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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

The European Medicines Agency's (EMA) product‐specific bioequivalence guidelines outline harmonized regulatory requirements for studies to demonstrate bioequivalence for products that may have particular needs due to their pharmacokinetics, in addition to those outlined in general guidance. As such they are potentially very useful to the pharmaceutical industry in the development of generic medicinal products and to regulatory authorities for harmonized decision‐making. Since their introduction in 2013, EMA product‐specific bioequivalence guidelines continue to increase in number, and as of June 2017, encompass a number of different pharmacotherapeutic groups and pharmaceutical forms. This article further elucidates the processes involved for stakeholders and reviews the Agency's experience with the development of these guidelines, including the scientific issues witnessed with their advancement. A comparison with the United States Food and Drug Administration approach to similar guidelines is also provided. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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