Search

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]

New European Union (EU) pharmacovigilance legislation, effective from July 2012, introduced new concepts and procedures to optimise the way medicines are regulated within the Union and provided new channels for public health interventions. Triggered by the EU legislation, the work done by the International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH) has provided a common standard for periodic benefit-risk evaluation reporting within the ICH regions. The present paper provides a review of the concepts behind the use of periodic benefit-risk evaluation reports (PBRER) in supporting safety evaluation and assessment of benefit-risk balance and covers essential points in the documentation of safety information, risk evaluation and benefit-risk assessment. The review incorporates the experience to-date with the PBRER at EU level led by the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee of the European Medicines Agency. The scope of the PBRER, the main content topics and the challenges relevant to the different stakeholders are highlighted together with key success factors for the report to deliver its objectives and maximise the use of the regulatory assessment procedure. It is clear that the PBRER extends beyond new ways of data presentation and analysis and reflects a further shift in pharmacovigilance in the EU towards more integrated benefit-risk assessment of marketed medicines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

EU agencies have become key actors in the operationalization of the EU regime on public access to documents. A tension between confidentiality and transparency has become particularly evident in the framework of regulatory procedures concerning chemical substances, food, and medicinal products. Applicants must provide EU agencies with commercially sensitive information to trigger the scientific and technical evaluation needed for marketing authorization or approval. We analyse three EU agencies: European Chemicals Agency, European Food Safety Agency, and European Medicines Agency. They hold information that is both commercially sensitive and highly relevant for EU regulators and the public at large. Using decisions of the EU courts and the European Ombudsman, this article shows how a new "ownership" paradigm seems to have evolved, in conflict with EU public access legislation. New rulings on the Aarhus regime suggest that more information should in the future become disclosable, putting the agencies under increased pressure by companies trying to protect industry know-how. EU agencies are constantly arbitrating between conflicting public interests. As the exercise of political discretion is exactly what EU agencies are not expected to do, the situation calls for legislative intervention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The paper addresses the question of adaptation of existing regulatory frameworks in the face of innovation in biotechnologies, and specifically the roles played in this by various expert knowledge practices. We identify two overlapping ideal types of adaptation: first, the stretching and maintenance of a pre-existing legal framework, and second, a breaking of existing classifications and establishment of a novel regime. We approach this issue by focusing on varieties of regulatory knowledge which, contributing to and parting of political legitimacy, in principle enable the making of legally binding decisions about risks and benefits of technologies. We base the discussion around two case studies, one of animal biotechnology ethical regulation, the other of 'advanced therapy' medicinal product regulation, both in the context of European Union frameworks. Specifically, we explore the knowledge configurations constituting expert committees and other institutional formations of expert regulatory knowledge in their political context. We show that where sectoral and moral boundaries are challenged, different modes of regulatory knowledge beyond scientific forms - legal, procedural, moral, economic and industrial - can shape regulatory innovations either by maintenance of regimes through commensuration and stretching, or through differentiation and separation creating new frameworks. We conclude that establishing an essential techno-scientific difference between pre-existing and novel technologies does not in itself require new regulatory structures, and that the regulatory strategy that is followed will be determined by a combination of different forms of knowledge. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the uncertainty of agreement between Great Britain and the European Union (EU) on the future location of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) when the country takes its leave from the EU. It notes the position paper presented by drugs industry urging heads of states to make some firm decisions, including Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKine, and Sanofi. Also noted is the number of EU member states vying to accommodate the agency, citing its annual budget and number of staff.

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

Scientific knowledge and our understanding of the human body and diseases have limited any possible treatment tailoring to each patient. The technological advances enabling the integration of various data sets (e.g. '-omics', microbiome, epigenetics and environmental exposure) have facilitated a greater understanding of the human body, the molecular basis of disease and all the factors influencing disease onset, progression and response to treatment, thereby ushering in the era of personalized medicine. We evaluate the regulatory approaches available to facilitate early patient access to efficacious and safe compounds in the EU and the USA in order to make more informed recommendations in the future as to the gaps in regulations for early patient access. An in-depth analysis of conditional approvals (EU) and accelerated approvals (USA) is performed based on the publicly available information (European public assessment reports and a summary review of products approved under both programmes). The types of product, indications, time to approval and type of evidence submitted were analysed. Between 2007 and early 2015, 17 products were conditionally approved in the EU and 25 in the USA, most of them in the area of oncology and based on evidence from phase II clinical trial data. Early approval of promising products based on data from early phases of development is already possible in the EU and the USA. Some of the improvements could entail implementing a rolling assessment of evidence in Europe and extending the scope of early dialogues. © 2015 S. Karger AG, Basel [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This section offers news briefs about the activities of the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Members of the EMA and its scientific Committees support the use of adaptive pathways in drug development. The EMA decided to share its assessments of applications for generic medicines outside the European Union (EU). The revised documentation related to pediatric investigation plans (PIP) is published by the EMA.