Search

Regulatory qualification of biomarkers facilitates their harmonized use across drug developers, enabling more personalized medicine. This study reviews various aspects of the European Medicines Agency's (EMA's) biomarker qualification procedure, including frequency and outcome, common challenges, and biomarker characteristics. Our findings provide insights into the EMA's biomarker qualification process and will thereby support future applications. All biomarker-related "Qualification of Novel Methodologies for Medicine Development" procedures that started from 2008 to 2020 were included. Procedural data were extracted from relevant documents and analyzed descriptively. In total, 86 biomarker qualification procedures were identified, of which 13 resulted in qualified biomarkers. Whereas initially many biomarker qualification procedures were linked to a single company and specific drug development program, a shift was observed to qualification efforts by consortia. Most biomarkers were proposed (n = 45) and qualified (n = 9) for use in patient selection, stratification, and/or enrichment, followed by efficacy biomarkers (37 proposed, 4 qualified). Overall, many issues were raised during qualification procedures, mostly related to biomarker properties and assay validation (in 79% and 77% of all procedures, respectively). Issues related to the proposed context of use and rationale were least common yet were still raised in 54% of all procedures. While few qualified biomarkers are currently available, procedures focus increasingly on biomarkers for general use instead of those linked to specific drug compounds. The issues raised during qualification procedures illustrate the thorough discussions taking place between applicants and regulators-highlighting aspects that need careful consideration and underlining the importance of an appropriate validation strategy.

Performance-based managed entry agreements (PB-MEAs) might allow patient access to new medicines, but practical hurdles make competent authorities for pricing and reimbursement (CAPR) reluctant to implement PB-MEAs. We explored if the feasibility of PB-MEAs might improve by better aligning regulatory postauthorization requirements with the data generation of PB-MEAs and by active collaboration and data sharing. Reviewers from seven CAPRs provided structured assessments of the information available at the European Medicines Agency (EMA) Web site on regulatory postauthorization requirements for fifteen recently authorized products. The reviewers judged to what extent regulatory postauthorization studies could help implement PB-MEAs by addressing uncertainty gaps. Study domains assessed were: patient population, intervention, comparators, outcomes, time horizon, anticipated data quality, and anticipated robustness of analysis. Reviewers shared general comments about PB-MEAs for each product and on cooperation with other CAPRs. Reviewers rated regulatory postauthorization requirements at least partly helpful for most products and across domains except the comparator domain. One quarter of responses indicated that public information provided by the EMA was insufficient to support the implementation of PB-MEAs. Few PB-MEAs were in place for these products, but the potential for implementation of PB-MEAs or collaboration across CAPRs was seen as more favorable. Responses helped delineate a set of conditions where PB-MEAs may help reduce uncertainty. In conclusion, PB-MEAs are not a preferred option for CAPRs, but we identified conditions where PB-MEAs might be worth considering. The complexities of implementing PB-MEAs remain a hurdle, but collaboration across silos and more transparency on postauthorization studies could help overcome some barriers. ispartof: International Journal Of Technology Assessment In Health Care vol:37 issue:e83 pages:1-11 ispartof: location:England status: Published online

On June 28, 2018, the Committee for Advanced Therapies and the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use adopted a positive opinion, recommending the granting of a marketing authorization for the medicinal product Yescarta for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma, after two or more lines of systemic therapy. Yescarta, which was designated as an orphan medicinal product and included in the European Medicines Agency's Priority Medicines scheme, was granted an accelerated review timetable. The active substance of Yescarta is axicabtagene ciloleucel, an engineered autologous T-cell immunotherapy product whereby a patient's own T cells are harvested and genetically modified ex vivo by retroviral transduction using a retroviral vector to express a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) comprising an anti-CD19 single chain variable fragment linked to CD28 costimulatory domain and CD3-zeta signaling domain. The transduced anti-CD19 CAR T cells are expanded ex vivo and infused back into the patient, where they can recognize and eliminate CD19-expressing cells. The benefits of Yescarta as studied in ZUMA-1 phase II (NCT02348216) were an overall response rate per central review of 66% (95% confidence interval, 56%-75%) at a median follow-up of 15.1 months in the intention to treat population and a complete response rate of 47% with a significant duration. The most common adverse events were cytokine release syndrome, neurological adverse events, infections, pyrexia, diarrhea, nausea, hypotension, and fatigue. Implications for Practice Yescarta (axicabtagene ciloleucel) was the first chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy to be submitted for evaluation to the European Medicines Agency and admitted into the "priority medicine" scheme; it was granted accelerated assessment on the basis of anticipated clinical benefit in relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, a condition of unmet medical need. Indeed, Yescarta showed an overall response rate of 66% and a complete response rate of 47% with a significant duration and a manageable toxicity that compared very favorably with historical controls. Here the analysis of benefits and risks is presented, and specific challenges with this important novel product are highlighted, providing further insights and reflections for future medical research.

Item does not contain fulltext

Nature Reviews Drug Discovery 15, 440 (2016) The affiliations for Kerstin Westermark and Jordi Llinares-Garcia were listed incorrectly. These have been corrected in the online versions of the article.