Search

Background: Electronic informed consent (eIC) may offer various advantages compared to paper-based informed consent. However, the regulatory and legal landscape related to eIC provides a diffuse image. By drawing from the perspectives of key stakeholders in the field, this study aims to inform the creation of a European guidance framework on eIC in clinical research. Methods: Focus group discussions and semi-structured interviews were conducted with 20 participants from six stakeholder groups. The stakeholder groups included representatives of ethics committees, data infrastructure organizations, patient organizations, and the pharmaceutical industry as well as investigators and regulators. All were involved in or knowledgeable about clinical research and were active in one of the European Union Member States or at a pan-European or global level. The framework method was used for data analysis. Results: Stakeholders underwrote the need for a multi-stakeholder guidance framework addressing practical elements related to eIC. According to the stakeholders, a European guidance framework should describe consistent requirements and procedures for implementing eIC on a pan-European level. Generally, stakeholders agreed with the definitions of eIC issued by the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration. Nevertheless, it was raised that, in a European guidance framework, it should be emphasized that eIC aims to support rather than replace the personal interaction between research participants and the research team. In addition, it was believed that a European guidance framework should include details on the legality of eIC across European Union Member States and the responsibilities of an ethics committee in the eIC assessment process. Although stakeholders supported the idea to include detailed information on the type of eIC-related materials to be submitted to an ethics committee, opinions varied on this regard. Conclusion: The creation of a European guidance framework is a much needed factor to advance eIC implementation in clinical research. By collecting the views of multiple stakeholder groups, this study advances recommendations that may facilitate the development of such a framework. Particular consideration should go to harmonizing requirements and providing practical details related to eIC implementation on a European Union-wide level. [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]

Background: In line with the European Paediatric Regulation, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) asks for investigation of a medicine's acceptability in paediatric medicines development. A standardised acceptability testing method combining the outcome of "swallowability" and "palatability" assessments to a "composite endpoint on acceptability" was recently developed. Before this method's suitability for selection of the most acceptable drug formulation of a new medicine for children can be broadly recommended, the acceptance and relevance of such established acceptability needs the critical review and input from young patients with understanding of the medicines development methodology. The benefit of involving patients in drug product development, clinical research and innovation is well established. Methods: During a focus group meeting with the KIDS Barcelona (young people advisory group, age 16–23 years) the suitability of the "composite endpoint on acceptability" methodology was assessed. Via electronic questionnaires the importance of involving patients in the medicines development and in the acceptability method development was investigated. Questions on how best to determine palatability and swallowability were asked. The relevance of all EMA-listed acceptability elements was assessed via coloured and numbered stickers and questionnaires. Results: The results showed that the involvement of young people in the medicines and acceptability method development was rated high. The group worked out that a 5-point smiley Likert Scale is preferred for assessing acceptability by 6–11 year old patients, while a Visual Analogue Scale is preferred for collecting adolescents' opinion. The ranking of the EMA-listed acceptability elements showed that palatability and swallowability are the most relevant parameters, while colour of the medicine was rated as least relevant. These results, established face-to-face, were confirmed in a repeat of the ranking through an electronic questionnaire, completed by the participants individually and remotely, 5 weeks later. Conclusion: This work reinforced the need and value to involve young people in the medicines lifecycle, and specifically in this acceptability method development. As next step other focus group meetings with more young people from different European countries are planned. Plain English Summary: Before a new medicine is authorized, its acceptability by children must be investigated according to law. An acceptability testing method combining the outcomes of "swallowability" and "palatability" assessments was recently developed. During a focus group meeting with KIDS Barcelona (young people advisory group, age 16–23 years) their opinion on the suitability of the method and the relevance of patient engagement in the medicines development process were assessed with paper-based and electronic questionnaires. Questions on how best to determine palatability and swallowability were asked. The importance of different elements that typically affect acceptability was rated. The order of relevance of those listed acceptability elements was assessed using coloured and numbered stickers and questionnaires. The results showed that the involvement of young people in the medicines and acceptability method development was rated high. The group worked out that a 5-point smiley Likert Scale that allows for marking a choice between total agreement and total disagreement is preferred for assessing acceptability by 6–11 year old patients. A Visual Analogue Scale (scale consisting of a 10 cm long line on which a mark has to be placed at the desired position, between total agreement and total rejection) is preferred for collecting adolescents' (12–18 years) opinion. The ranking of acceptability elements showed that palatability and swallowability of a new medicine are the most relevant parameters, and colour the least. The clarity of the outcome reinforced the benefit of involving young people in the development of medicines relevant for children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Detecting safety signals attributed to a drug in scientific literature is a fundamental issue in pharmacovigilance. The constant increase in the volume of publications requires the automation of this tedious task, in order to find and extract relevant articles from the pack. This task is critical, as serious Adverse Drug Reactions (ADRs) still account for a large number of hospital admissions each year. Objectives: The aim of this study is to develop an augmented intelligence methodology for automatically identifying relevant publications mentioning an established link between a Drug and a Serious Adverse Event, according to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) definition of seriousness. Methods: The proposed pipeline, called LiSA (for Literature Search Application), is based on three independent deep learning models supporting a precise detection of safety signals in the biomedical literature. By combining a Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT) algorithms and a modular architecture, the pipeline achieves a precision of 0.81 and a recall of 0.89 at sentences level in articles extracted from PubMed (either abstract or full-text). We also measured that by using LiSA, a medical reviewer increases by a factor of 2.5 the number of relevant documents it can collect and evaluate compared to a simple keyword search. In the interest of re-usability, emphasis was placed on building a modular pipeline allowing the insertion of other NLP modules to enrich the results provided by the system, and extend it to other use cases. In addition, a lightweight visualization tool was developed to analyze and monitor safety signal results. Conclusions: Overall, the generic pipeline and the visualization tool proposed in this article allows for efficient and accurate monitoring of serious adverse drug reactions from the literature and can easily be adapted to similar pharmacovigilance use cases. To facilitate reproducibility and benefit other research studies, we also shared a first benchmark dataset for Serious Adverse Drug Events detection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The nonclinical as well as clinical development of orphan drugs is difficult, owing to unknown pathophysiology and the absence of animal models. Both, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Guidance and European Medicines Agency (EMA) Guidelines, for orphan drug development describe non-clinical studies, but lack specific information, such as animal species and study design. Against this background, this study aimed to elucidate efficient methods for evaluating nonclinical efficacy based on a review report of orphan drugs approved in Japan. Results: A total of 184 orphan drugs, including 84 anticancer and 100 non-anticancer drugs, approved in Japan from January 2010 to December 2019 were investigated. Some anticancer drugs progressed to clinical development without distinct efficacy data in nonclinical studies. Patient-derived cells have been used for some drugs due to a lack of established cell lines. Cells used for non-clinical studies were devised for drugs indicated for cancers resistant to prior therapies, tumours with specific amino acid mutations in the target molecules, and solid tumours with specific biomarkers. For some non-anticancer drugs, similar disease animal models and normal animals were used for evaluation, since animal models did not exist. Biomarkers have been used specifically for evaluation in normal animals and as endpoints in some clinical trials. Conclusions: It was possible to evaluate drug efficacy by flexibly designing nonclinical studies according to disease characteristics for potentials orphan drugs. These approaches, which are not described in detail in the EMA Guideline or FDA Guidance, may thus lead to approval. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The action of mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) is the subject of intense research in the field of regenerative medicine, including their potential use in companion animals, such as dogs. To ensure the safety of canine MSC batches for their application in regenerative medicine, a quality control test must be conducted in accordance with Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP). Based on guidance provided by the European Medicines Agency, this study aimed to develop and validate a highly sensitive and robust, nucleic acid-based test panel for the detection of various canine pathogens. Analytical sensitivity, specificity, amplification efficiency, and linearity were evaluated to ensure robust assessment. Additionally, viable spike-in controls were used to control for optimal nucleic acid extraction. The conventional PCR-based and real-time PCR-based pathogen assays were evaluated in a real-life setting, by direct testing MSC batches. Results: The established nucleic acid-based assays displayed remarkable sensitivity, detecting 100–1 copies/reaction of template DNA. They also exhibited high specificity and efficiency. Moreover, highly effective nucleic acid isolation was confirmed by the sensitive detection of spike-in controls. The detection capacity of our optimized and validated methods was determined by direct pathogen testing of nine MSC batches that displayed unusual phenotypes, such as reduced cell division or other deviating characteristics. Among these MCS batches of uncertain purity, only one tested negative for all pathogens. The direct testing of these samples yielded positive results for important canine pathogens, including tick-borne disease-associated species and viral members of the canine infectious respiratory disease complex (CIRDC). Notably, samples positive for the etiological agents responsible for enteritis (CPV), leptospirosis (Leptospira interrogans), and neosporosis (Neospora caninum) were also identified. Furthermore, we conducted biosafety evaluation of 12 MSC batches intended for therapeutic application. Eleven MSC batches were found to be free of extraneous agents, and only one tested positive for a specific pathogen, namely, canine parvovirus. Conclusion: In this study, we established and validated reliable, highly sensitive, and accurate nucleic acid-based testing methods for a broad spectrum of canine pathogens. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The evaluation of clinical evidence takes account of health benefit (efficacy and safety) and the degree of certainty in the estimate of benefit. In orphan indications practical and ethical challenges in conducting clinical trials, particularly in paediatric patients, often limit the available evidence, rendering structured evaluation challenging. While acknowledging the paucity of evidence, regulators and reimbursement authorities compare the efficacy and safety of alternative treatments for a given indication, often in the context of the benefits of other treatments for similar or different conditions. This study explores the feasibility of using the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) Evidence Rating Matrix for Comparative Clinical Effectiveness in structured assessment of both the magnitude of clinical benefit (net health benefit, NHB) and the certainty of the effect estimate in a sample of orphan therapies for paediatric indications. Results: Eleven systemic therapies with European Medicines Agency (EMA) orphan medicinal product designation, licensed for 16 paediatric indications between January 2017 and March 2020 were identified using OrphaNet and EMA databases and were selected for evaluation with the ICER Evidence Rating Matrix: burosumab; cannabidiol; cerliponase alfa; chenodeoxycholic acid (CDCA); dinutuximab beta; glibenclamide; metreleptin; nusinersen; tisagenlecleucel; velmanase alfa; and vestronidase alfa. EMA European Public Assessment Reports, PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, Clinical Key, and conference presentations from January 2016 to April 2021 were searched for evidence on efficacy and safety. Two of the identified therapies were graded as "substantial" NHB: dinutuximab beta (neuroblastoma maintenance) and nusinersen (Type I SMA), and one as "comparable" NHB (CDCA). The NHB grade of the remaining therapies fell between "comparable" and "substantial". No therapies were graded as having negative NHB. The certainty of the estimate ranged from "high" (dinutuximab beta in neuroblastoma maintenance) to "low" (CDCA, metreleptin and vestronidase alfa). The certainty of the other therapies was graded between "low" and "high". The ICER Evidence Rating Matrix overall rating "A" (the highest) was given to two therapies, "B+" to 6 therapies, "C+" to five therapies, and "I" (the lowest) to three therapies. The scores varied between rating authors with mean agreement over all indications of 71.9% for NHB, 56.3% for certainty and 68.8% for the overall rating. Conclusions: Using the ICER Matrix to grade orphan therapies according to their treatment benefit and certainty is feasible. However, the assessment involves subjective judgements based on heterogenous evidence. Tools such as the ICER Matrix might aid decision makers to evaluate treatment benefit and its certainty when comparing therapies across indications. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Without vaccination, an estimated 1 in 3 individuals will develop herpes zoster (HZ) in their lifetime. Increased risk of HZ is attributed to impaired cell-mediated immunity, as observed in age-related immunosenescence or in individuals immunocompromised due to disease or immunosuppressive treatments. Most vaccination guidelines recommend HZ vaccination in all adults ≥ 50 years of age, although Shingrix® was recently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for use in individuals aged ≥ 18 years who are or will be at increased risk of HZ due to immunodeficiency or immunosuppression caused by known disease or therapy, followed by approval by the European Medicines Agency for use in immunocompromised individuals aged ≥ 18 years. Chronic respiratory diseases are also risk factors for HZ. A new meta-analysis reported 24% and 41% increased risks of HZ in those with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD), respectively, compared with healthy controls. Asthma and COPD increase a person's risk of HZ and associated complications at any age and may be further elevated in those receiving inhaled corticosteroids. Despite the increased risks, there is evidence that HZ vaccination uptake in those aged ≥ 50 years with COPD may be lower compared with the age-matched general population, potentially indicating a lack of awareness of HZ risk factors among clinicians and patients. The 2022 Global Initiative for Chronic Lung Disease report recognizes that Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommended to vaccinate those aged ≥ 50 years against HZ, although health systems should consider the inclusion of all adults with asthma or COPD into their HZ vaccination programs. Further research into HZ vaccine efficacy/effectiveness and safety in younger populations is needed to inform vaccination guidelines. Highlights: Re-activation of the latent varicella zoster virus manifests as herpes zoster (HZ), which is associated with burdensome symptoms and can lead to complications Risk factors for HZ are often associated with a decline in cell-mediated immunity, as observed with ageing, immunocompromised conditions, immunosuppressive therapy and chronic conditions that compromise the immune system Several chronic conditions, including chronic respiratory conditions such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD), increase an individual's risk of HZ and the associated complications HZ vaccination is effective at reducing HZ occurrence, with guidelines generally recommending their use in those ≥ 50 years of age and in at-risk adult populations There is some evidence that use of inhaled corticosteroids, which is often used to manage asthma or COPD, can independently increase a person's risk of developing HZ The increased risk of HZ and its complications in those with asthma and COPD suggests that these populations may benefit from HZ vaccination, although cost–benefit analyses in those < 50 years of age are lacking Plain Language Summary: What is the context? After experiencing chickenpox, the varicella-zoster virus remains in the body and can be reactivated years later in a form called herpes zoster, more commonly known as shingles. Although shingles is more common in people aged ≥ 50 years, it is also more likely to occur in people with immune systems that do not work normally, which may include those with respiratory conditions such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD). This disease can be prevented by vaccination. Therefore, it is important for doctors to know which patients are at increased risk of shingles and who could be considered for vaccination. What is new? This review is the first to summarize the risk of shingles in people with asthma or COPD, drawing together evidence from across the world. It also evaluates the recommended use of different shingles vaccines in these patients, with a focus on two widely used vaccines: Zostavax® (ZVL) and Shingrix® (RZV). Asthma or COPD can make people more likely to develop shingles and related medical complications, even in younger people. Most guidelines recommend vaccination against this disease for those aged 50 years and above, with some also recommending vaccination in people aged 18–49 years who may be at higher risk of shingles. There is limited information on the benefit of shingles vaccination in those aged ≤ 50 years with asthma or COPD, but their increased risk of developing shingles suggests they may also benefit from inclusion in vaccination programs. What is the impact? The data presented in the review suggest that people with asthma or COPD aged 18–49 years could benefit from shingles vaccination. This group is not currently included in most vaccination guidelines, despite the evidence of increased risk of shingles and its complications. More information is needed on the risks and benefits of vaccinating this group to determine if it would be cost-effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In the Danish Veterinary Statistics Program, VetStat, sales data on medicinal products prescribed for veterinary consumption is collected. The Danish Food and Veterinary Administration (DVFA) manages the database and each purchase contains detailed product-specific information linked with a species-specific ID. National surveillance systems are also implemented or being developed in the other European Union Member States. By 2029, all Member States are required to report data on antimicrobial usage for companion animals to the European Medicines Agency. This study aimed to assess the challenges encountered when using the VetStat database to quantify antimicrobial use in Danish companion animals. Raw VetStat data were propagated by the DVFA and originated from veterinary practitioners and Danish pharmacies. Results: Comprehensive estimates of antimicrobial use in Danish companion animals were not readily available due to database construct. Antimicrobials sold for use in companion animals (linked to a companion animal ID) comprised a large number of products licensed solely for horses or livestock, while data assigned a replacement code encompassed both topical and peroral antimicrobials licensed for companion animals. Additionally, antimicrobials sold from pharmacies to veterinary practitioners presented the biggest challenge in data retrieval and validation. Treatment data are only transferred to VetStat through the billing systems when Danish veterinarians are treating livestock, but not companion animals. Information on products sold for in-house use in companion animals is only available from pharmacy records without a species-specific ID. As a result, parenteral antimicrobials with multi-species authorization utilized by small animal veterinary practitioners are not accounted for in the overall estimate for companion animals. Conclusions: Owing to the database structure and requirements for data entry, antimicrobial use in companion animals is an approximation. The actual consumption may be significantly higher than what is currently calculated from the database, as the majority of parenteral products are not included. Consumption data can be measured more accurately provided treatment data from veterinary practitioners in small or mixed practices are transferred to the database through the billing system. This would equal the legal requirements for Danish veterinary practitioners treating livestock. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Transparency and reproducibility are expected to be normative practices in clinical trials used for decision-making on marketing authorisations for new medicines. This registered report introduces a cross-sectional study aiming to assess inferential reproducibility for main trials assessed by the European Medicines Agency.Methods: Two researchers independently identified all studies on new medicines, biosimilars and orphan medicines given approval by the European Commission between January 2017 and December 2019, categorised as 'main studies' in the European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs). Sixty-two of these studies were randomly sampled. One researcher retrieved the individual patient data (IPD) for these studies and prepared a dossier for each study, containing the IPD, the protocol and information on the conduct of the study. A second researcher who had no access to study reports used the dossier to run an independent re-analysis of each trial. All results of these re-analyses were reported in terms of each study's conclusions, p-values, effect sizes and changes from the initial protocol. A team of two researchers not involved in the re-analysis compared results of the re-analyses with published results of the trial.Results: Two hundred ninety-two main studies in 173 EPARs were identified. Among the 62 studies randomly sampled, we received IPD for 10 trials. The median number of days between data request and data receipt was 253 [interquartile range 182-469]. For these ten trials, we identified 23 distinct primary outcomes for which the conclusions were reproduced in all re-analyses. Therefore, 10/62 trials (16% [95% confidence interval 8% to 28%]) were reproduced, as the 52 studies without available data were considered non-reproducible. There was no change from the original study protocol regarding the primary outcome in any of these ten studies. Spin was observed in the report of one study.Conclusions: Despite their results supporting decisions that affect millions of people's health across the European Union, most main studies used in EPARs lack transparency and their results are not reproducible for external researchers. Re-analyses of the few trials with available data showed very good inferential reproducibility.Trial Registration: https://osf.io/mcw3t/. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Age-related macular degeneration (AMD) is a common and chronic eye condition characterized by the presence of progressive degenerative abnormalities in the central retina (macula). Notably, neovascular, or wet, AMD (nAMD) occurs when new, abnormal blood vessels grow under the macula causing scarring of the macula itself and resulting in a loss of central vision, visual distortion, and an impaired capacity of perceiving colour contrast and intensity. Brolucizumab, a new generation anti-vascular endothelial growth factor (anti-VEGF) monoclonal antibody, was approved by the European Medicines Agency for the treatment of nAMD. The aim of this analysis is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness profile of brolucizumab, compared to the main therapeutic alternative available (aflibercept), for the treatment of nAMD.Methods: The simulation of costs and outcomes was carried out using a Markov model over a time horizon of 15 years. In base-case, treatment effectiveness inputs for brolucizumab and aflibercept were extracted from the HAWK and HARRIER studies and from a network meta-analysis. The Italian National Healthcare Service (NHS) perspective was considered, therefore only healthcare direct costs (treatment acquisition, administration, adverse events, disease monitoring) were analysed. In the alternative scenarios, the societal perspective and a prolonged time horizon were considered. Model robustness was tested through sensitivity analyses.Results: In the base-case analysis, brolucizumab was dominant over aflibercept (+ 0.11 years QALY gained and -€15,679 costs). Both one-way deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses confirmed the robustness and reliability of base-case results. The results of the probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed that when the willingness to pay is equal to €50,000 per QALY gained, brolucizumab would be dominant in 84% of simulations and in the remaining simulations brolucizumab would be cost-effective compared to aflibercept. Results of the alternative scenarios and sensitivity analyses confirmed the results of base-case.Conclusion: The cost-utility analysis shows that brolucizumab is dominant over aflibercept. Treatment with brolucizumab reduces the economic impact of nAMD and determined a slight increase of quality-adjusted survival. This analysis gives a high level of confidence that the treatment with brolucizumab would reduce the burden of intravitreal injections, compared to aflibercept, a relevant therapeutic alternative in Italy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Tivozanib (Fotivda) is an anti-angiogenic tyrosine kinase inhibitor that was denied access to the US market by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). In contrast, it was granted approval by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) for the treatment of Renal Cell Carcinoma in adults. Given the conflicting decisions from these regulatory agencies, the objectives of the following study are (i) to critically review the evidence supporting the approval of tivozanib; (ii) to analyse the dissemination of this evidence in the literature by way of a citation analysis.Methods: Pivotal trials were searched by two independent reviewers using Medline, Cochrane Library, ClinicalTrials.gov and the European Public Assessment Report. The risk of bias for each trial was then inductively assessed. Articles citing any of these trials were identified using Web of Sciences. Finally, the quality of the citations was evaluated by two independent reviewers according to standard data extraction methods.Results: The search for primary evidence identified two pivotal studies: TIVO-1 upon which the FDA and the EMA decisions were based, and TIVO-3 which was conducted after the agencies' decisions had been issued. The TIVO-1 trial presented several limitations that compromised causal inference, in relation to (i) design (absence of blinding, inappropriate comparator, and one-way crossover), (ii) poor internal consistency in the results for the primary endpoint, (iii) a discrepancy between a benefit observed for progression-free survival (HR: 0.80, 95% CI [0.64-0.99]) and the absence of difference for overall survival (HR: 1.25, 95% CI [0.95 - 1.62]). Our citation search protocol identified 229 articles that cited TIVO-1 in the 7 years following its publication, among which 151 (65.9%) citing articles discussing efficacy. Presence of spin was identified in 64 (42.4%) of these 151 citing articles, and 39 (25.8%) additional articles citing results without providing enough elements to interpret the TIVO-1 results.Conclusion: EMA's approval was based on a single pivotal trial presenting critical limitations, rendering the results from the trial potentially inconclusive. The broad dissemination of TIVO-1 results in the scientific literature may have been affected by spin or results were presented in an inadequate critical manner. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Chinese herbal medicines (CHMs) have unique advantages in the prevention and treatment of diseases, which are widely recognized in the world. More and more CHMs are becoming increasingly popular in the international markets. However, the quality control of CHMs is a significant issue for their acceptance and recognition in the international market. This review mainly focuses on the quality requirements for CHMs to enter the European Union (EU) market. Both Chinese and European regulations and quality controls are compared. Firstly, the EU medicinal regulatory system and relevant regulations were reviewed. Secondly, the key factors of the quality control of CHMs, including Chinese herbal drugs, extracts and products were compared with those of European herbal medicines in the EU market. Subsequently, three main registration routes for herbal medicinal products including Chinese herbal medicinal products entering the EU were introduced. Furthermore, the legal status of traditional Chinese medicine granules in the EU was also discussed. Through the comparison of the key quality factors for CHMs in China and the EU, the similarities and differences in terms of quality requirements and regulations are addressed, which provides a reference for the development of CHMs into the EU market. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Tissue-agnostic drug development provides a paradigm shift in precision medicine and requires innovative trial designs. However, outcome selection for such trials can prove challenging. The objectives of this review were to: (i) Identify and map core outcome sets (COS), across 11 immune-mediated inflammatory diseases (IMIDs) in order to facilitate the selection of relevant outcomes across the conditions for innovative trials of tissue-agnostic drug therapies. (ii) Compare outcomes or endpoints recommended by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) to identify and highlight similarities and differences.Methods: The Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET), International Consortium for Health Outcomes Measurement (ICHOM), FDA and EMA databases were searched from inception to 28th December 2019. Two reviewers independently screened titles and abstracts of retrieved entries and conducted the subsequent full text screening. Hand searching of the reference lists and citation searching of the selected publications was conducted. The methodological quality of the included peer-reviewed articles was independently assessed by the reviewers based on the items of the COS-Standards for Development recommendations (COS-STAD) checklist. Core outcomes from the included publications were extracted and mapped across studies and conditions. Regulatory guidance from FDA and EMA, where available for clinical trials for the IMIDs, were obtained from their databases and recommendations on outcomes to measure directly compared.Results: Forty-four COS publications were included in the final analysis. Outcomes such as disease activity, pain, fatigue, quality of life, physical function, work limitation/productivity, steroid use and biomarkers were recommended across majority of the conditions. There were significant similarities and differences in FDA and EMA recommendations. The only instance where either regulatory body directly referenced a COS was for jSLE-both referenced the Paediatric Rheumatology International Trials Organization (PRINTO) COS.Conclusions: The findings from this systematic review provide valuable information to inform outcome selection in tissue-agnostic trials for IMIDs. There is a need for increased collaboration between regulators and COS developers and inclusion of regulators as key stakeholders in COS development to enhance the quality of COS.Trial Registration: Not registered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]