect measures will be provided using 95% confidence intervals. We plan sensitivity analyses to assess methodological quality, outcome reporting etc., and subgroup analyses on age, dosage, and duration of treatment. Discussion: We will quantify the frequency of anticholinergic and other ADRs/ADEs in adults taking amitriptyline for any indication by comparing rates for amitriptyline vs. placebo, hence, preventing bias from disease symptoms and nocebo effects. As no standardized instrument exists to measure it, our overall estimate of anticholinergic ADRs may have limitations. Systematic review registration: Submitted to PROSPERO; assignment is in progress. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess the benefits and harms of the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines. Data sources: Clinical study reports obtained from the European Medicines Agency and GlaxoSmithKline from 2014 to 2017. Eligibility criteria: Randomised trials that compared an HPV vaccine with a placebo or active comparator in healthy participants of all ages. Appraisal and synthesis: Two researchers extracted data and judged risk of bias with the Cochrane tool (version 2011). Risk ratio (RR) estimates were pooled using random-effects meta-analysis. Outcomes: Clinically relevant outcomes in intention to treat populations—including HPV-related cancer precursors irrespective of involved HPV types, treatment procedures and serious and general harms. Results: Twenty-four of 50 eligible clinical study reports were obtained with 58,412 pages of 22 trials and 2 follow-up studies including 95,670 participants: 79,102 females and 16,568 males age 8–72; 393,194 person-years; and 49 months mean weighted follow-up. We judged all 24 studies to be at high risk of bias. Serious harms were incompletely reported for 72% of participants (68,610/95,670). Nearly all control participants received active comparators (48,289/48,595, 99%). No clinical study report included complete case report forms. At 4 years follow-up, the HPV vaccines reduced HPV-related carcinoma in situ (367 in the HPV vaccine group vs. 490 in the comparator group, RR 0.73 [95% confidence interval, CI, 0.53 to 1.00], number needed to vaccinate [NNV] 387, P = 0.05, I2 = 67%) and HPV-related treatment procedures (1018 vs. 1416, RR 0.71 [95% CI 0.63 to 0.80], NNV 75, P < 0.00001, I2 = 45%). The HPV vaccines increased serious nervous system disorders (exploratory analysis: 72 vs. 46, RR 1.49 [1.02 to 2.16], number needed to harm [NNH] 1325, P = 0.040, I2 = 0%) and general harms (13,248 vs. 12,394, RR 1.07 [95% CI 1.03 to 1.11], NNH 51, P = 0.0002, I2 = 77%) but did not significantly increase fatal harms (45 vs. 38, RR 1.19 [95% CI 0.65 to 2.19], P = 0.58, I2 = 30%) or serious harms (1404 vs. 1357, RR 1.01 [95% CI 0.94 to 1.08], P = 0.79, I2 = 0%). Conclusion: At 4 years follow-up, the HPV vaccines decreased HPV-related cancer precursors and treatment procedures but increased serious nervous system disorders (exploratory analysis) and general harms. As the included trials were primarily designed to assess benefits and were not adequately designed to assess harms, the extent to which the HPV vaccines' benefits outweigh their harms is unclear. Limited access to clinical study reports and trial data with case report forms prevented a thorough assessment. Systematic review registration: CRD42017056093. Our systematic review protocol was registered on PROSPERO in January 2017: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPEROFILES/56093%5fPROTOCOL%5f20170030.pdf. Two protocol amendments were registered on PROSPERO on November 2017: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPEROFILES/56093%5fPROTOCOL%5f20171116.pdf. Our index of the HPV vaccine studies was published in Systematic Reviews in January 2018: 10.1186/s13643-018-0675-z. A description of the challenges obtaining the data was published in September 2018: 10.1136/bmj.k3694. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), large amounts of fluids are administered. CPB priming with crystalloid solution causes marked hemodilution and fluid extravasation. Colloid solutions may reduce fluid overload because they have a better volume expansion effect than crystalloids. The European Medicines Agency does not recommend the use of hydroxyethyl starch solutions (HES) due to harmful renal effects. Albumin solution does not impair blood coagulation but the findings on kidney function are conflicting. On the other hand, albumin may reduce endothelial glycocalyx destruction and decrease platelet count during CPB. No large randomized, double-blind, clinical trials have compared albumin solution to crystalloid solution in cardiac surgery.Methods/design: In this single-center, double-blind, randomized controlled trial comprising 1386 adult cardiac surgery patients, 4% albumin solution will be compared to Ringer's acetate solution in CPB priming and volume replacement up to 3200 mL during surgery and the first 24 h of intensive care unit stay. The primary efficacy outcome is the number of patients with at least one major adverse event (MAE) during 90 postoperative days (all-cause death, acute myocardial injury, acute heart failure or low output syndrome, resternotomy, stroke, major arrhythmia, major bleeding, infection compromising post-procedural rehabilitation, acute kidney injury). Secondary outcomes are total number of MAEs, incidence of major adverse cardiac events (MACE; cardiac death, acute myocardial injury, acute heart failure, arrhythmia), amount of each type of blood product transfused (red blood cells, fresh frozen plasma, platelets), total fluid balance at the end of the intervention period, total measured blood loss, development of acute kidney injury, days alive without mechanical ventilation in 90 days, days alive outside intensive care unit at 90 days, days alive at home at 90 days, and 90-day mortality.Discussion: The findings of this study will provide new evidence regarding efficacy and safety of albumin solution in adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery with CPB.Trial Registration: EudraCT (clinicaltrialsregister.eu) 2015-002556-27 Registered 11 Nov 2016 and ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02560519. Registered 25 Sept 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) encouraging the use of risk-based monitoring for trials in 2013, there remains a lack of evidence-based guidelines on how to monitor. We surveyed the academic United Kingdom Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) registered clinical trials units (CTUs) to find out their policy on monitoring of phase III randomised clinical trials of an investigational medicinal product (CTIMPs).Methods: An online survey of monitoring policy with sections on the CTU, central monitoring and on-site monitoring was sent to all 50 UKCRC registered CTUs in November 2018. Descriptive data analysis and tabulations are reported using the total number answering each question.Results: A total of 43/50 (86%) of CTUs responded with 38 conducting phase III randomised CTIMP trials. Of these 38 CTUs, 34 finished the survey. Most CTUs (36/37, 97%) use a central monitoring process to guide, target or supplement site visits. More than half (19/36, 53%) of CTUs do not use an automated monitoring report when centrally monitoring trials and all units use trial team knowledge to make a final decision on whether an on-site visit is required. A total of 31/34 (91%) CTUs used triggers to decide whether or not to conduct an on-site monitoring visit. On-site, a mixture of source data verification and checking of processes was carried out. The CTUs overwhelmingly (27/34, 79%) selected optimising central monitoring as their most pressing concern.Conclusion: The survey showed a wide variation in phase III randomised CTIMP trial monitoring practices by academic clinical trials units within a single research-active country. We urgently need to develop evidence-based regulator-agreed guidance for CTUs on best practice for both central and on-site monitoring and to develop tools for all CTUs to use. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Relenza represents the first neuraminidase inhibitor (NI), a class of drugs that also includes the drug Tamiflu. Although heralded as breakthrough treatments in influenza, NI efficacy has remained highly controversial. A key unsettled question is why the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved more cautious efficacy statements in labelling than European regulators for both drugs.Methods: We conducted a qualitative analysis of United States and European Union regulatory appraisals for Relenza to investigate the reasons for divergent regulatory interpretations, pertaining to Relenza's capacity to alleviate symptoms and reduce frequency of complications of influenza.Results: In Europe, Relenza was evaluated via the so-called national procedure with Sweden as the reference country. We show that FDA reviewers, unlike their European (i.e. Swedish) counterpart, (1) rejected the manufacturer's insistence on pooling efficacy data, (2) remained wary of subgroup analyses, and (3) insisted on stringent statistical analyses. These differences meant that the FDA was less likely to depart from prevailing regulatory and scientific standards in interpreting trial results. We argue that the differences are explained largely by divergent institutionalised review methodologies, i.e. the European regulator's reliance on manufacturer-compiled summaries compared to the FDA's examination of original data and documentation from trials.Conclusions: The FDA's more probing and meticulous evaluative methodology allowed its reviewers to develop 'deep' knowledge concerning the clinical and statistical facets of trials, and more informed opinions regarding suitable methods for analysing trial results. These findings challenge the current emphasis on evaluating regulatory performance mainly in terms of speed of review. We propose that persistent uncertainty and knowledge deficits regarding NIs could have been ameliorated had regulators engaged in the public debates over the drugs' efficacy and explained their contrasting methodologies and judgments. Regulators use major resources to evaluate drugs, but if regulators' assessments are not effectively disseminated and used, resources are used inefficiently. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Varicella is generally considered a mild disease. Disease burden is not well known and country-level estimation is challenging. As varicella disease is not notifiable, notification criteria and rates vary between countries. In general, existing surveillance systems do not capture cases that do not seek medical care, and most are affected by underreporting and underascertainment. We aimed to estimate the overall varicella disease burden in Europe to provide critical information to support decision-making regarding varicella vaccination.Methods: We conducted a systematic literature review to identify all available epidemiological data on varicella IgG antibody seroprevalence, primary care and hospitalisation incidence, and mortality. We then developed methods to estimate age-specific varicella incidence and annual number of cases by different levels of severity (cases in the community, health care seekers in primary care and hospitals, and deaths) for all countries belonging to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) region and Switzerland.Results: In the absence of universal varicella immunization, the burden of varicella would be substantial with a total of 5.5 million (95% CI: 4.7-6.4) varicella cases occurring annually across Europe. Variation exists between countries but overall the majority of cases (3 million; 95% CI: 2.7-3.3) would occur in children <5 years. Annually, 3-3.9 million patients would consult a primary care physician, 18,200-23,500 patients would be hospitalised, and 80 varicella-related deaths would occur (95% CI: 19-822).Conclusions: Varicella disease burden is substantial. Most cases occur in children <5 years old but adults require hospitalisation more often and are at higher risk of death. This information should be considered when planning and evaluating varicella control strategies. A better understanding of the driving factors of country-specific differences in varicella transmission and health care utilization is needed. Improving and standardizing varicella surveillance in Europe, as initiated by the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC), is important to improve data quality to facilitate inter-country comparison. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Despite a steady stream of headlines suggesting they will transform the future of healthcare, high-tech regenerative medicines have, to date, been quite inaccessible to patients, with only eight having been granted an EU marketing licence in the last 7 years. Here, we outline some of the historical reasons for this paucity of licensed innovative regenerative medicines. We discuss the challenges to be overcome to expedite the development of this complex and rapidly changing area of medicine, together with possible reasons to be more optimistic for the future.Discussion: Several factors have contributed to the scarcity of cutting-edge regenerative medicines in clinical practice. These include the great expense and difficulties involved in planning how individual therapies will be developed, manufactured to commercial levels and ultimately successfully delivered to patients. Specific challenges also exist when evaluating the safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of these therapies. Furthermore, many treatments are used without a licence from the European Medicines Agency, under "Hospital Exemption" from the EC legislation. For products which are licensed, alternative financing approaches by healthcare providers may be needed, since many therapies will have significant up-front costs but uncertain benefits and harms in the long-term. However, increasing political interest and more flexible mechanisms for licensing and financing of therapies are now evident; these could be key to the future growth and development of regenerative medicine in clinical practice.Conclusions: Recent developments in regulatory processes, coupled with increasing political interest, may offer some hope for improvements to the long and often difficult routes from laboratory to marketplace for leading-edge cell or tissue therapies. Collaboration between publicly-funded researchers and the pharmaceutical industry could be key to the future development of regenerative medicine in clinical practice; such collaborations might also offer a possible antidote to the innovation crisis in the pharmaceutical industry. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Orphan designated medicinal products benefit from regulatory and economic incentives for orphan drug development. Approximately 40% of orphan designations target rare neoplastic disorders, referring to rare cancers. In order to provide more insights in drugs for rare neoplastic disorders that are under development and to better understand the role of orphan designation in the development of oncology drugs, this study investigates the characteristics of the product, the indication and the applicants as well as the stage of development of products with an orphan designation for rare neoplastic disorders and compares them with products with an orphan designation for other rare indications. Therefore, orphan designation application files and annual reports submitted by the applicant were reviewed at the premises of the European Medicines Agency.Results: At the time of application, 41.6% of products with orphan designation for rare neoplastic disorders were in pre-clinical phase; this was 65.1% for other rare conditions (p < 0.05). Thirty percent of orphan designations for rare neoplastic disorders had reached phase 1; compared to 19.3% of orphan designations targeting other rare conditions (p < 0.05). The same trend was observed for the stage of development at the time of the latest annual report. Significant benefit was more often considered for orphan designations for rare neoplastic disorders compared to orphan designations for other rare conditions.Conclusion: Orphan designations for rare neoplastic disorders involve products that are in a more advanced stages of development compared to orphan designations for other (non-oncology) rare conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Different methodological choices such as inclusion/exclusion criteria and analytical models can yield different results and inferences when meta-analyses are performed. We explored the range of such differences, using several methodological choices for indirect comparison meta-analyses to compare nalmefene and naltrexone in the reduction of alcohol consumption as a case study.Methods: All double-blind randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nalmefene to naltrexone or one of these compounds to a placebo in the treatment of alcohol dependence or alcohol use disorders were considered. Two reviewers searched for published and unpublished studies in MEDLINE (August 2017), the Cochrane Library, Embase, and ClinicalTrials.gov and contacted pharmaceutical companies, the European Medicines Agency, and the Food and Drug Administration. The indirect comparison meta-analyses were performed according to different inclusion/exclusion criteria (based on medical condition, abstinence of patients before inclusion, gender, somatic and psychiatric comorbidity, psychological support, treatment administered and dose, treatment duration, outcome reported, publication status, and risk of bias) and different analytical models (fixed and random effects). The primary outcome was the vibration of effects (VoE), i.e. the range of different results of the indirect comparison between nalmefene and naltrexone. The presence of a "Janus effect" was investigated, i.e. whether the 1st and 99th percentiles in the distribution of effect sizes were in opposite directions.Results: Nine nalmefene and 51 naltrexone RCTs were included. No study provided a direct comparison between the drugs. We performed 9216 meta-analyses for the indirect comparison with a median of 16 RCTs (interquartile range = 12-21) included in each meta-analysis. The standardized effect size was negative at the 1st percentile (- 0.29, favouring nalmefene) and positive at the 99th percentile (0.29, favouring naltrexone). A total of 7.1% (425/5961) of the meta-analyses with a negative effect size and 18.9% (616/3255) of those with a positive effect size were statistically significant (p < 0.05).Conclusions: The choice of inclusion/exclusion criteria and analytical models for meta-analysis can result in entirely opposite results. VoE evaluations could be performed when overlapping meta-analyses on the same topic yield contradictory result.Trial Registration: This study was registered on October 19, 2016, in the Open Science Framework (OSF, protocol available at https://osf.io/7bq4y/ ). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 1975, Milstein and Köhler revolutionized the medical world with the development of the hybridoma technique to produce monoclonal antibodies. Since then, monoclonal antibodies have entered almost every branch of biomedical research. Antibodies are now used as frontline therapeutics in highly divergent indications, ranging from autoimmune disease over allergic asthma to cancer. Wider accessibility and implementation of antibody-based therapeutics is however hindered by manufacturing challenges and high development costs inherent to protein-based drugs. For these reasons, alternative ways are being pursued to produce and deliver antibodies more cost-effectively without hampering safety. Over the past decade, messenger RNA (mRNA) based drugs have emerged as a highly appealing new class of biologics that can be used to encode any protein of interest directly in vivo. Whereas current clinical efforts to use mRNA as a drug are mainly situated at the level of prophylactic and therapeutic vaccination, three recent preclinical studies have addressed the feasibility of using mRNA to encode therapeutic antibodies directly in vivo. Here, we highlight the potential of mRNA-based approaches to solve several of the issues associated with antibodies produced and delivered in protein format. Nonetheless, we also identify key hurdles that mRNA-based approaches still need to take to fulfill this potential and ultimately replace the current protein antibody format. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In recent years, experience on the application of adaptive designs in confirmatory clinical trials has accumulated. Although planning such trials comes at the cost of additional operational complexity, adaptive designs offer the benefit of flexibility to update trial design and objectives as data accrue. In 2007, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) provided guidance on confirmatory clinical trials with adaptive (or flexible) designs. In order to better understand how adaptive trials are implemented in practice and how they may impact medicine approval within the EMA centralised procedure, we followed on 59 medicines for which an adaptive clinical trial had been submitted to the EMA Scientific Advice (SA) and analysed previously in a dedicated EMA survey of scientific advice letters. We scrutinized in particular the submission of the corresponding medicines for a marketing authorisation application (MAA). We also discuss the current regulatory perspective as regards the implementation of adaptive designs in confirmatory clinical trials.Methods: Using the internal EMA MAA database, the AdisInsight database and related trial registries, we analysed how many of these 59 trials actually started, the completion status, results, the time to trial start, the adaptive elements finally implemented after SA, their possible influence on the success of the trial and corresponding product approval.Results: Overall 31 trials out of 59 (53%) were retrieved. Thirty of them (97%) have been started and 23 (74%) concluded. Nine of these trials (39% out of 23) demonstrated a significant treatment effect on their primary endpoint and 4 (17% out of 23) supported a marketing authorisation (MA). An additional two trials were stopped using pre-defined criteria for futility, efficiently identifying trials on which further resources should not be spent. Median time to trial start after SA letter was given by EMA was 5 months. In the investigated trial registries, at least 18 trial (58% of 31 retrieved trials) designs were implemented with adaptive elements, which were predominantly dose selection, sample size reassessment (SSR) and stopping for futility (SFF). Among the 11 completed trials including adaptive elements, 6 demonstrated a significant treatment effect on their primary endpoint (55%).Conclusions: Adaptive designs are now well established in the drug development landscape. If properly pre-planned, adaptations can play a key role in the success of some of these trials, for example to help successfully select the most promising dose regimens for phase II/III trials. Interim analyses can also enable stopping of trials for futility when they do not hold their promises. Type I error rate control, trial integrity and results consistency between the different stages of the analyses are fundamental aspects to be discussed thoroughly. Engaging early dialogue with regulators and implementing the scientific advice received is strongly recommended, since much experience in discussing adaptive designs and assessing their results has been accumulated. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The ASTERIX project developed a number of novel methods suited to study small populations. The objective of this exercise was to evaluate the applicability and added value of novel methods to improve drug development in small populations, using real world drug development programmes as reported in European Public Assessment Reports.Methods: The applicability and added value of thirteen novel methods developed within ASTERIX were evaluated using data from 26 European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) for orphan medicinal products, representative of rare medical conditions as predefined through six clusters. The novel methods included were 'innovative trial designs' (six methods), 'level of evidence' (one method), 'study endpoints and statistical analysis' (four methods), and 'meta-analysis' (two methods) and they were selected from the methods developed within ASTERIX based on their novelty; methods that discussed already available and applied strategies were not included for the purpose of this validation exercise. Pre-requisites for application in a study were systematized for each method, and for each main study in the selected EPARs it was assessed if all pre-requisites were met. This direct applicability using the actual study design was firstly assessed. Secondary, applicability and added value were explored allowing changes to study objectives and design, but without deviating from the context of the drug development plan. We evaluated whether differences in applicability and added value could be observed between the six predefined condition clusters.Results and Discussion: Direct applicability of novel methods appeared to be limited to specific selected cases. The applicability and added value of novel methods increased substantially when changes to the study setting within the context of drug development were allowed. In this setting, novel methods for extrapolation, sample size re-assessment, multi-armed trials, optimal sequential design for small sample sizes, Bayesian sample size re-estimation, dynamic borrowing through power priors and fall-back tests for co-primary endpoints showed most promise - applicable in more than 40% of evaluated EPARs in all clusters. Most of the novel methods were applicable to conditions in the cluster of chronic and progressive conditions, involving multiple systems/organs. Relatively fewer methods were applicable to acute conditions with single episodes. For the chronic clusters, Goal Attainment Scaling was found to be particularly applicable as opposed to other (non-chronic) clusters.Conclusion: Novel methods as developed in ASTERIX can improve drug development programs. Achieving optimal added value of these novel methods often requires consideration of the entire drug development program, rather than reconsideration of methods for a specific trial. The novel methods tested were mostly applicable in chronic conditions, and acute conditions with recurrent episodes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]