Search

In 2014, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) released for comment a draft reflection paper on the use of patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures in oncology studies. A twelve-member International Society for Quality of Life Research (ISOQOL) taskforce was convened to coordinate the ISOQOL response. Twenty-one ISOQOL members provided detailed comments and suggestions on the paper: 81 % from academia and 19 % from industry. Taskforce members consolidated and further refined these comments and shared the recommendations with the wider ISOQOL membership. A final response was submitted to the EMA in November 2014. The impending publication of the EMA reflection paper presents a valuable opportunity for ISOQOL to comment on the current direction of EMA PRO guidance and strategy. The EMA paper, although focused on cancer, could serve as a model for using PROs in other conditions, as it provides a useful update surrounding some of the design issues common to all trial research including PRO endpoints. However, we believe there are a number of additional areas in need of greater consideration. The purpose of this commentary is therefore to highlight the strengths of this timely and potentially useful document, but also to outline areas that may warrant further discussion. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Public policies and regulations strongly influence research and manufacturing in pharmaceutical sector. Therefore, it is of critical importance that these policies and regulations are of high quality as well as appropriately balanced between general rules and detailed solutions. The process of public consultations prolongs adoption of novel documents. On the other hand, comments from different stakeholders like academia, industry, public administration and patients allow 360-degree critical evaluation of the document and a better understanding of the topic. This mini-review summarizes the contributions of numerous members of ORBIS project team in open consultations of draft regulatory documents published by European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH). ORBIS project feedback on the Pharmaceutical Strategy for Europe is also presented. ORBIS project members contributed to open consultations of two ICH draft guidelines, and three EMA draft documents. ORBIS project was also active during the European Commission's efforts to develop Pharmaceutical Strategy for Europe. The interaction between representatives of academic and industrial sectors allowed to form balanced comments. We hope that this paper will inspire more researchers to participate in future open consultations on public policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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]

The diagnosis of idiopathic short stature (ISS) refers to children who are considerably shorter than average without any identified medical reason. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorised marketing of recombinant human growth hormone (hGH) for ISS in 2003, while the European Medicines Agency (EMA) refused it in 2007. This paper examines the arguments for these decisions as detailed in selected FDA and EMA documents. It combines argumentative analysis with an approach to policy analysis called 'What's the problem represented to be'. It argues that the FDA presents its approval as an argument for equity of access to the treatment (given that hGH was already authorised for other indications), describing short stature as a potential disadvantage, and assuming that height normalisation is a clinically meaningful result. The EMA, instead, refuses marketing authorisation with an argument that there is an imbalance of risks and benefits, describing ISS as a healthy condition, and arguing that hGH should provide some psychosocial and/or quality of life benefits to children with ISS other than height gain. This paper then discusses how these arguments could be read through different models of disability, particularly through the medical model of disability and the relational, experiential, and cultural understandings of disability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Ulipristal acetate (UPA) is a medical treatment for uterine fibroids and was authorized for surgical pre-treatment in 2012 after the conduct of the PEARL I and II randomized controlled trials and for intermittent treatment after the observational PEARL III and IV trials. However, UPA came into disrepute due to its temporary suspension in 2017 and 2020 because of an apparent association with liver injury. This clinical opinion paper aims to review the process of marketing authorization and implementation of UPA, in order to provide all involved stakeholders with recommendations for the introduction of future drugs. Before marketing authorization, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) states that Phase III registration trials should evaluate relevant outcomes in a representative population, while comparing to gold-standard treatment. This review shows that the representativeness of the study populations in all PEARL trials was limited, surgical outcomes were not evaluated and intermittent treatment was assessed without comparative groups. Implementation into clinical practice was extensive, with 900 000 prescribed treatment cycles in 5 years in Europe and Canada combined. Extremely high costs are involved in developing and evaluating pre-marketing studies in new drugs, influencing trial design and relevance of chosen outcomes, thereby impeding clinical applicability. It is vitally important that the marketing implementation after authorization is regulated in such way that necessary evidence is generated before widespread prescription of a new drug. All stakeholders, from pharmaceutical companies to authorizing bodies, governmental funding bodies and medical professionals should be aware of their role and take responsibility for their part in this process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Diclofenac is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory human and veterinary medicine widely detected in European surface waters, especially downstream from Wastewater Treatment Plants. With some notable exceptions, veterinary uses of diclofenac in Europe are greatly restricted, so wastewater is the key Europe-wide exposure route for wildlife that may be exposed via the aquatic environment. Proposed Environmental Quality Standards (EQS) which include an assessment of avian exposure from secondary poisoning are under consideration by the European Commission (EC) to support the aims of the Water Framework Directive (WFD). In this paper we summarise information on avian toxicity plus laboratory and field evidence on diclofenac bioaccumulation and bioconcentration in avian food items. A safe diclofenac threshold value for birds of 3 μg kg−1 wet weight in food was previously derived by the European Medicines Agency and should be adopted as an EQS under the WFD to maintain consistency across European regulations. This value is also consistent with values of 1.16–3.99 µg kg−1diet proposed by the EC under the WFD. Water-based EQS of 5.4 or 230 ng L−1 in freshwater are derived from these dietary standards, respectively, by the EC and by us, with the large difference caused primarily by use of different values for bioaccumulation. A simple assessment of potential water-based EQS compliance is performed for both of these latter values against reported diclofenac concentrations in samples collected from European freshwaters. This shows that exceedances of the EC-derived EQS would be very widespread across Europe while exceedances of the EQS derived by us are confined to a relatively small number of sites in only some Member States. Since there is no evidence for any declines in European waterbird populations associated with diclofenac exposure we recommend use of conservative EQS of 3 µg kg−1diet or 230 ng L−1 in water to protect birds from diclofenac secondary poisoning through the food chain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

One year since the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, rapid response measures have been implemented internationally to mitigate the spread of the virus. Following rapid and successful pre-clinical and human trials, several vaccines have been authorised for use across Europe through the European Medicines Agency and national regulatory authorities. Clinical trials have shown promising results including important reductions in disease severity, hospitalisation and mortality. In order to maximise the public health benefit of available vaccines, there is a pressing need to vaccinate a large proportion of the population. Internationally, this has prompted coordination of existing services at enormous scale, and development and implementation of novel vaccination strategies to ensure maximum inoculation over the shortest possible timeframe. Pharmacists are being promoted as healthcare professionals that enhance roll-out of COVID-19 vaccination programmes. This paper aims to summarise current policy and practice in relation to pharmacists' involvement in COVID-19 vaccination in 13 countries across Europe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

• Europe needs a sustainable system for timely, high-quality evidence on vaccine benefits and risks. • European vaccine stakeholders have different perspectives but similar information needs. • The ADVANCE project (now VAC4EU) has developed and tested a system to generate the necessary evidence. The influenza A/H1N1 pandemic in 2009 taught us that the monitoring of vaccine benefits and risks in Europe had potential for improvement if different public and private stakeholders would collaborate better (public health institutes (PHIs), regulatory authorities, research institutes, vaccine manufacturers). The Innovative Medicines Initiative (IMI) subsequently issued a competitive call to establish a public-private partnership to build and test a novel system for monitoring vaccine benefits and risks in Europe. The ADVANCE project (Accelerated Development of Vaccine benefit-risk Collaboration in Europe) was created as a result. The objective of this paper is to describe the perspectives of key stakeholder groups of the ADVANCE consortium for vaccine benefit-risk monitoring and their views on how to build a European system addressing the needs and challenges of such monitoring. These perspectives and needs were assessed at the start of the ADVANCE project by the European Medicines Agency together with representatives of the main stakeholders in the field of vaccines within and outside the ADVANCE consortium (i.e. research institutes, public health institutes, medicines regulatory authorities, vaccine manufacturers, patient associations). Although all stakeholder representatives stated they conduct vaccine benefit-risk monitoring according to their own remit, needs and obligations, they are faced with similar challenges and needs for improved collaboration. A robust, rapid system yielding high-quality information on the benefits and risks of vaccines would therefore support their decision making. ADVANCE has developed such a system and has tested its performance in a series of proof of concept (POC) studies. The system, how it was used and the results from the POC studies are described in the papers in this supplementary issue. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper reviews the main tools for communicating benefit-risk medicines information to patients that are used, or could be used, by pharmaceutical regulators. One highly successful tool from the food safety sector (front-of-package traffic-light labelling) and the mental models approach (which provides a framework for developing new tools) are also reviewed as they show great promise for being usefully adapted to the pharmaceutical context. The evolution of benefit-risk medicines communication is first contextualised within the broader risk communication literature. Three distinct goals are then made explicit before critically examining the evidence for and against tools developed in the US (e.g. at the Food and Drug Administration [FDA]) and Europe (e.g. at the European Medicines Agency [EMA]). These goals are (i) sharing information (e.g. publishing clinical trial and adverse event data online); (ii) changing patients' beliefs by conveying factual knowledge (e.g. patient information leaflets and the drugs facts box); and (iii) changing behaviour (e.g. patient alert cards and warning labels). The mental models approach and traffic-light labelling, developed outside the pharmaceutical context, are then examined. Ultimately, the paper provides a helicopter view of the variety of benefit-risk communication tools that are used, or could be used, by pharmaceutical regulators in the US and Europe. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: The use of a controlled-release capsule of monensin for the prevention of ketosis in dairy cows, nowadays, has become widespread. In Europe, this is the only use of monensin permitted in dairy cows. Literature regarding the use of this molecule as a feed additive or controlled-release capsule is extensive, and results reported across studies vary with respect to the mode and dose of administration, target animals, and period of lactation. Therefore, the aim of this review was to summarize the literature observations regarding the use of monensin for the prevention of ketosis in dairy cows during the transition period. Since the approval by the European Medicines Agency in 2013 of a monensin controlled-release capsule (CRC) for the prevention of ketosis in dairy cows, there has been widespread use across Europe. In recent decades, several papers have investigated the effects of monensin used as a CRC or as a feed additive to improve cattle energy metabolism and improve feed efficiency. Since the CRC is the only form of monensin permitted in Europe in dairy cows, the objective of this review was to report and summarize observations from the literature on the effects of this treatment in transition cows. The peer-reviewed literature published from 1997 was scanned, and papers written in English were evaluated for eligibility. Only papers evaluating the use of monensin in dairy cows for the prevention of ketosis during the transition period were reviewed. In total, 42 papers met the required criteria and were included in this review. The major findings focused on cow metabolism and health, rumen fermentation and milk production and quality. Overall, the review of the existing literature confirmed that monensin delivered as a CRC during the transition period has effects of different magnitude compared to other forms, doses or durations of administration. Studies agree on the antiketotic effects of this treatment, showing evidence of an increased propionate production in the rumen, reduced blood β-hydroxybutyrate, and improved liver function in treated cows, mainly resulting in reduced incidence of peripartum disease. On the contrary, the effects of CRC on ammonia production and rumen microflora are less robust than those reported for other forms. Of importance for the European market is the well-documented absence of any negative impact on milk and cheese production and composition using the CRC treatment. [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]

Regulatory guidelines are necessary to standardize the evaluation procedure in bioequivalence. Revisions in the guidelines occur in order to resolve any previously unclear issues and to address new needs. In this paper, the authors discuss the major regulatory requirements for bioequivalence assessment before and after the EMA guidelines of 2010 and unveil their differences. The authors compiled this review following the critical exploration of literature articles and regulatory guidance documents. This was achieved through searching MEDLINE, Scopus, and the official EMA site. The authors found, in the post-2010 era, that the major differences in the regulatory framework refer to: the choice of clinical designs, the assessment of highly variable drugs, biowaivers, the pharmacokinetics parameters used, and the explicit definition for the use of metabolite data, enantiomers, and endogenous substances. Also, product-specific guidelines have started to be issued, while recommendations are now provided for some special formulations like orodispersible tablets. Other issues were elucidated like studies in the fasting or fed state and the dissolution assessment. The EMA regulatory framework on bioequivalence changed significantly in the post-2010 era. Many issues are now defined more explicitly, while others are newly introduced. However, some issues remain unresolved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

On August 5, 2013, a marketing authorization valid throughout the European Union (EU) was issued for pomalidomide in combination with dexamethasone for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma (MM) who have received at least two prior treatment regimens, including both lenalidomide and bortezomib, and have demonstrated disease progression on the last therapy. Pomalidomide is an immunomodulating agent. The recommended starting dose of pomalidomide is 4 mg once daily taken on days 1-21 of repeated 28-day cycles. The main evidence of efficacy for pomalidomide in MM was based on a phase III multicenter, randomized, open-label study (CC-4047-MM-003) in which pomalidomide plus low-dose dexamethasone therapy (POM1LoDEX) was compared with high-dose dexamethasone alone (HiDEX) in previously treated adult patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma who had received at least two prior treatment regimens, including both lenalidomide and bortezomib, and had demonstrated disease progression on the last therapy. For the intent-to-treat population, median progression-free survival based on International Myeloma Working Group criteria was 15.7 weeks (95% confidence interval [CI]: 13.0-20.1) in the POM1LoDEX group versus 8.0 weeks (95% CI: 7.0-9.0) in theHiDEX group (log-rank p value,.001). Overall survival (secondary endpoint) was also different in the two treatment groups (hazard ratio 0.53 [95% CI: 0.37-0.74]).Themost commonly reported adverse reactions to pomalidomide in clinical studies were anemia (45.7%), neutropenia (45.3%) and thrombocytopenia (27%), fatigue (28.3%), pyrexia (21%), peripheral edema (13%), and infections including pneumonia (10.7%). Peripheral neuropathy adverse reactionswere reported in 12.3% of patients, and venous embolic or thrombotic (VTE) adverse reactions were reported in 3.3%of patients. Pomalidomide is expected to be teratogenic. This paper summarizes the scientific review of the application leading to approval in the EU. The detailed scientific assessment report and product information, including the summary of product characteristics, are available on the EMA website (http://www.ema.europa.eu). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Axitinib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 1 (VEGFR-1), VEGFR-2, and VEGFR-3. Based on the positive opinion from the European Medicines Agency (EMA), a marketing authorization valid throughout the European Union (EU) was issued for the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) after failure of prior treatment with sunitinib or a cytokine. The demonstration of clinical benefit for axitinib was based on a phase III, randomized, open-label, multicenter study of axitinib compared with sorafenib in patients with advanced RCC after failure of a prior systemic first-line regimen containing one or more of the following agents: sunitinib, bevacizumab plus interferon-α, temsirolimus, or cytokines. In the primary analysis, a 2-month increase in median progression-free survival (PFS) was observed for axitinib compared with sorafenib (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.665; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.544-0.812; p < .0001). In the subgroup of patients with a prior cytokine-containing regimen, the increase in median PFS associated with axitinib was 5.4 months (updated analysis, HR: 0.519; 95% CI: 0.375-0.720; p < .0001). In the subgroup of patients with prior sunitinib treatment, the increase in median PFS was 1.4 months (updated analysis, HR: 0.736; 95% CI: 0.578-0.937; p = .0063). The analysis of overall survival showed no statistically significant survival benefit of axitinib over sorafenib in patients previously treated with cytokine-containing regimens (HR: 0.813; 95% CI: 0.556-1.191) or sunitinib (HR: 0.997; 95% CI: 0.782-1.270). The most common treatment-related adverse events associated with axitinib included diarrhea, hypertension, fatigue, nausea, decreased appetite, dysphonia, and palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia. Most of these events were mild or moderate in severity. This paper summarizes the scientific review of the application leading to approval in the EU. The detailed scientific assessment report and product information, including the summary of product characteristics, are available on the EMA website (http://www.ema.europa.eu). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study seeks to investigate the impact of strengthened requirements for clinical evaluation for medical device manufacturers in Europe due to the new Medical Device Regulations. Qualitative interviews were conducted with eight clinical evaluation consultants from eight different European countries who review and approve clinical evaluation reports for manufacturers prior to their submission to notified bodies. The study describes the sources of device clinical evaluation evidence and describes the consultants' recommendations and challenges encountered when reviewing Clinical Evaluation Reports. The findings from the study demonstrate that understanding what constitutes sufficient clinical evidence poses the biggest challenge to the generation of an MDR-compliant Clinical Evaluation Report. Additionally, the study identified a knowledge and skills gap in the generation and assessment of acceptable regulatory and clinical data. Further, there is heterogeneity in the reviews of Clinical Evaluation Reports received by consultants and inadequate guidance to enable compliance by manufacturers. This study found that some manufacturers of certain CE-marked medical devices are planning to remove them from the EU market upon expiration of their certificate, and in the case of new innovative devices, some manufacturers may launch in other non-EU markets. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Mobility is defined as the ability to independently move around the environment and is a key contributor to quality of life, especially in older age. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of mobility as a decisive outcome for the marketing authorisation of drugs by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Methods Fifteen therapeutic areas which commonly lead to relevant mobility impairments and alter the quantity and/or the quality of walking were selected: two systemic neurological diseases, four conditions primarily affecting exercise capacity, seven musculoskeletal diseases and two conditions representing sensory impairments. European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) published by the EMA until September 2020 were examined for mobility endpoints included in their 'main studies'. Clinical study registries and primary scientific publications for these studies were also reviewed. Results Four hundred and eighty-four EPARs yielded 186 relevant documents with 402 'main studies'. The EPARs reported 153 primary and 584 secondary endpoints which considered mobility; 70 different assessment tools (38 patient-reported outcomes, 13 clinician-reported outcomes, 8 performance outcomes and 13 composite endpoints) were used. Only 15.7% of those tools distinctly informed on patients' mobility status. Out of 402, 105 (26.1%) of the 'main studies' did not have any mobility assessment. Furthermore, none of these studies included a digital mobility outcome. Conclusions For conditions with a high impact on mobility, mobility assessment was given little consideration in the marketing authorisation of drugs by the EMA. Where mobility impairment was considered to be a relevant outcome, questionnaires or composite scores susceptible to reporting biases were predominantly used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

Purpose: To review the marketing authorization of biosimilars and provide a critical analysis of the pivotal trials supporting their approval by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Methods: EMA website to identify the biosimilars approved up to July 2019 and the European Public Assessment Report for information on pivotal trial design, duration, intervention and control, primary outcome, data on immunogenicity, and comparability margins. Results: The EMA has approved 55 biosimilars (62% in 2017–2019) of 16 biologic products, used in several clinical indications. Some biosimilars were licensed as multiple products, with different commercial names, by the same or different companies. The comparability exercise and subsequent approval of 49/55 (89%) biosimilars were based on one or more pivotal phase III trials testing their clinical efficacy. In all, biosimilars were approved on the basis of 55 trials, mostly phase III (42/55, 76%) assessing clinical efficacy; these were mainly equivalence trials (31/55, 56%). The pivotal phase III trials assessed surrogate measures of clinical effect, and 71% reported immunogenicity data. Conclusion: Analysis of the approval of biosimilars in Europe depicts a complex and heterogeneous scenario. The requirement for showing similarity in terms of clinical efficacy and safety provides a robust demonstration of comparable clinical outcomes but lays a burden on biosimilar manufacturers and may delay the introduction of the drugs. The development, licensing, and monitoring of biosimilars would benefit from new strategies to accelerate access to these drugs while reducing uncertainties about their use in practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the developments in risk-based monitoring, with particular consideration on the evolution of the role of clinical research associate (CRA) in clinical trials. Topics include CRAs and the application of informatics technology in lign with U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) and significant role of CRAS including increased use of specialist skills, focus on high-value compliance inspections, and quality by design.

Background: The prevalence of narrow-band ultraviolet B (NB-UVB) use in Europe for moderate and severe psoriasis is unknown, because national registries for psoriasis do not monitor this treatment.Objectives: To quantify the use of phototherapy, biologics or conventional treatments in psoriasis, in a setting where European Medicines Agency (EMA) eligibility criteria for biologics were strictly applied, and phototherapy was included among first-line treatments.Methods: We followed a cohort of 1,090 patients who were referred to the only centre entitled to prescribe biologics and phototherapy during a 5-year period.Results: The cumulative number of treatment cycles was: 1,047 with NB-UVB phototherapy, 650 with systemic treatments and 239 with biologics; 754 patients received at least 1 course of NB-UVB phototherapy, 422 at least 1 course with a systemic treatment and 137 with a biologic; 595 patients were treated only with phototherapy.Conclusions: Regular use of NB-UVB as first-line treatment for moderate and severe psoriasis and adherence to the EMA eligibility criteria for biologics led to a relatively restricted use of biologics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) earlier this year recommended to suspend some marketing authorisations for Gadolinium Containing Contrast Agents (GCCAs) based on linear chelators due to the potential risk of gadolinium retention in the human body. These recommendations have recently been re-evaluated by EMA's Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP), and confirmed the final opinion of the European Medicines Agency. This editorial provides an overview of the available GCCAs and summarises the recent evidence of gadolinium retention. Moreover, a critical appraisal of the strengths and limitations of the scientific evidence currently available on gadolinium retention is given.Key Points: • EMA recommended suspension of some EU marketing authorisations of four linear GCCAs. • Brain MRI findings indicating gadolinium retention have been confirmed by mass spectrometry. • Current scientific evidence for gadolinium retention has several methodological limitations. • No clear clinical evidence exists indicating that gadolinium retention causes neurotoxicity. • Long-term safety of GCCAs, however, remains unclear. [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]

Adaptive pathways for medicines have gained momentum and, in Europe, adaptive pathways have recently been introduced into the European Medicines Agency (EMA) processes after a successful 2-year pilot. Although the concept, as initially proposed, contained several elements that would have required regulatory reforms, the adaptive pathways program has developed a more pragmatic scope (Box 1). In this article, we explore the main challenges and opportunities adaptive pathways pose from a European health technology assessment (HTA) perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Risk Management Plans (RMPs) have become a cornerstone in the pharmacovigilance of new drugs in Europe. The RMP was introduced in 2005 to support a proactive approach in gaining knowledge on safety concerns through early planning of pharmacovigilance activities. However, the rate at which uncertainties in the safety profile are resolved through this proactive approach is unknown. We therefore examined the evolution of safety concerns in the RMP after initial approval for a selected cohort of 48 drugs, to provide insight into the knowledge gain over time. We found that 20.7% of the uncertainties existing at approval had been resolved 5 years after approval. Because new uncertainties were included in the RMP at a similar rate, the overall number of uncertainties remained approximately equal. The relatively modest accrual of knowledge, as demonstrated in this study through resolution of uncertainties, suggests that opportunities for optimization exist while ensuring feasible and risk-proportionate pharmacovigilance planning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study focusing on the suspension of hydroxyethyl-starch (HES) solutions by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the support by Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (SSAI) to the move. Topics discussed include the adverse health outcomes associated with HES; the risk of acute kidney injury and renal replacement therapy with HES; and the lack of improvement in surgical patient outcome using resuscitation with colloids.