Search

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]

Over the past 10 years, European pharmaceutical regulators (especially the European Medicines Agency [EMA]) have enacted a wave of transparency policies. Since 2010, the overwhelming majority have focused on releasing more scientific medicines information online and providing open access to regulatory data. Amongst other benefits, EMA expects its policies to build public trust and provide outsiders with a better understanding of regulatory decision-making. Yet, few studies have empirically examined the EMA’s transparency policies, especially on the end users of ‘transparent’ information (e.g. medical doctors or patients). This paper presents standout findings from a November 2014 survey conducted in Spain, Germany, France and the United Kingdom with a sample of 1005 general practitioners and medical specialists treating either multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoporosis, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis or HIV/AIDS. The study found that 76% of respondents think it is a bad idea to release information into the public domain before possible safety issues have been investigated by the regulators and (relevant) pharmaceutical company. The results also suggested that medical doctors in Europe have a poor understanding of pharmaceutical regulatory activities. In particular, the majority were largely unaware of the current activities of the EMA, did not have good knowledge of how the regulators assess the safety of medicines (e.g. only 17% said they had good knowledge of how EMA assess the safety of medicines) and were unfamiliar with regulatory documents frequently used by regulators and industry to discuss the safety of medicines (e.g. in approving a medicine). [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

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]

Biosimilars are defined as biological products that are highly similar to a reference product, notwithstanding minor differences in clinically inactive components. Biosimilars show no clinically meaningful differences in safety, purity, and potency of the product in comparison to the reference product. With the ever looming patent expiry of some major high cost biologics, biosimilar production is becoming ever more lucrative to companies. Europe (EU) set the precedent, followed by the United States (US) in early 2012, for the approval process for biosimilars. Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to explore the nature of the regulatory processes in the US and EU and to determine the requirements of each in the approval process of a biosimilar. The current Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency's (EMA) guidance documents for biosimilars were reviewed revealing a need for further clarifications, as well as specifically addressing Celltrion's and Sandoz's application for approval for the biosimilars infliximab and filgrastim, respectively. Currently, the FDA and EMA focus on comparability in terms of the clinical, pharmacokinetic (PK)/pharmacodynamic (PD), preclinical, biological activity, and physiochemical characterization results, as well as requiring a robust and consistent manufacturing process. Both the EU and US have prepared guidance documents for biosimilars that will result in biotherapeutics that are as safe and efficacious as the innovator product but the necessity exists to globally harmonize international nonproprietary naming nomenclature and clarify how the concept of pharmacovigilance, extrapolation, and interchangeability will be handled and regulated in the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The amount and type of data in regulatory submissions increases dramatically from the first-in-human clinical trials application through to the extensive dossier that is required for marketing authorization. The Pharmaceuticals and Biotechnology industries are very familiar with the requirements and expectations of Health Authorities for small molecule and biologics, but have limited experience for cell-based therapies. Fortunately, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines agency (EMA) Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT) have considerable experience in regulating cell therapies and have provided extensive Guidance documents for developers. The Agencies offers advice to Sponsors through a variety of meetings. However, it is incumbent on the Sponsor to understand the regulations, interpret the Guidance documents and formulate clear company positions to enable the Agency to provide clear feedback. It is important for Sponsors to understand the factors that are critical for the safety and efficacy of their product and to demonstrate to the Health Authorities that they have a control strategy that ensures safety and efficacy during all stages of development. The focus of this paper is to describe some of the challenges for the chemistry manufacturing and controls (CMC) for cell therapies being development internationally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The increasing nanomedicine usage has raised concerns about their possible impact on human health. Present evaluation strategies for nanomaterials rely on a case-by-case hazard assessment. They take into account material properties, biological interactions, and toxicological responses. Authorities have also emphasized that exposure route and intended use should be considered in the safety assessment of nanotherapeutics. In contrast to an individual assessment of nanomaterial hazards, we propose in the present work a novel and unique evaluation strategy designed to uncover potential adverse effects of such materials. We specifically focus on spherical engineered nanoparticles used as parenterally administered nanomedicines. Standardized assay protocols from the US Nanotechnology Characterization Laboratory as well as the EU Nanomedicine Characterisation Laboratory can be used for experimental data generation. We focus on both cellular uptake and intracellular persistence as main indicators for nanoparticle hazard potentials. Based on existing regulatory specifications defined by authorities such as the European Medicines Agency and the United States Food and Drug Administration, we provide a robust framework for application-oriented classification paired with intuitive decision making. The Hazard Evaluation Strategy (HES) for injectable nanoparticles is a three-tiered concept covering physicochemical characterization, nanoparticle (bio)interactions, and hazard assessment. It is cost-effective and can assist in the design and optimization of nanoparticles intended for therapeutic use. Furthermore, this concept is designed to be adaptable for alternative exposure and application scenarios. To the knowledge of the authors, the HES is unique in its methodology based on exclusion criteria. It is the first hazard evaluation strategy designed for nanotherapeutics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Purpose: Therapeutic area guidelines (TAGs) published by the EMA and the FDA offer guidance in planning the launch of a trial in a certain indication. We assessed and compared the guidance on preclinical efficacy of all available TAGs from EMA and FDA.Experimental Approach: EMA and FDA websites and databases were searched for all TAGs. A mixed deductive and inductive approach was applied to analyse and cluster content for preclinical efficacy.Key Results: A total of 114 EMA and 120 FDA TAGs were identified, covering 126 indications. Our core finding is that 75% of EMA TAGs and 58% from the FDA TAGs do not offer any guidance on preclinical efficacy. TAGs varied widely on the extent, nature and detail of guidance.Conclusions and Implications: Guidance on preclinical efficacy in a consistent, comprehensive and explicit way that still allows for justified deviations is an important but neglected aspect of transparency for drug development. This transparency would help sponsors in designing preclinical studies and in negotiating more efficiently with regulators. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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

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]

New regulatory guidance documents from the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) have recently been finalized or are in draft format outlining new pathways for preclinical safety testing. The US and the European Union appear to be moving in a similar direction focussing and refining preclinical safety data requirements for both radiodiagnostics and radiotherapeutics. We here summarize these recent documents from both the US and European perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]