Search

The European Commission (EC) has proposed to redefine 'unmet medical need' to steer pharmaceutical innovation and link the definition to incentives and regulatory tools and procedures. A multistakeholder meeting of the Regulatory Science Network Netherlands (RSNN) discussed the impact of this proposal. Four principles were highlighted (flexibility, feasibility, fairness, and sensitivity to risk) that were not considered sufficiently addressed. Concerns were raised about whether innovation would be incentivised, given the diverse and complex reasons why areas of unmet medical need may remain unaddressed. A more high-level definition of unmet medical need that gives guidance but allows for specification for specific uses throughout the medicine lifecycle was generally preferred. As the legislative process unfolds, stakeholder engagement will be essential to refine the definition to achieve the intended policy goals., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The objective of this study was to assess the differential times of submission and approval of CFTR modulators in the United States (US) and the European Union (EU)., Methods: By collecting publicly available data from the websites of the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency, we quantified differential times in submission, review duration, and approvals of initial marketing authorization and variation of indications of CFTR modulators in the US and the EU by December 31, 2023., Results: Applications regarding marketing of 4 CFTR modulators were submitted 103 (SD ±143) days later in the EU than in the US: 31 (SD ±39) days later for initial approval, and 124 (SD ±155) days for supplemental indications. The regulatory review process was completed in 181 days [IQR, 179 - 182] in the US and 325 days [IQR, 276 - 382] in the EU: 167 days [IQR, 102 - 232] in the US and 346 days [IQR, 302 - 400] in the EU for first approvals, 181 days [IQR, 181 - 182] in the US and 324 days [IQR, 264 - 382] in the EU for supplemental indication approvals. CFTR modulators were approved 267 (SD 143) days later in the EU than in the US: 220 (SD ±76) days for initial approval and 280 (SD ±157) days for supplemental indications., Conclusion: We found significant differences in times of submission and for approval of CFTR modulators between the US and EU, whereby initial approvals and subsequent indication approvals were always first granted in the US., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Enrico Costa - Member of the Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products (COMP) at the EMA. The views expressed in this article are personal views and may not be understood or quoted as being made on behalf of or reflecting the position of the EMA. Silvia Girotti - None. Clément Mathieu - None. Carlo Castellani – Dr. Castellani has received payment or honoraria for lectures, presentations, speakers or educational events from Vertex Pharmaaceuticals and Chiesi, and he has participated on a Data Safety Monitoring Board or Advisory Board of Vertex Pharmaaceuticals and Chiesi. Joseph S. Ross - Dr. Ross currently receives research support through Yale University from Johnson and Johnson to develop methods of clinical trial data sharing, from the Food and Drug Administration for the Yale-Mayo Clinic Center for Excellence in Regulatory Science and Innovation (CERSI) program (U01FD005938), from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (R01HS022882), and from Arnold Ventures; formerly received research support from the Medical Device Innovation Consortium as part of the National Evaluation System for Health Technology (NEST) and from the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) (R01HS025164, R01HL144644); and in addition, Dr. Ross was an expert witness at the request of Relator's attorneys, the Greene Law Firm, in a qui tam suit alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute against Biogen Inc. that was settled September 2022. Jennifer L. Taylor-Cousar - In the last 36 months, unrelated to this work, she has received grants to her institution from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, the National Institutes of Health, Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated, Eloxx, and 4DMT; has received fees from Vertex Pharmaceuticals Incorporated related to consultation on clinical research design and participation on advisory boards; and has provided clinical trial design consultation for 4DMT. She served on a DMC for AbbVie. She serves as the adult patient care representative to the CFF Board of Trustees, and on the CF Foundation's Clinical Research Executive Committee, Clinical Research Advisory Board, and as immediate past chair of the CF TDN's Sexual Health, Reproduction and Gender Research Working Group, on the scientific advisory board for Emily's Entourage, and on the ATS Respiratory Health Awards Committee and is the ICC Chair-elect and served previously on the ATS Scientific Grant Review and Clinical Problems Assembly Programming Committees. She is also a member of the International Advisory Board for Lancet Respiratory Medicine and the Editorial Board for the Journal of Cystic Fibrosis. Hubert G. M. Leufkens - None., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Background: Early identification is critical for mitigating the impact of medicine shortages on patients. The internet, specifically social media, is an emerging source of health data., Objective: This study aimed to explore whether a routine analysis of data from the Twitter social network can detect signals of a medicine shortage and serve as an early warning system and, if so, for which medicines or patient groups., Methods: Medicine shortages between January 31 and December 1, 2019, were collected from the Dutch pharmacists' society's national catalog Royal Dutch Pharmacists Association (KNMP) Farmanco. Posts on these shortages were collected by searching for the name, the active pharmaceutical ingredient, or the first word of the brand name of the medicines in shortage. Posts were then selected based on relevant keywords that potentially indicated a shortage and the percentage of shortages with at least 1 post was calculated. The first posts per shortage were analyzed for their timing (median number of days, including the IQR) versus the national catalog, also stratified by disease and medicine characteristics. The content of the first post per shortage was analyzed descriptively for its reporting stakeholder and the nature of the post., Results: Of the 341 medicine shortages, 102 (29.9%) were mentioned on Twitter. Of these 102 shortages, 18 (5.3% of the total) were mentioned prior to or simultaneous to publication by KNMP Farmanco. Only 4 (1.2%) of these were mentioned on Twitter more than 14 days before. On average, posts were published with a median delay of 37 (IQR 7-81) days to publication by KNMP Farmanco. Shortages mentioned on Twitter affected a greater number of patients and lasted longer than those that were not mentioned. We could not conclusively relate either the presence or absence on Twitter to a disease area or route of administration of the medicine in shortage. The first posts on the 102 shortages were mainly published by patients (n=51, 50.0%) and health care professionals (n=46, 45.1%). We identified 8 categories of nature of content. Sharing personal experience (n=44, 43.1%) was the most common category., Conclusions: The Twitter social network is not a suitable early warning system for medicine shortages. Twitter primarily echoes already-known information rather than spreads new information. However, Twitter or potentially any other social media platform provides the opportunity for future qualitative research in the increasingly important field of medicine shortages that investigates how a larger population of patients is affected by shortages., (©Doerine J Postma, Magali L A Heijkoop, Peter A G M De Smet, Kim Notenboom, Hubert G M Leufkens, Aukje K Mantel-Teeuwisse. Originally published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research (https://www.jmir.org), 06.08.2024.)

In the Netherlands, drug regulatory science is a vibrant national and internationally oriented community. In this review, we present the factors that have contributed to this successful collaboration between relevant stakeholders and that led to a surge of activities around how regulatory science became embedded in the ecosystem of medicines research, clinical pharmacology, policymaking and regulation. We distinguished three pivotal episodes: (i) TI Pharma Escher-project, (ii) Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board as catalyst of the big jump, and (iii) Regulatory Science Network Netherlands and multistakeholder engagement. The research agenda has been influenced by the dynamic evolution of legal frameworks in Europe, such as the EU orphan medicines legislation of 2001 and the EU pharmacovigilance legislation of 2012. All these developments have inspired and have raised pertinent regulatory sciences questions. Furthermore, clinical pharmacology as a discipline has been very influential in shaping regulatory science, contributing to discussions on the level of clinical evidence that is necessary to justify marketing approval of a new medicine. With a growing interest of multiple parties such as academics, European Medicines Agency, national agencies, patient organizations and EFPIA, connecting regulatory science activities is key., (© 2024 The Authors. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Abstract: Sickle cell disease (SCD) is a hereditary red cell disorder with a large disease burden at a global level. In the United States and Europe, medicines may qualify for orphan designation (OD), a regulatory status that provides incentives to boost development. We evaluated the development of new therapies for SCD using data for OD granted in the United States and Europe over the last 2 decades (2000-2021). We analyzed their characteristics, pathophysiological targets, trends, and OD sponsors. We then investigated the approval outcomes, including the phase success rate and reasons for discontinuation across different variables. We identified 57 ODs for SCD: 43 (75.4%) small molecules, 32 (56.1%) for oral administration, and 36 (63.1%) for chronic use to prevent SCD complications. At the end of the study (2021), development of 34 of 57 ODs was completed. Four ODs were approved with a success rate of 11.8%. Products targeting upstream causative events of SCD pathophysiology had a 1.8 higher success rate compared with products targeting disease consequences. Large companies showed a fourfold higher success rate compared with small-medium enterprises. Failures in clinical development were mainly seen in phase 3 for a lack of efficacy on vaso-occlusive crisis as the primary study end point, likely related to variable definitions and heterogeneity of pain scoring and treatment. Both advances in SCD knowledge and regulatory incentives paved the way for new therapies for SCD. Our finding of high failure rates in late-stage clinical development signals the need for better early-stage predictive models, also in the context of meaningful clinical end points., (© 2024 by The American Society of Hematology. Licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), permitting only noncommercial, nonderivative use with attribution. All other rights reserved.)

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted an urgent need for harmonised requirements for the regulation of medicines. To fully implement harmonised medicines regulations across Africa, common technical standards of medicine regulations are needed. One such technical standard is the labelling of medicines on outer packaging. In this study, we compared outer packaging labelling requirements and transition terms for harmonization for countries in the Southern African Development Community (SADC) region., Methods: Data on legislation and/or regulatory guidelines for medicine outer packaging labelling from National Medicines Regulatory Authorities (NMRAs) were obtained for countries in the SADC region (n = 16) by February 2023. A detailed comparative content analysis was conducted to determine alignment with the requirements of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) harmonised labelling guidelines to assess readiness levels of each country to transition to the SADC harmonised labelling guideline for outer packaging of medicines., Results: Content analysis showed at least 11 out of 16 countries require national legal reform to transition to the SADC harmonised labelling guideline. In all cases where countries specified labelling requirements for outer packaging of medicines, these were stipulated in national medicines legislation., Conclusion: Even though there is a high level of alignment across the countries in terms of national labelling requirements, most countries in the SADC region would still require national legislative reform to transition to regional harmonised labelling requirements and then ultimately to continental requirements of the African Medicines Agency (AMA)., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: In the United States (US) and in Europe, cystic fibrosis (CF) qualifies as a rare disease, thus positioning the field to benefit from regulatory incentives provided by orphan drug designation (ODD) to boost pharmaceutical research and development. In this study, we analyzed the pool of products for the treatment of CF that received such incentives from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and/or the European Medicines Agency (EMA) over the past two decades. We describe the characteristics and trends in ODDs over time and explore factors that might be determinants of successful drug development., Methods: We collected the products that received the ODD from the registries of the FDA and the EMA from 2000 to 2021, characterizing their nature, development stage, and type of sponsor. We categorized the study drugs according to the therapeutic target addressed and described trends of drug development over the study period. A logistic regression analysis was done to assess how ODD characteristics were associated with the approval for market authorization., Results: From 2000-2021, 107 ODDs were collectively granted by the FDA and the EMA for products developed for the treatment of CF. Although the trends of the number of ODDs granted remained stable over time, those targeting the CF basic protein defect increased from 6 out of 54 (11.1%) in the first half of the study period up to 20 out of 54 (37.7%) in the second half, while those treating symptoms decreased from 48/54 (88.9%) to 33/53 (62.3%). Overall, 10 products obtained marketing approval: 7 in both the US and Europe, 3 only in Europe. All the approved ODDs were chemical products for chronic use. No statistically significant difference was found across the examinated variables, but we observed possible drivers of successful drug development for ODDs targeting CFTR, as well as for those with active substances previously marketed, and for those developed by large companies and companies with experience in developing orphan drugs. By contrast, our findings suggest that financial issues most hamper the development of ODDs sponsored by small-medium enterprises., Conclusions: Although ODDs for treating infection and other CF sequelae accounted for the majority, we observed a shift of ODDs toward mechanism-based products over the study period. In line with other rare diseases, we found that approximately 1/10 ODDs for CF reached the status of marketing approval. Advances in disease genetics paved the way for a shift in CF drug development; however, we described how the convergence of pharmaceutical technology, the financial environment, and the regulatory ecosystem played a crucial role in successful marketing authorization in CF., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier B.V.)

Objective: Improving synergy among regulation, health technology assessment (HTA) and clinical guideline development is relevant as these independent processes are building on shared evidence-based grounds. The two objectives were first to assess how convergence of evidentiary needs among stakeholders may be achieved, and second, to determine to what extent convergence can be achieved., Design: Qualitative study using eight online dual-moderator focus groups., Setting: Discussions had a European focus and were contextualised in four case studies on head and neck cancer, diabetes mellitus, multiple sclerosis and myelodysplastic syndromes., Participants: Forty-two experienced (over 10 years) European regulators, HTA representatives and clinicians participated in the discussion., Interventions: Participants received information on the case study and research topic in advance. An introductory background presentation and interview guide for the moderators were used to steer the discussion., Results: Convergence may be achieved through improved communication institutionalised in multistakeholder early dialogues, shared definitions and shared methods. Required data sets should be inclusive rather than aligned. Deliberation and decision-making should remain independent. Alignment could be sought for pragmatic clinical trial designs and patient registries. Smaller and lower-income countries should be included in these efforts., Conclusion: Actors in the field expressed that improving synergy among stakeholders always involves trade-offs. A balance needs to be found between the convergence of processes and the institutional remits or geographical independence. A similar tension exists between the involvement of more actors, for example, patients or additional countries, and the level of collaboration that may be achieved. Communication is key to establishing this balance., Competing Interests: Competing interests: WG is employed by Utrecht University and conducts research under the umbrella of the Utrecht-WHO Collaborating Centre for Pharmaceutical Policy and Regulation. The Centre has received unrestricted research funding from public sources, eg, WHO, the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW), the Dutch National Health Care Institute (ZIN), EC Horizon 2020, the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board (MEB) and the Dutch Ministry of Health. None of the abovementioned public funding sources had any involvement in the current study. WG is also employed by the National Health Care Institute.At the time of the project, MLDB was employed by Copenhagen Centre for Regulatory Sciences (CORS). CORS is a cross-faculty university anchored institution involving various public (Danish Medicines Agency, Copenhagen University) and private (Novo Nordisk, Lundbeck, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, LEO Pharma) stakeholders as well as patient organisations (Rare Diseases Denmark). The Centre is purely devoted to the scientific aspects of the regulatory field and with a patient-oriented focus and the research is not company-specific product or directly company related. In the past 5 years, CORS has received funding from Novo Nordisk, Lundbeck, Ferring Pharmaceuticals and LEO Pharma for projects not related to this study. Currently, MLDB is employed by Utrecht University and conducts research under the umbrella of the Utrecht-WHO Collaborating Centre for Pharmaceutical Policy and Regulation. This Centre receives no direct funding or donations from private parties, including the pharmaceutical industry. Research funding from public–private partnerships, eg, IMI, and The Escher Project (http://escher.lygature.org/) is accepted under the condition that no company-specific product or company-related study is conducted. The Centre has received unrestricted research funding from public sources, e.g. World Health Organisation (WHO), the Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development (ZonMW), the Dutch National Health Care Institute (ZIN), EC Horizon 2020, the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board (MEB) and the Dutch Ministry of Health. None of the abovementioned companies had any involvement in the current study.The other authors declare no competing interests., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

With the anticipated health challenges brought by demographic and technological changes, ensuring capacity in underlying workforce in place is essential for addressing patients' needs. Therefore, a timely identification of important drivers facilitating capacity building is important for strategic decisions and workforce planning. In 2020, internationally renowned pharmaceutical scientists (N = 92), largely from the academia and pharmaceutical industry, with mostly pharmacy and pharmaceutical sciences educational background were approached (through a questionnaire) for their considerations on influencing drivers to facilitate meeting current capacity in pharmaceutical sciences research. From a global view, based on the results of the questionnaire, the top drivers were better alignment with patient needs as well as strengthening education - both through continuous learning and deeper specialisation. The study also showed that capacity building is more than simply increasing the influx of graduates. Pharmaceutical sciences are being influenced by other disciplines, and we can expect more diversity in scientific background and training. Capacity building of pharmaceutical scientists should allow flexibility for rapid change driven by the clinic and need for specialised science and it should be underpinned by lifelong learning., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Use of Real-World Data (RWD) has gained the interest of different stakeholders in cancer care. The aim of this study was to identify and describe the use of RWD/RWE during the pre-authorization phase of products authorized by the EMA in 2018 and 2019 (n = 111), with the focus on oncology medicines (n = 24). Information was extracted from the European Public Assessment Report (EPAR) summaries and recorded for 5 stages (11 categories) of the drug development lifecycle (discovery, early development, clinical development, registration/market launch, lifecycle management). Specific chapters of full EPAR were reviewed to substantiate the findings on RWD/RWE use in clinical trial design, efficacy, safety, and effectiveness evaluation. RWD/RWE is present in all stages of the oncology drug development; 100.0 % in discovery, 37.5 % early development, 58.3 % in clinical development, 62.5 % in registration decision and 100.0 % in post-authorization lifecycle management. Examples showed that trial design supported by RWD/RWE included use of open label/single arm studies; efficacy was about using either comparison of results to historical controls, supplying survey data obtained outside the clinical trial or utilizing expert panel advice; safety about including literature findings in evidence; and effectiveness on comparison of trial results of the given product to historical data or existing standard of care. The findings of this study provide specific insights into how RWD/RWE is used in development of cancer therapeutics, how it contributes to regulatory decision making and can guide further policy developments in this field., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: Sini M. Eskola conducts a part-time professional PhD at Utrecht Centre for Pharmaceutical Policy and Regulation. In her daily work, she holds a position as Director Regulatory Strategy and Team Leader at European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA). This research is independent and not funded by EFPIA. Andrew Bate is a full-time employee and stock and options holder in GlaxoSmithKline. The views expressed in this article represent the author’s own thoughts and are independent of their employers. This research is independent and not funded by GSK. Hubertus G.M Leufkens, Marie L. De Bruin, and Helga Gardarsdottir are employed by Utrecht University conducting research under the umbrella of the Centre for Pharmaceutical Policy and Regulation. This centre receives no direct funding or donations from private parties, including those in the pharmaceutical industry. Research funding from public–private partnerships (e.g., IMI, The Escher Project (http://escher.lygature.org/), is accepted under the condition that no company-specific product or company-related study is conducted). The centre has received unrestricted research funding from public sources, for example, the World Health Organization (WHO), Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development (ZonMW), the Dutch National Health Care Institute (ZIN), EC Horizon 2020, the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board (MEB), and the Dutch Ministry of Health., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Multi-stakeholder interactions have evolved at product and policy levels. There is a need to assess the current and future landscape of interactions between companies, and regulatory and HTA agencies to address challenges and identify areas for improvement., Objectives: The aims of this study were to review the current interactions within and across regulatory and HTA agencies, and companies' experiences in engaging in these activities; to assess the added value of interactions as well as limitations; to explore the future ecosystem for stakeholder interactions., Method: Three separate questionnaires were developed for companies, regulators and HTA agencies, respectively, to assess their experiences and perceptions. The responses were analyzed using descriptive statistics and discussed at a multi-stakeholder workshop. Key outcomes from the surveys and workshop discussion were reported., Results: All seven regulators and seven HTA agencies in the survey indicated that they had stakeholder interactions. More formal collaboration occurred with regulators compared with HTA agencies. All nine companies have taken early advice but indicated the need for future prioritization. Success indicators can be built at the product and therapy levels, with the added value of faster patient access. Four principles were proposed for the future ecosystem: separate remit and functions between regulators and HTA; align processes; converge evidence requirements where possible; increase transparency., Conclusions: This research brought together regulators, HTA agencies, companies to examine how they interact with one another. We propose measures of value and make recommendations on future evolution to enable better evidence generation and improve regulatory and HTA decision-making.

Introduction: Current research to assess the impact that medicine shortages have on patients is limited to general aspects, such as the prevalence of shortages and product characteristics. The aim of this study is to assess the overall impact that medicine shortages have on economic, clinical, and humanistic outcomes., Methods: A cohort of all known products in shortage in the Netherlands between 2012 and 2015 were characterized by their route of administration, anatomical therapeutic chemical class, and whether they were originator or generic products. A representative sample of 324 shortages (18% of all shortages) was rated as having low, medium, or high impact on the five elements that determine the impact of shortages on patients: availability of an alternative product, underlying disease, susceptibility of the patient, costs (for patients and society at large), and number of patients affected. Ratings were converted into numerical scores per element and multiplied to obtain an overall impact score., Results: Two elements were most frequently rated as having a high impact: disease (29%) and costs (20%). Nearly half of the shortages (47%) rated high on at least one element, while nearly 10% rated high on multiple elements. Thirty percent of the shortages rated high on direct impact, which is represented by these elements: alternative product and disease. An additional 17% of the shortages rated high on indirect impact, which is represented by these elements: costs, susceptibility, and number of patients. High impact scores could not significantly be attributed to characteristics of the products in shortage., Conclusions: An assessment of the medicine shortages' impact using a framework based on economic, clinical, and economic outcomes showed that all three outcomes affect the overall impact that medicine shortages have on patients., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Background: Globally accepted roles of pharmacists are described in the Good Pharmacy Practice (GPP) standards, published by the World Health Organization (WHO) and the International Pharmaceutical Federation (FIP) in 2011. These standards provide a wide-ranging description of four main roles pharmacists fulfil. The global platform, where pertinent discussions around excellence and innovation in various pharmacy roles take place, is the annual congress of the pharmacy organisation representing the profession globally, FIP., Objectives: Given the world pharmacy congresses present and reflect on the most topical and contemporary matters, this longitudinal study aimed at creating a historical overview of the frequency of appearance of the different GPP roles in the programmes of the past 17 congresses (2003-2019). This is to distinguish the dominance of different roles over time and thus their relevance for the profession., Methods: The GPP standards served as a framework to create a set of keywords that were analysed for their frequencies of appearance in the programmes through text analysis. Trends in the four overarching GPP roles and at individual keyword level were analysed descriptively over time., Results: The study found that all four GPP roles appeared in the programme each year and none of them was significantly missing, neither in the decade preceding the publication of the GPP standards nor in the decade thereafter. Role 3 "Maintain and improve professional performance" was most frequently represented, also demonstrating an upward trend in appearance, together with Role 4: "Contribute to improve effectiveness of the health-care system and public health". Trends emerged towards patient-centred clinical focus and positioning pharmacy as an important player in the health-care system-observed also at individual keywords level in areas such as health promotion-away from the more traditional product-centred practice roles such as compounding., Conclusions: GPP roles have been already covered by the FIP annual congresses (long) before 2011, when the GPP roles were formally adopted, and they stayed relevant in the decade after. The more pronounced dominance toward the roles related to improving professional performance and positioning pharmacy are in line with the trend that the rather technical topics in pharmacy are increasingly covered by specialised meetings and that the FIP annual congresses have moved toward more general, scholarly platforms for dialogue and conversation., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: Medicine shortages are often described in plain numbers, suggesting all shortages have a uniform impact. However, some shortages have a direct and serious effect on patients and need a prompt reaction from stakeholders. This study aims to create a broad framework to assess the impact of a shortage., Method: We identified high impact shortages and selected exemplary shortages which we considered our learning cases. From five learning cases, we identified elements that had a potentially profound impact on one or more of these cases. We tested data saturation on the elements with another five test cases. Based on these elements, we created a framework to assess impact of shortages on patients and presented practical examples how to rate these different elements. Subsequently, we visualised the impact of these five learning cases on patients in radar charts., Results: The five elements which we identified as potentially having a large impact were 1) alternative product, 2) disease, 3) susceptibility, 4) costs and 5) number of patients affected. The five learning cases rated high on different elements, leading to diverse and sometimes even opposite patterns of impact., Conclusion: We created a framework for assessing the impact of a medicine shortage on patients by means of five key elements. By rating these elements, an indication of the impact can be obtained., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

In many countries, β-thalassemia (β-THAL) is not uncommon; however, it qualifies as a rare disease in the US and in European Union (EU), where thalassemia drugs are eligible for Orphan Drug Designation (ODD). In this paper, we evaluate all 28 ODDs for β-THAL granted since 2001 in the US and the EU: of these, ten have since been discontinued, twelve are pending, and six have become licensed drugs available for clinical use. The prime mover for these advances has been the increasing depth of understanding of the pathophysiology of β-THAL; at the same time, and even though only one-fifth of β-THAL ODDs have become licensed drugs, the ODD legislation has clearly contributed substantially to the development of improved treatments for β-THAL., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: The target product profile (TPP) outlines the desired profile of a target product aimed at a particular disease and is used by companies to plan clinical development. Considering the increasing importance of health technology assessment (HTA) in informing reimbursement decisions, a robust TPP needs to be built to address HTA needs, to guide an integrated evidence generation plan that will support HTA submissions. This study assessed current practices and experiences of companies in building HTA considerations into TPP development. Methods: An opinion survey was designed and conducted in 2019, as a cross-sectional questionnaire consisting of multiple-choice questions. The questionnaire provided a qualitative assessment of companies' strategies and experiences in building HTA considerations into the TPP. Eligible survey participants were the senior management of Global HTA/Market Access Departments at 18 top international pharmaceutical companies. Results: 11 companies responded to the survey. All companies included HTA requirements in TPP development, but the timing and process varied. The key focus of HTA input related to health problems and treatment pathways, clinical efficacy/effectiveness, and safety. Variance of HTA methods and different value frameworks were identified as a challenge for development plans. Stakeholder engagement, such as HTA scientific advice, was used to pressure test the TPP. Conclusion: This research provides insight into current practice and potential opportunities for value-based drug development. It demonstrates the evolution of the TPP to encompass HTA requirements and suggests that the TPP could have a role as an iterative communication tool for use with HTA agencies to enhance an integrated evidence generation plan., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Wang, McAuslane, Goettsch, Leufkens and De Bruin.)

Background: Many challenges in elderly pharmacotherapy are identified, including the use of Potentially Inappropriate Medications (PIMs) which may increase the odds of adverse events, especially in elderly patients with mental health disorders (e. g., behavioral, and psychological symptoms of dementia-BPSD, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder). However, information on the knowledge and practice of healthcare professionals (HCPs) about this topic is still scarce., Methods: A cross-sectional study was undertaken from July-October 2019. An online questionnaire was specifically designed and validated for this study. We sought HCPs (physicians, pharmacists, and nurses) worldwide, using (a) social media, via Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn; and (b) email contacts of the research team (convenience sample). Either way participants were asked to share on their social media or via e-mail the questionnaires with other HCPs (snowballing sample). The survey assessed two main domains: knowledge and practice. Knowledge was evaluated by self-report (perceived knowledge by a 5-item Likert confidence scale) and using three clinical cases, scored between 0 and 30 points (each one rated from 0 to 10 points; real knowledge). Barriers in clinical practice were evaluated using a 5-item Likert scale judging practitioners' opinion., Results: A total of 165 questionnaires were collected. HCPs were mainly female ( n = 114; 69.1%), with a mean age of 35.3 ± 11.3 years old. Seventy-two percent ( n = 118) were pharmacists, 21.1% ( n = 35) were physicians, and 7.3% ( n = 12) nurses. There was a weak correlation, albeit significant, between perceived and real knowledge (r = 0.199; p = 0.001). The mean score of the clinical vignettes regarding elderly patients with dementia and bipolar disorder were 4.59 ± 4.08 and 4.86 ± 2.97 points, respectively. Most HCPs were classified as having an intermediate knowledge ( n = 100; 60.6%) about medication complexities in the elderly with mental disorders. Most HCPs agreed that lack of time (81.6%; n = 138), lack of education and training on elderly pharmacotherapy (72.2%; n = 122), and lack of tools adapted to daily practice (61.8%; n = 105) were the main barriers., Conclusions: Most of the HCPs felt confident to manage medication complexities in elder patients with mental disorders, but only a minority obtained a good score in the knowledge assessment test. The main barriers identified included structural barriers (tools unfit for practice) and process barriers (time)., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2022 Aguiar, Gama Marques, Leufkens and Alves da Costa.)

Background: Over the past decade, a new class of drugs called CFTR (cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator) modulators have shown to be able to improve clinical outcomes in patient with Cystic Fibrosis. In this analysis, we have extensively reviewed the regulatory pathways and decisions adopted by FDA and EMA to speed up the development, the review and the approval of these drugs, with the aim of identifying possible clinical and public health implications associated with differences., Results: CFTR modulators have been developed towards addressing three main genetic domains: (1) F508del homozygous (F508del/F508del), (2) F508del heterozygous, and (3) genotypes not carrying F508del mutation; and expanded from adult to paediatric population. Programs to expedite the reviewing and licensing of CFTR modulators were extensively adopted by FDA and EMA. All CFTR modulators have been licensed in the US as orphan drugs, but in the EU the orphan status for LUM/IVA was not confirmed at the time of marketing authorization as results from the pivotal trial were not considered clinically significant. While FDA and EMA approved CFTR modulators on the basis of results from phase III double-blind RCTs, main differences were found on the extension of indications: FDA accepted non-clinical evidence considering a recovery of the CFTR function ≥ 10% based on chloride transport, a reliable indicator to correlate with improvement in clinical outcomes. By contrast, EMA did not deem preclinical data sufficient to expand the label of CFTR modulators without confirmatory clinical data., Conclusions: Regulators played an important role in fostering the development and approval of CFTR modulators. However, differences were found between FDA and EMA in the way of reviewing and licensing CFTR modulators, which extended beyond semantics affecting patients' eligibility and access: FDA's approach was more mechanistic/biology-driven while the EMA's one was more oriented by clinical evidence. This might refer to the connection between the EMA and the Member States, which tends to base decisions on pricing and reimbursement on clinical data rather than pre-clinical ones. Here we have proposed a two-step personalized-based model to merge the ethical commitment of ensuring larger access to all potential eligible patients (including those harboring very rare mutations) with the one of ensuring access to clinically assessed and effective medicines through Real World Data., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Historical antecedents of pharmaceutical sciences are sound on product orientation based on (analytical) chemistry, drug delivery and basic pharmacology. Over the last decades we have seen a transition towards a stronger disease orientation. This raises questions on whether, how and to what extent unmet medical need (UMN) is important in priority setting, funding and impact in pharmaceutical sciences. An online survey in 2020 collected perspectives of internationally recognised pharmaceutical scientists (N = 92), mainly from academia and industry, on drivers and influencing factors in pharmaceutical sciences. The study offers a unique global perspective, demonstrating a solid command of the global needs in pharmaceutical sciences. The survey revealed that UMN is currently seen as one of the three most important drivers, also in addition to emerging trends in science and opportunities driven by collaboration. There are expectations that UMN's impact becomes more influential. This was consistent for both industry and academic respondents. The majority of respondents also indicated that anticipated lessons learned from COVID-19 will strengthen the impact of UMN on science and leadership. This is important as prioritisation of research towards UMN can address the clinical needs where needed the most., Competing Interests: Declarations of Interest None. The views expressed in this article are the personal views of the authors and must not be understood or quoted as being made on behalf of the International Pharmaceutical Federation., (Copyright © 2021 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aims: Cancer drugs are increasingly approved through expedited regulatory pathways including the European conditional marketing authorization (CMA). Whether, when taking CMA post-approval confirmatory trials into account, the level of evidence and clinical benefit between CMA and standard approved (SMA) drugs differs remains unknown., Methods: We identified all CMA cancer indications converted to SMA in 2006-2020 and compared these to similar SMA indications with regard to pivotal trial and CMA post-approval confirmatory trial design, outcomes and demonstrated clinical benefit (per the European Society for Medical Oncology Magnitude of Clinical Benefit Scale). We tested for differences in clinical benefit and whether substantial clinical benefit was demonstrated. To account for the clinical benefit of unconverted CMA indications, we performed sensitivity analyses., Results: We included 15 SMA and 15 converted CMA cancer indications (17 remained unconverted). Approval of 11 SMA (73%) and four CMA indications (27%) was supported by a controlled trial. Improved overall survival (OS) was demonstrated for four SMA indications (27%). Improved quality of life (QoL) was demonstrated for three SMA (20%) and one CMA indication(s) (7%). Of subsequent CMA post-approval confirmatory trials, 11 were controlled (79%), one demonstrated improved OS (7%) and five improved QoL (36%). After conversion, CMA indications were associated with similar clinical benefit (P = .31) and substantial clinical benefit as SMA indications (risk ratio 1.4, 95% confidence interval 0.57-3.4)., Conclusion: While CMA cancer indications are initially associated with less comprehensive evidence than SMA indications, levels of evidence and clinical benefit are similar after conversion from CMA to SMA., (© 2021 The Authors. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Pharmacological Society.)

Background and Aims: There is an alarming delay in Europe for anticancer medicines becoming accessible for children. Following a paediatric European Union marketing authorisation, national Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies evaluate effectiveness, and safety of medicines to support decision on their cost and reimbursement. This study (a SIOPE Access to Medicines project) aimed to evaluate how these HTA evaluations take place for anticancer medicines indicated for paediatric use in Europe and to explore where the delays for market access originate., Methods: We obtained HTA reports from the public domain for nine European countries for blinatumomab, dinutuximab beta and tisagenlecleucel. We evaluated the time elapsed between marketing authorisation for a paediatric indication and a national HTA decision and the nature of the decision., Results: Out of 23 HTA decisions (four countries without blinatumomab report), 18 were positive, two with restrictions, three negative. For blinatumomab, tisagenlecleucel and dinutuximab beta, the median time to an HTA decision after regulatory approval for paediatric use was 353 days (range 193-751), 141 days (range 77-517) and 515 days (range 0-780), respectively, with variability between countries. Dinutuximab beta and tisagenlecleucel were first introduced in children, but did not result in shorter time to HTA decision. For blinatumomab, marketing authorisation followed 1008 days after the indication in adults, with HTA applications submitted a median of 167 days later, and a recommendation after 145 days., Conclusions: This study reveals ample variability in HTA decision making in nine European Union countries. Collaboration and alignment of required evidence is needed to facilitate robust scientific HTA assessments, also considering methodological challenges in paediatric oncology., Competing Interests: Conflict of interest statement The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) are highly innovative therapies. Their costs and uncertain value claims have raised concerns among health technology assessment (HTA) bodies and payers. Little is known about how underlying considerations in HTA of ATMPs shape assessment and reimbursement recommendations. We aim to identify and assess key considerations that played a role in HTA of ATMPs underlying reimbursement recommendations., Methods: A review of HTA reports was conducted of all authorized ATMPs in Scotland, The Netherlands, and England. Considerations were extracted and categorized into EUnetHTA Core Model domains. Per jurisdiction, considerations were aggregated and key considerations identified (defined as occurring in >1/assessment per jurisdiction). A narrative analysis was conducted comparing key considerations between jurisdictions and different reimbursement recommendations., Results: We identified 15 ATMPs and 18 HTA reports. In The Netherlands and England most key considerations were identified in clinical effectiveness (EFF) and cost- and economic effectiveness (ECO) domains. In Scotland, the social aspects domain yielded most key considerations, followed by ECO and EFF. More uncertainty in evidence and assessment outcomes was accepted when orphan or end-of-life criteria were applied. A higher percentage of considerations supporting recommendations were identified for products with positive recommendations compared with restricted and negative recommendations., Conclusions: This is the first empirical review of HTA's using the EUnetHTA Core Model to identify and structure key considerations retrospectively. It provides insights in supporting and opposing considerations for reimbursement of individual products and differences between jurisdictions. Besides the EFF and ECO domain, the social, ethical, and legal domains seem to bear considerable weight in assessment of ATMPs., (Copyright © 2021 ISPOR–The Professional Society for Health Economics and Outcomes Research. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

This study outlines the ways in which different health technology assessment (HTA) organizations deal with uncertainty in relative effectiveness assessments (REAs), using the GRADE framework as a common reference. Guidelines regarding REA and uncertainty assessment methods and three most recent HTA reports (as of April 2020) of seven HTA organizations in Germany, England and Wales, France, the Netherlands, Europe (EUnetHTA), the USA, and Canada were included. First, it was analyzed how each organization addressed uncertainty on the following levels of evidence: (i) individual studies, (ii) body of evidence for one outcome, (iii) body of evidence across all outcomes, and (iv) added net benefit. Second, the extent to which HTA organizations considered the eight domains of certainty of evidence defined by GRADE was assessed. For individual studies, checklists were the most common approach to express uncertainty (4/7 organizations). Uncertainty in the body of evidence for all outcomes and in added benefit was combined in a single conclusion by five organizations. All organizations reported on at least 4/5 downgrading domains of GRADE, while the three upgrading domains were reported less. The operationalization of the assessment of multiple domains was unclear due to vague or absent guidelines. HTA organizations consider most domains of the GRADE framework, but approaches to assess uncertainty within REAs on different levels of evidence differ substantially between organizations. More alignment and guidance on the best methods to deal with uncertainty within HTA could lead to more clarity for stakeholders and to more aligned reimbursement recommendations.

Real-world data/real-world evidence (RWD/RWE) are considered to have a great potential to complement, in some cases, replace the evidence generated through randomized controlled trials. By tradition, use of RWD/RWE in the postauthorization phase is well-known, whereas published evidence of use in the pre-authorization phase of medicines development is lacking. The primary aim of this study was to identify and quantify the role of potential use of RWD/RWE (RWE signatures) during the pre-authorization phase, as presented in the initial marketing authorization applications of new medicines centrally evaluated with a positive opinion in 2018-2019 (n = 111) by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Data for the study was retrieved from the evaluation overviews of the European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs), which reflect the scientific conclusions of the assessment process and are accessible through the EMA website. RWE signatures were extracted into an RWE Data Matrix, including 11 categories divided over 5 stages of the drug development lifecycle. Nearly all EPARs included RWE signatures for the discovery (98.2%) and life-cycle management (100.0%). Half of them included RWE signatures for the full development phase (48.6%) and for supporting regulatory decisions at the registration (46.8%), whereas over a third (35.1%) included RWE signatures for the early development. RWE signatures were more often seen for orphan and conditionally approved medicines. Oncology, hematology, and anti-infectives stood out as therapeutic areas with most RWE signatures in their full development phase. The findings bring unprecedented insights about the vast use of RWD/RWE in drug development supporting the regulatory decision making., (© 2021 The Authors. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

There is a growing trend for pharmaceutical companies to seek scientific advice on drug development from a Health Technology Assessment (HTA) perspective, to improve the efficiency of their studies, enable better trial design, and support the goals of positive HTA recommendation for reimbursement. This study uses information collected directly from companies on individual products to assess their strategies and practices for seeking HTA-related scientific advice in terms of which stakeholders to engage and for what purpose, when to seek scientific advice, and whether to implement that advice within global clinical development., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)