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]

During the last 10 years the European Medicines Agency (EMA) organized a number of workshops on modeling and simulation, working towards greater integration of modeling and simulation (M&S) in the development and regulatory assessment of medicines. In the 2011 EMA - European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) Workshop on Modelling and Simulation, European regulators agreed to the necessity to build expertise to be able to review M&S data provided by companies in their dossier. This led to the establishment of the EMA Modelling and Simulation Working Group (MSWG). Also, there was agreement reached on the need for harmonization on good M&S practices and for continuing dialog across all parties. The MSWG acknowledges the initiative of the EFPIA Model-Informed Drug Discovery and Development (MID3) group in promoting greater consistency in practice, application, and documentation of M&S and considers the paper is an important contribution towards achieving this objective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), European Medicines Agency (EMA), and Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA) guidances on small‐molecule drug–drug interactions (DDIs), with input from the International Transporter Consortium (ITC), recommend the evaluation of nine drug transporters. Although other clinically relevant drug uptake and efflux transporters have been discussed in ITC white papers, they have been excluded from further recommendation by the ITC and are not included in current regulatory guidances. These include the ubiquitously expressed equilibrative nucleoside transporters (ENT) 1 and ENT2, which have been recognized by the ITC for their potential role in clinically relevant nucleoside analog drug interactions for patients with cancer. Although there is comparatively limited clinical evidence supporting their role in DDI risk or other adverse drug reactions (ADRs) compared with the nine highlighted transporters, several in vitro and in vivo studies have identified ENT interactions with non‐nucleoside/non‐nucleotide drugs, in addition to nucleoside/nucleotide analogs. Some noteworthy examples of compounds that interact with ENTs include cannabidiol and selected protein kinase inhibitors, as well as the nucleoside analogs remdesivir, EIDD‐1931, gemcitabine, and fialuridine. Consequently, DDIs involving the ENTs may be responsible for therapeutic inefficacy or off‐target toxicity. Evidence suggests that ENT1 and ENT2 should be considered as transporters potentially involved in clinically relevant DDIs and ADRs, thereby warranting further investigation and regulatory consideration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Multiple Comparison Procedures with Modeling Techniques (MCP‐Mod) framework has been recently approved by the U.S. Food, Administration, and European Medicines Agency as fit‐for‐purpose for phase II studies. Nonetheless, this approach relies on the asymptotic properties of Maximum Likelihood (ML) estimators, which might not be reasonable for small sample sizes. In this paper, we derived improved ML estimators and correction for their covariance matrices in the censored Weibull regression model based on the corrective and preventive approaches. We performed two simulation studies to evaluate ML and improved ML estimators with their covariance matrices in (i) a regression framework (ii) the Multiple Comparison Procedures with Modeling Techniques framework. We have shown that improved ML estimators are less biased than ML estimators yielding Wald‐type statistics that controls type I error without loss of power in both frameworks. Therefore, we recommend the use of improved ML estimators in the MCP‐Mod approach to control type I error at nominal value for sample sizes ranging from 5 to 25 subjects per dose. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Regulators and Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies are increasingly familiar with, and publishing guidance on, external controls derived from real‐world data (RWD) to generate real‐world evidence (RWE). We recently conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) evaluating publicly available information on the use of RWD‐derived external controls to contextualize outcomes from uncontrolled trials submitted to the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and/or select HTA bodies. The review identified several key operational and methodological aspects for which more detailed guidance and alignment within and between regulatory agencies and HTA bodies is necessary. This paper builds on the SLR findings by delineating a set of key takeaways for the responsible generation of fit‐for‐purpose RWE. Practical methodological and operational guidelines for designing, conducting, and reporting RWD‐derived external control studies are explored and discussed. These considerations include: (i) early engagement with regulators and HTA bodies during the study planning phase; (ii) consideration of the appropriateness and comparability of external controls across multiple dimensions, including eligibility criteria, temporality, population representation, and clinical evaluation; (iii) ensuring adequate sample sizes, including hypothesis testing considerations; (iv) implementation of a clear and transparent strategy for assessing and addressing data quality, including data missingness across trials and RWD; (v) selection of comparable and meaningful endpoints that are operationalized and analyzed using appropriate analytic methods; and (vi) conduct of sensitivity analyses to assess the robustness of findings in the context of uncertainty and sources of potential bias. [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]

Study sponsors and market authorization holders are required by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) to enroll patients administered a gene therapy product, whether in a trial setting or post‐licensure, in a long term follow‐up safety study to continue the safety assessments of their product. These follow‐up studies range between 5 and 15 years after dosing. This unprecedented duration of engagement with patients and caregivers raises logistical challenges that will require innovation and collaboration across sponsors and regulators. In this paper we delineate some of the key considerations for designing long term follow‐up protocols in the gene therapy setting, with an eye toward platform and master protocol approaches, and offer guidance for innovative operational and statistical methods that can help assess the safety profile and durability of response for these novel therapeutics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and purpose: High mortality rates have been reported in patients with cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) due to vaccine‐induced immune thrombotic thrombocytopenia (VITT) after vaccination with adenoviral vector SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccines. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the mortality of patients with CVST‐VITT has decreased over time. Methods: The EudraVigilance database of the European Medicines Agency was used to identify cases of CVST with concomitant thrombocytopenia occurring within 28 days of SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccination. Vaccines were grouped based on vaccine type (adenoviral or mRNA). Cases with CVST onset until 28 March were compared to cases after 28 March 2021, which was the day when the first scientific paper on VITT was published. Results: In total, 270 cases of CVST with thrombocytopenia were identified, of which 266 (99%) occurred after adenoviral vector SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccination (ChAdOx1 nCoV‐19, n = 243; Ad26.COV2.S, n = 23). The reported mortality amongst adenoviral cases with onset up to 28 March 2021 was 47/99 (47%, 95% confidence interval 37%–58%) compared to 36/167 (22%, 95% confidence interval 16%–29%) in cases with onset after 28 March (p < 0.001). None of the four cases of CVST with thrombocytopenia occurring after mRNA vaccination died. Conclusion: The reported mortality of CVST with thrombocytopenia after vaccination with adenoviral vector‐based SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccines has significantly decreased over time, which may indicate a beneficial effect of earlier recognition and/or improved treatment on outcome after VITT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The new In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation (EU) 2017/746 (IVDR) introduces important changes in the EU legal framework for companion diagnostics (CDx), including a new risk‐based classification system for in vitro diagnostic tests (IVDs), a first legal definition for CDx and enhanced involvement of notified bodies in the conformity assessment and certification process of CDx. The IVDR also establishes an important link between the assessment of a CDx and the corresponding medicinal product by requiring the notified body to seek a scientific opinion from the medicines regulator on the suitability of the CDx for use with the concerned medicinal product(s) before issuing an IVD certificate. Whereas the IVDR aims at establishing a robust regulatory framework for IVDs, it is also associated with several challenges, such as insufficient capacity of notified bodies and readiness of manufacturers. To ensure timely access for patients to essential IVDs, a progressive roll‐out for this new legislation has been introduced. In addition, the new consultation process for CDx requires increased collaboration and alignment of assessments performed by the different stakeholders involved in this process. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) and notified bodies are currently building experience based on the first CDx consultation procedures that have been submitted from January 2022 onward. In the current article, we describe the new European regulatory framework for certification of CDx and highlight several challenges for medicine and CDx co‐development. In addition, we briefly touch upon the interplay between the Clinical Trial Regulation (EU) No. 536/2014 (CTR) and the IVDR. [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]

Developing a novel drug, including discovery, nonclinical toxicology studies, initial clinical trials, and thorough pivotal studies, may take many years. Once an applicant has generated this comprehensive body of data, the final step prior to regulatory approval is Health Authority review of the marketing authorization application. Review by regulatory authorities to evaluate whether the data support a positive benefit/risk profile takes many months, adding additional time before patients may access therapy. In this paper, we discuss the various opportunities the US Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency offer to expedite the drug development and regulatory approval timelines for drugs intended to treat serious diseases and unmet medical needs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

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]

The Critical Path for Parkinson's (CPP) Imaging Biomarker and Modeling and Simulation working groups aimed to achieve qualification opinion by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) Committee for Medical Products for Human Use (CHMP) for the use of baseline dopamine transporter neuroimaging for patient selection in early Parkinson's disease clinical trials. This paper describes the regulatory science strategy to achieve this goal. CPP is an international consortium of three Parkinson's charities and nine pharmaceutical partners, coordinated by the Critical Path Institute. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Registries will enable cohort studies to be performed, which are usually considered to be the best quality of observational studies. The quality of data of registries can be increased if is it possible to merge results ('crosstalk') between registries. A prerequisite for that is an agreed uniform core set of data to be collected and uniform definitions on the items to be collected. This paper discusses problems and barriers with existing registries and provides recommendations from an EMA workshop (European Medicines Agency), for core common data sets and how to secure the quality of data collected. The PedNet registry including >2200 children with haemophilia is presented as an example of a registry/cohort study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Inadequate dose selection for confirmatory trials is currently still one of the most challenging issues in drug development, as illustrated by high rates of late-stage attritions in clinical development and postmarketing commitments required by regulatory institutions. In an effort to shift the current paradigm in dose and regimen selection and highlight the availability and usefulness of well-established and regulatory-acceptable methods, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in collaboration with the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries Association (EFPIA) hosted a multistakeholder workshop on dose finding (London 4-5 December 2014). Some methodologies that could constitute a toolkit for drug developers and regulators were presented. These methods are described in the present report: they include five advanced methods for data analysis (empirical regression models, pharmacometrics models, quantitative systems pharmacology models, MCP-Mod, and model averaging) and three methods for study design optimization (Fisher information matrix (FIM)-based methods, clinical trial simulations, and adaptive studies). Pairwise comparisons were also discussed during the workshop; however, mostly for historical reasons. This paper discusses the added value and limitations of these methods as well as challenges for their implementation. Some applications in different therapeutic areas are also summarized, in line with the discussions at the workshop. There was agreement at the workshop on the fact that selection of dose for phase III is an estimation problem and should not be addressed via hypothesis testing. Dose selection for phase III trials should be informed by well-designed dose-finding studies; however, the specific choice of method(s) will depend on several aspects and it is not possible to recommend a generalized decision tree. There are many valuable methods available, the methods are not mutually exclusive, and they should be used in conjunction to ensure a scientifically rigorous understanding of the dosing rationale. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic and the accompanying control measures have significantly affected clinical trial (CT) conduct, and sponsors have needed to make rapid changes to their CT operations. As a result, regulatory guidance was pivotal during the initial phases of the pandemic. This study aimed to evaluate the regulatory readiness and guidance related to COVID‐19 in the European Union (EU). The European Medicines Agency (EMA) and national competent authorities' (NCAs') websites were searched in September and October 2020 for guidances on the management of CTs during the pandemic published from January 2020 onward. "Regulatory readiness" was defined as the number of days from the first European COVID‐19 case (January 24, 2020) to the first published guidance by the respective NCA. "Regulatory guidance" was evaluated by coding the guidances for the following predefined operational trial activities important for ongoing CTs: obtaining informed consent, participant information, clinic visits, home health visits, telemedicine visits, self‐monitoring, investigational medicinal product (IMP) supply, IMP adherence monitoring, CT monitoring, documentation management, regulatory management, and safety management. Twenty‐four of the 27 EU NCAs published country‐specific guidance. The time from the first European COVID‐19 case to the first published EMA guidance was 56 days and ranged from 47 to 66 days for the first national guidances. Guidance was provided most frequently for regulatory management (24/24), safety management (23/24), documentation management (22/24), and CT monitoring (22/24). The regulatory guidance provided during the pandemic, ensuring participant safety and data integrity, may now be the starting point to innovate future CT conduct. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Pharmacoepidemiological Research on Outcomes of Therapeutics by a European ConsorTium (PROTECT) initiative was a collaborative European project that sought to address limitations of current methods in the field of pharmacoepidemiology and pharmacovigilance. Initiated in 2009 and ending in 2015, PROTECT was part of the Innovative Medicines Initiative, a joint undertaking by the European Union and pharmaceutical industry. Thirty-five partners including academics, regulators, small and medium enterprises, and European Federation of Pharmaceuticals Industries and Associations companies contributed to PROTECT. Two work packages within PROTECT implemented research examining the extent to which differences in the study design, methodology, and choice of data source can contribute to producing discrepant results from observational studies on drug safety. To evaluate the effect of these differences, the project applied different designs and analytic methodology for six drug-adverse event pairs across several electronic healthcare databases and registries. This papers introduces the organizational structure and procedures of PROTECT, including how drug-adverse event and data sources were selected, study design and analyses documents were developed, and results managed centrally. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ondansetron is an effective antiemetic that is being widely used as a second‐line treatment option for severe nausea and vomiting of pregnancy in accordance with clinical guidelines. The safety of ondansetron during pregnancy has—following publication of controversial and seemingly contradictory results—been subject to considerable academic turmoil, specifically with respect to the risk of congenital cardiac malformations and oral cleft. In July 2019, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) released an updated, comprehensive assessment report on the use of ondansetron in the first trimester. The ensuing Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) was updated in November 2019 with important changes to section on "Fertility, pregnancy and lactation." The SmPC now states that ondansetron should not be used in the first trimester of pregnancy. ENTIS, The European Network of Teratology Information Services, believes that the implementation of this regulatory step—which has important clinical consequences—is insufficiently substantiated and is not serving the interest of pregnant women with severe nausea and vomiting. Herein, we discuss the underlying evidence and argue the case against the EMA decision. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Consensus of regulatory decisions on the same Marketing Authorization Application (MAA) are critical for stakeholders. In this context, regulatory decision patterns from the Swissmedic (SMC), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) were analyzed for hemato‐oncology products (OP) and non‐oncology products (NOP). We compared 336 SMC regulatory decisions between 2009 and 2018 on new active substances with the EMA and the FDA for OP (n = 77) and NOP (n = 259) regarding approval rates, consensus, and divergent decisions. For OP MAA, we analyzed the underlying reasons for divergent decisions; for consensus decisions, the similarity and strictness of labeling. For OP, the approval rate for the SMC was 88.4%, the EMA 91.3%, and the FDA 95.7%. For NOP, the SMC had an approval rate of 86.2%, the EMA of 93.8%, and the FDA of 88.8%. The consensus decision rate among agencies was 88.4% for OP and 84.4% for NOP. The main clinical driver for divergent decisions for OP was nonrandomized trial design and low patient numbers. Comparing the approved indication wordings, the highest similarity was between the SMC and the EMA, and lowest for the FDA and the EMA. Investigating label strictness, the FDA numerically had the highest but not‐statistically significant number of strict labels. The approval rate stratified by disease area (OP and NOP) differed among the SMC, the EMA, and the FDA. High concordance in regulatory decisions was observed between agencies for OP as well as NOP. Reasons for divergent decisions regarding OP were mainly due to scientific uncertainties. Comparing strictness of indications, numerical but no statistically significant differences were observed between agencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Niels Kaj Jerne has proposed the "immune network theory" of interactions among anti‐idiotypic antibodies, able to interfere with humoral responses to certain antigens. After the occurrence of the primary generation of antibodies, against an antigenic epitope, idiotypes of these antibodies induce anti‐idiotypic antibodies that modulate the intensity of the first response, and so on. Adverse effects following SARS‐COV‐2 COVID‐19 vaccines are occasionally similar to the symptoms of COVID‐19 infection. Rare events linked to SARS‐CoV‐2 vaccines also resemble some rarely reported COVID‐19 complications. Safety data from product information by European Medicines Agency suggest that spectra do overlap for four main vaccines. The proposition is that vaccine events and COVID‐19 complications are related to anti‐idiotypic antibodies whose spatial shape can lead to interactions with ACE2 molecules, in individuals with a prolonged Spike protein synthesis. The vaccines target cells by their affinity to the vaccine vector, or to engulf lipid nanoparticles. Anti‐idiotypic antibodies shaped similarly to the Spike protein possibly interact with ACE2 molecules and cause diverse signs and symptoms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Whereas islet autoantibodies (AAs) are well‐established risk factors for developing type 1 diabetes (T1D), there is a lack of biomarkers endorsed by regulators to enrich clinical trial populations for those at risk of developing T1D. As such, the development of therapies that delay or prevent the onset of T1D remains challenging. To address this drug development need, the Critical Path Institute's T1D Consortium (T1DC) acquired patient‐level data from multiple observational studies and used a model‐based approach to evaluate the utility of islet AAs as enrichment biomarkers in clinical trials. An accelerated failure time model was developed, discussed in our previous publication, which provided the underlying evidence required to receive a qualification opinion for islet AAs as enrichment biomarkers from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in March 2022. To further democratize the use of the model for scientists and clinicians, we developed a Clinical Trial Enrichment Graphical User Interface. The interactive tool allows users to specify trial participant characteristics, including the percentage of participants with a specific AA combination. Users can specify ranges for participant baseline age, sex, blood glucose measurement from the 120‐minute timepoints of an oral glucose tolerance test, and HbA1c. The tool then applies the model to predict the mean probability of a T1D diagnosis for that trial population and renders the results to the user. To ensure adequate data privacy and to make the tool open‐source, a deep learning‐based generative model was used to generate a cohort of synthetic subjects that underpins the tool. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Cell and gene therapy (CGT) describes a broad category of medicinal products with potential applications to prevent and treat human disease in multiple therapeutic areas. These therapies leverage the use of modified nucleic acids, altered cells or tissue, or both. The modality, mechanism, route of administration, and therapeutic indication for a CGT product will influence the challenges and opportunities for early clinical development, some of which may be highly specific to the product under consideration. Both the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) encourage early interaction between sponsor and health authority to align on key elements of the CGT development program. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since 2005, more than 40 new medicines for the treatment of type 2 diabetes have been introduced on the market. These consist of 15 new active substances establishing three new classes of non‐insulin products, and several new or modified insulin products and combinations. The approval of these products in Europe is regulated via the centralized procedure at the European Medicines Agency. Demonstration of benefit with regard to improved glucose control remains the principal outcome required from confirmatory studies to demonstrate efficacy. For the majority of these new medicines approved since 2005, cardiovascular outcome trials have now been completed, and have invariably supported the cardiovascular safety of these products. In some of these trials additional important benefits have been observed, for instance, a reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events and improvement of renal outcome. The existing regulatory framework and the continuous adaption of regulatory requirements to emerging developments will continue to guide the approval of new products in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Conditional (European Medicines Agency) or accelerated (U.S. Food and Drug Administration) approval of drugs allows earlier access to promising new treatments that address unmet medical needs. Certain post‐marketing requirements must typically be met in order to obtain full approval, such as conducting a new post‐market clinical trial. We study the applicability of the recently developed harmonic mean χ2‐test to this conditional or accelerated approval framework. The proposed approach can be used both to support the design of the post‐market trial and the analysis of the combined evidence provided by both trials. Other methods considered are the two‐trials rule, Fisher's criterion and Stouffer's method. In contrast to some of the traditional methods, the harmonic mean χ2‐test always requires a post‐market clinical trial. If the p‐value from the pre‐market clinical trial is ≪0.025, a smaller sample size for the post‐market clinical trial is needed than with the two‐trials rule. For illustration, we apply the harmonic mean χ2‐test to a drug which received conditional (and later full) market licensing by the EMA. A simulation study is conducted to study the operating characteristics of the harmonic mean χ2‐test and two‐trials rule in more detail. We finally investigate the applicability of these two methods to compute the power at interim of an ongoing post‐market trial. These results are expected to aid in the design and assessment of the required post‐market studies in terms of the level of evidence required for full approval. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) have robust collaboration and dialogue around the need for data and the inclusion of pregnant and lactating individuals in clinical trials. Despite this collaboration, the two agencies have their own standards for the format and content of labeling for these populations. To understand these differences, the pregnancy and lactation labeling sections for 31 approved drugs were compared, and trends were assessed for use of language concordance and discordance related to use during pregnancy and lactation between the 2 agencies. Further analysis evaluated the presence of human data included in the labeling. The EMA and the FDA had high discordance between pregnancy and lactation labeling language, in 68% and 71% of labeling, respectively, and only 10% of pregnancy labeling and 16% of lactation labeling include human data. Concordance in labeling language is not the norm but occurs when there is a sizeable body of human data, animal data suggesting a particular safety issue, drug mechanism of action information, or disease‐specific considerations. This study highlights the need for more human data to inform prescribing decisions in these populations. The results also suggest that there is an opportunity for alignment in labeling across regions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prior to deployment of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) vaccines in the European Union in 2021, a high vaccine uptake leading to an unprecedented volume of safety data from spontaneous reports and real‐world evidence, was anticipated. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) implemented specific activities to ensure enhanced monitoring of emerging vaccine safety information, including intensive monitoring of reports of adverse events of special interest and the use of observed‐to‐expected analyses. The EMA also commissioned several independent observational studies using a large network of electronic healthcare databases and primary data collection via mobile and web‐based applications. This preparedness was key for two high‐profile safety signals: thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome (TTS), a new clinical entity associated with adenovirus‐vectored vaccines, and myocarditis/pericarditis with messenger RNA vaccines. With no existing case definition nor background rates, the signal of TTS posed particular challenges. Nevertheless, it was rapidly identified, evaluated, contextualized and the risk minimized thanks to close surveillance and an efficient use of available evidence, clinical expertise and flexible regulatory tools. The two signals illustrated the complementarity between spontaneous and real‐world data, the former enabling rapid risk identification and communication, the latter enabling further characterization. The COVID‐19 pandemic has tremendously enhanced the development of tools and methods to harness the unprecedented volume of safety data generated for the vaccines. Areas for further improvement include the need for better and harmonized data collection across Member States (e.g., stratified vaccine exposure) to support signal evaluation in all population groups, risk contextualization, and safety communication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the availability of a number of different classes of therapeutic agents with proven efficacy in heart failure, the clinical course of heart failure patients is characterized by a reduction in life expectancy, a progressive decline in health-related quality of life and functional status, as well as a high risk of hospitalization. New approaches are needed to address the unmet medical needs of this patient population. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) is undertaking a revision of its Guideline on Clinical Investigation of Medicinal Products for the Treatment of Chronic Heart Failure. The draft version of the Guideline was released for public consultation in January 2016. The Cardiovascular Round Table of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC), in partnership with the Heart Failure Association of the ESC, convened a dedicated two-day workshop to discuss three main topic areas of major interest in the field and addressed in this draft EMA guideline: (i) assessment of efficacy (i.e. endpoint selection and statistical analysis); (ii) clinical trial design (i.e. issues pertaining to patient population, optimal medical therapy, run-in period); and (iii) research approaches for testing novel therapeutic principles (i.e. cell therapy). This paper summarizes the key outputs from the workshop, reviews areas of expert consensus, and identifies gaps that require further research or discussion. Collaboration between regulators, industry, clinical trialists, cardiologists, health technology assessment bodies, payers, and patient organizations is critical to address the ongoing challenge of heart failure and to ensure the development and market access of new therapeutics in a scientifically robust, practical and safe way. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Protein kinase inhibitors (PKIs) used in oncology can induce severe and even fatal hepatotoxicity. Several PKIs are registered within a certain class to target a specific kinase. No systematic comparison of the reported hepatotoxicity and clinical guidance for monitoring and management of hepatotoxic events between the various PKI summaries of product characteristics (SmPC) is yet available. A systematic analysis of data on 21 hepatotoxicity parameters obtained from the SmPCs and European public assessment reports (EPARs) of European Medicines Agency‐approved antineoplastic PKIs (n = 55) has been conducted. The median reported incidence (range) of all grades of aspartate aminotransferase (AST) elevations was 16.9% (2.0%–86.4%) for PKI monotherapy, with 2.1% (0.0%–10.3%) being grade 3/4 and for all grades alanine aminotransferase (ALT) elevations 17.6% (2.0%–85.5%), with 3.0% (0.0%–25.0%) being grade 3/4. Fatalities due to hepatotoxicity were reported for 22 out of 47 PKIs (monotherapy) and for 5 out of 8 PKIs (combination therapy). A maximum grade of grade 4 and grade 3 hepatotoxicity was reported for 45% (n = 25) and 6% (n = 3), respectively. Liver parameter monitoring recommendations were present in 47 of the 55 SmPCs. Dose reductions were recommended for 18 PKIs. Discontinuation was recommended for patients meeting Hy's law criteria (16 out of 55 SmPCs). Severe hepatotoxic events are reported in approximately 50% of the analyzed SmPCs and EPARs. Differences in the degree of hepatotoxicity are apparent. Although liver parameter monitoring recommendations are present in the vast majority of the analyzed PKI SmPCs, the clinical guidance for hepatotoxicity was not standardized. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Selective safety data collection may simplify late‐stage clinical trials and improve their feasibility. However, the impact on increasing overall drug safety knowledge is unknown. The aim of this study is to evaluate how much safety information is added to the drug label based on large trials after initial authorization. Changes made to the "undesirable effects" section of the drug label of cardiometabolic agents approved between 2000 and 2020 based on the results of large (> 1,000 patient) clinical trials submitted to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) were evaluated. The study focused on glucose lowering, antithrombotic, and lipid‐modifying agents. The primary outcome was the number of changes in adverse drug reactions in the drug label. The EMA reviewed 55 large trials concerning 25 cardiometabolic agents after the initial marketing authorization, which included 402,444 patients. Ultimately, 38 trials (69%) resulted in a safety section update, whereas 17 trials (31%) did not. Changes in listed adverse drug reactions were made following 19 trials (35%) for 12 agents: 77 adverse drug reactions were added, 11 were deleted, and the frequencies of 43 were changed. Most changes in adverse drug reactions arose from trials with antithrombotic agents (88%) and trials performed in a new population (92%). Large trials for cardiometabolic agents reported after authorization add limited new safety information on adverse drug reactions, especially when performed in the population studied prior to approval. This suggests that selective safety data collection does not reduce learnings from late stage cardiometabolic trials in populations comprehensively studied before. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Due to significant risks to the offspring after intrauterine exposure, the European Medicines Agency issued recommendations in 2014 and 2018 restricting the use of valproate (VPA) in women of childbearing age (WOCA). We aimed to evaluate their impact in the Emilia‐Romagna region (ERR) of Northern Italy. Methods: Using administrative databases, we identified all the ERR residents who received antiseizure medication (ASM) prescriptions from 2010 to 2020. Time series of incidence rates by sex and age group were evaluated for all ASMs. Focusing on VPA, an interrupted time series analysis was applied to assess the impact of the restrictions in WOCA with epilepsy (WOCA‐E) and WOCA with psychiatric disorders (WOCA‐P). We then evaluated the chronological order of ASM prescriptions with regard to the position of VPA. Results: Incidence rates of VPA prescriptions overall decreased over time. A significant decrease was observed only for females. The effect was stronger for WOCA, after both the first (incidence rate ratio [IRR] =.85, 95% confidence interval [CI] =.75–.96) and the second restriction (IRR =.67, 95% CI =.55–.82). The decrease was significant after the second restriction both for WOCA‐E (IRR =.43, 95% CI =.27–.68) and for WOCA‐P (IRR =.49, 95% CI =.35–.70), as well as VPA as a first prescription in both populations. VPA prescriptions as further choice did not show the same trend. Significance: After the regulatory restrictions, an overall significant decline in the use of VPA in WOCA was observed in ERR. The second restriction has been effective in consolidating the prescription trend. However, VPA appears still to be a commonly used drug in WOCA when other ASMs have failed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Seasonal influenza epidemics are managed through vaccination each winter in the European Union, to prevent infections, complications, and deaths. As circulating virus strains vary unpredictably, vaccines are reformulated annually, and their safety monitored rapidly and continuously at the start of each season, following European Medicines Agency guidelines.Seasonal influenza epidemics are managed through vaccination each winter in the European Union, to prevent infections, complications, and deaths. As circulating virus strains vary unpredictably, vaccines are reformulated annually, and their safety monitored rapidly and continuously at the start of each season, following European Medicines Agency guidelines. Methods: This enhanced safety surveillance study assessed pre‐specified and other adverse events (AEs) occurring within 7 days of GSK's inactivated quadrivalent seasonal influenza vaccine (IIV4) in children and adults in Spain and Germany. As the study was conducted during the COVID‐19 pandemic (2021/2022 season), data were collected electronically, using a web portal or call center. Results: Safety was assessed in 737 participants (median age 49 and 9 years in Germany and Spain, respectively, 19.3% with a chronic medical condition). After Dose 1 and Dose 2, respectively, 332 (45.1%) and 5 (26.3%) participants reported at least one AE, primarily pre‐specified AEs. The most common AEs after Dose 1 (adults and children) were injection site pain, swelling or erythema, headache, and fatigue. After Dose 2 (in children), the most common AEs were injection site pain, rhinorrhea, fatigue, and decreased appetite. No new or unexpected safety issues were identified. Conclusion: This study supports and confirms the safety profile of GSK's IIV4 in all age groups with a vaccine indication. The new electronic safety reporting method (with response rates of 75.4% following Dose 1 and 100% following Dose 2) provides an alternative for future studies to reduce the burden on sites or in case site visits are not feasible. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aging processes alter the body's response to a medicine's pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and susceptibility to adverse effects. In addition, older adults, especially the oldest age category (85+ years) or those with multiple chronic health conditions, polypharmacy, or frailty, are under‐represented in clinical trials of new medicines. Evidence‐based prescribing guidelines based on these trials might result in inappropriate prescription, increasing the risk of drug interactions and adverse drug reactions. Regulators face a conundrum between acquiring sufficient data and putting susceptible patients at risk in the early stages of a development program, when little is known about a medicine's effects. Healthcare professionals and patients deserve to have access to clear information on the knowledge and evidence gaps leading to the approval of a new medicinal product. This should also include proper consideration of the population of older patients. In the present article, we outline the approach taken by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) regulators in the assessment of a new medicine's dossier. [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]

Biosimilar monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have been approved in the European Union since 2013 and have been demonstrated to reduce healthcare costs and to expand patient access. Biosimilarity is mainly established on the basis of demonstrated similarity of relevant quality attributes (QAs), determined by comprehensive physiochemical and functional analyses, and demonstration of bioequivalence. In addition, comparative efficacy/safety studies have been requested for all approved biosimilar mAbs so far, although the European Medicines Agency (EMA) Guidelines state that such confirmatory clinical trials may not be necessary in specific circumstances. In order to evaluate the degree of analytical similarity, how residual uncertainty regarding biosimilarity was resolved, and the value of clinical data, we analyzed the quality and clinical data packages for authorized adalimumab (7 products) and bevacizumab (5 products) biosimilars. The percentage of biosimilar batches meeting the similarity range for QAs, as defined by the biosimilar manufacturer based on a comprehensive characterization of the EU reference product (RP), was determined and clinical data were reviewed. Our analyses show that QAs of approved adalimumab and bevacizumab biosimilars have varying concordance with the EU‐RP similarity range. In this study, we found that clinical efficacy data played a limited role in addressing quality concerns. Therefore, we encourage a regulatory review of the standards for clinical data requirements for mAb and fusion protein biosimilars. This study outlines a quality data driven approach for facilitating tailored clinical programs for biosimilars. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Real‐world data/evidence (RWD/RWE) may provide insightful information on medicines' clinical effects to guide regulatory decisions. While its contribution has been recognized for safety monitoring and disease epidemiology across medicines' life cycles, using RWD/RWE to demonstrate efficacy requires further evaluation. This study aimed to (i) characterize RWD/RWE presented by applicants to support claims on medicines' efficacy within initial marketing authorization applications (MAAs) and extension of indication applications (EoIs), and (ii) analyze the contribution of RWD/RWE to regulatory decisions on medicines' benefit–risk profile. RWD/RWE was included to support efficacy in 32 MAAs and 14 EoIs submitted 2018–2019. Of these, RWD/RWE was part of the preauthorization package of 16 MAAs and 10 EoIs, and was (i) considered supporting the regulatory decision in 10 applications (five MAAs, five EoIs), (ii) considered not supporting the regulatory decision in 11 (seven MAAs, four EoIs), and (iii) not addressed at all in the evaluation of 5 applications (four MAAs, one EoI). Common limitations of submitted RWD/RWE included missing data, lack of representativeness of populations, small sample size, absence of an adequate or prespecified analysis plan, and risk of several types of bias. The suitability of RWD/RWE in a given application still requires a case‐by‐case analysis considering its purpose of use, implying reflection on the data source, together with its assets and limitations, study objectives and designs, and the overall data package issued. Early interactions and continuous dialogues with regulators and relevant stakeholders is key to optimize fit‐for‐purpose RWE generation, enabling its broader use in medicines development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In clinical oncology, systemic 5‐fluorouracil (5‐FU) and its oral pro‐drugs are used to treat a broad group of solid tumours. Patients with dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) enzyme deficiency are at elevated risk of toxicity if treated with standard doses of 5‐FU. DPYD genotyping and measurements of plasma uracil concentration (DPD phenotyping) can be applied as tests for DPD deficiency. In April 2020, the European Medicines Agency recommended pre‐treatment DPD testing to reduce the risk of 5‐FU‐related toxicity. Objectives: The objective of this study is to present the current evidence for DPD testing in routine oncological practice. Methods: Two systematic literature searches were performed following the PRISMA guidelines. We identified studies examining the possible benefit of DPYD genotyping or DPD phenotyping on the toxicity risk. Findings: Nine and 12 studies met the criteria for using DPYD genotyping and DPD phenotyping, respectively. Conclusions: The evidence supporting either DPYD genotyping or DPD phenotyping as pre‐treatment tests to reduce 5‐FU toxicity is poor. Further evidence is still needed to fully understand and guide clinicians to dose by DPD activity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

The current regulatory criterion for bioequivalence of narrow therapeutic index (NTI) drugs in the European Union requires that the 90% confidence interval for the ratio of the population geometric means of the test product compared with the reference for area under the plasma concentration‐time curve (AUC), and in certain cases maximum plasma drug concentration (Cmax), to be included within the tighter acceptance range of 90.00–111.11%. As a consequence, sponsors need to recruit a higher number of subjects to demonstrate bioequivalence and this may be seen as increasing the burden for the development of generics. This "one‐size‐fits‐all" criterion is particularly questionable when the within‐subject variability of the reference product is moderate to high. As an alternative, we propose a further refined statistical approach where the acceptance range is narrowed based on the within‐subject variability of the reference product of the NTI drug, similar to the one used for widening the standard 80.00–125.00% acceptance range for highly variable drugs. The 80.00–125.00% acceptance range is narrowed, only if the within‐subject variability is lower than 30%, down to the current NTI acceptance range of 90.00–111.11% when the within‐subject variability is 13.93% or lower. Examples within the current European Medicines Agency list of NTI drugs show a considerable reduction in required sample size for drugs like tacrolimus and colchicine, where the predicted within‐subject variability is 20–30%. In these cases, this approach is less sample size demanding without any expected increase in the therapeutic risks, since patients treated with reference products with moderate to high within‐subject variability are frequently exposed to bioavailability differences larger than 10%. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Therapeutic monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have emerged as the fastest growing drug class. As such, mAbs are increasingly being co‐prescribed with other drugs, including antiseizure medications (ASMs). Although mAbs do not share direct targets or mechanisms of disposition with small‐molecule drugs (SMDs), combining therapeutics of both types can increase the risk of adverse effects and treatment failure. The primary goal of this literature review was identifying mAb‐ASM combinations requiring the attention of professionals who are treating patients with epilepsy. Systematic PubMed and Embase searches (1980–2021) were performed for terms relating to mAbs, ASMs, drug interactions, and their combinations. Additional information was obtained from documents from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Evidence was critically appraised ‐ key issues calling for clinicians' consideration and important knowledge gaps were identified, and practice recommendations were developed by a group of pharmacists and epileptologists. The majority of interactions were attributed to the indirect effects of cytokine‐modulating antibodies on drug metabolism. Conversely, strong inhibitors or inducers of drug‐metabolizing enzymes or drug transporters could potentially interact with the cytotoxic payload of antibody‐drug conjugates, and ASMs could alter mAb biodistribution. In addition, mAbs could potentiate adverse ASM effects. Unfortunately, few studies involved ASMs, requiring the formulation of class‐based recommendations. Based on the current literature, most mAb‐ASM interactions do not warrant special precautions. However, specific combinations should preferably be avoided, whereas others require monitoring and potentially adjustment of the ASM doses. Reduced drug efficacy or adverse effects could manifest days to weeks after mAb treatment onset or discontinuation, complicating the implication of drug interactions in potentially deleterious outcomes. Prescribers who treat patients with epilepsy should be familiar with mAb pharmacology to better anticipate potential mAb‐ASM interactions and avoid toxicity, loss of seizure control, or impaired efficacy of mAb treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Information derived from routinely collected real‐world data has for a long time been used to support regulatory decision making on the safety of drugs and has more recently been used to support marketing authorization submissions to regulators. There is a lack of detailed information on the use and types of this real‐world evidence (RWE) as submitted to regulators. We used resources held by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to describe the characteristics of RWE included in new marketing authorization applications (MAAs) and extensions of indication (EOIs) for already authorized products submitted to the EMA in 2018 and 2019. For MAAs, 63 of 158 products (39.9%) contained RWE with a total of 117 studies. For 31.7% of these products, the RWE submitted was derived from data collected before the planned authorization. The most common data sources were registries (60.3%) followed by hospital data (31.7%). RWE was mainly included to support safety (87.3%) and efficacy (49.2%) with cohort studies being the most frequently used study design (88.9%). For EOIs, 28 of 153 products (18.3%) contained RWE with a total of 36 studies. For 57.1% of these products, studies were conducted prior to the EOIs. RWE sources were mainly registries (35.6%) and hospital data (27.0%). RWE was typically used to support safety (82.1%) and efficacy (53.6%). Cohort studies were the most commonly used study design (87.6%). We conclude that there is widespread use of RWE to support evaluation of MAAs and EOIs submitted to the EMA and identify areas where further research is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Real‐world data/real‐world evidence (RWD/RWE) are considered to have a great potential to complement, in some cases, replace the evidence generated through randomized controlled trials. By tradition, use of RWD/RWE in the postauthorization phase is well‐known, whereas published evidence of use in the pre‐authorization phase of medicines development is lacking. The primary aim of this study was to identify and quantify the role of potential use of RWD/RWE (RWE signatures) during the pre‐authorization phase, as presented in the initial marketing authorization applications of new medicines centrally evaluated with a positive opinion in 2018–2019 (n = 111) by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Data for the study was retrieved from the evaluation overviews of the European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs), which reflect the scientific conclusions of the assessment process and are accessible through the EMA website. RWE signatures were extracted into an RWE Data Matrix, including 11 categories divided over 5 stages of the drug development lifecycle. Nearly all EPARs included RWE signatures for the discovery (98.2%) and life‐cycle management (100.0%). Half of them included RWE signatures for the full development phase (48.6%) and for supporting regulatory decisions at the registration (46.8%), whereas over a third (35.1%) included RWE signatures for the early development. RWE signatures were more often seen for orphan and conditionally approved medicines. Oncology, hematology, and anti‐infectives stood out as therapeutic areas with most RWE signatures in their full development phase. The findings bring unprecedented insights about the vast use of RWD/RWE in drug development supporting the regulatory decision making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Allergen exposure chambers (AECs) can be used for controlled exposure to allergenic and non‐allergenic airborne particles in an enclosed environment, in order to (i) characterize the pathological features of respiratory diseases and (ii) contribute to and accelerate the clinical development of pharmacological treatments and allergen immunotherapy for allergic disease of the respiratory tract (such as allergic rhinitis, allergic rhinoconjunctivitis, and allergic asthma). In the guidelines of the European Medicines Agency for the clinical development of products for allergen immunotherapy (AIT), the role of AECs in determining primary endpoints in dose‐finding Phase II trials is emphasized. Although methodologically insulated from the variability of natural pollen exposure, chamber models remain confined to supporting secondary, rather than primary, endpoints in Phase III registration trials. The need for further validation in comparison with field exposure is clearly mandated. On this basis, the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) initiated a Task Force in 2015 charged to gain a better understanding of how AECs can generate knowledge about respiratory allergies and can contribute to the clinical development of treatments. Researchers working with AECs worldwide were asked to provide technical information in eight sections: (i) dimensions and structure of the AEC, (ii) AEC staff, (iii) airflow, air processing, and operating conditions, (iv) particle dispersal, (v) pollen/particle counting, (vi) safety and non‐contamination measures, (vii) procedures for symptom assessments, (viii) tested allergens/substances and validation procedures. On this basis, a minimal set of technical requirements for AECs applied to the field of allergology is proposed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]