Search

IntroductionAlthough drug repurposing holds great potential in addressing unmet needs, successful practical implementation is challenging and has been less widespread than anticipated. Regulators may play a critical role in addressing this, and recent years have seen the conception of regulator-initiated and publicly-funded repurposing initiatives, with significant regulator involvement.MethodsInternational regulators and public funders (n = 8) were interviewed to obtain insight in how repurposing can be advanced from a regulatory perspective. Transcripts were thematically analyzed.ResultsMost initiatives employed a broad concept of repurposing. While patient access was the main focus, label extension remained the gold standard. Commonly perceived barriers were a lack of regulatory expertise, limited downstream drug development, insufficient financial incentives, inadequate awareness of challenges, and poor collaboration. Ways for regulators to facilitate repurposing include early and accessible involvement fostering education, collaboration, and awareness. Increased stakeholder engagement, including internationally, was recommended. Legislative changes may enable the current repurposing ecosystem to evolve.DiscussionRegulators may play a central role in advancing repurposing by reconsidering their responsibilities within the current regulatory framework, both in mitigating repurposing pitfalls and actively encouraging repurposing initiatives by industry and non-traditional drug developers.

Repurposing is one of the key opportunities to address the unmet rare diseases therapeutic need. Based on cases of drug repurposing in small population conditions, and previous work in drug repurposing, we analyzed the most important lessons learned, such as the sharing of clinical observations, reaching out to regulatory scientific advice at an early stage, and public-private collaboration. In addition, current upcoming trends in the field of drug repurposing in rare diseases were analyzed, including the role these trends could play in the rare diseases’ ecosystem. Specifically, we cover the opportunities of innovation platforms, the use of real-world data, the use of artificial intelligence, regulatory initiatives in repurposing, and patient engagement throughout the repurposing project. The outcomes from these emerging activities will help progress the field of drug repurposing for the benefit of patients, public health and medicines development.

Objective Current evidence on the effectiveness of SARS-CoV-2 prophylaxis is inconclusive. We aimed to systematically evaluate published studies on repurposed drugs for the prevention of laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and/or COVID-19 among healthy adults.Design Systematic review.Eligibility Quantitative experimental and observational intervention studies that evaluated the effectiveness of repurposed drugs for the primary prevention of SARS-CoV-2 infection and/or COVID-19 disease.Data source PubMed and Embase (1 January 2020–28 September 2022).Risk of bias Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 and Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised Studies of Interventions tools were applied to assess the quality of studies.Data analysis Meta-analyses for each eligible drug were performed if ≥2 similar study designs were available.Results In all, 65 (25 trials, 40 observational) and 29 publications were eligible for review and meta-analyses, respectively. Most studies pertained to hydroxychloroquine (32), ACE inhibitor (ACEi) or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) (11), statin (8), and ivermectin (8). In trials, hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis reduced laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (risk ratio: 0.82 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.90), I2=48%), a result largely driven by one clinical trial (weight: 60.5%). Such beneficial effects were not observed in observational studies, nor for prognostic clinical outcomes. Ivermectin did not significantly reduce the risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection (RR: 0.35 (95% CI 0.10 to 1.26), I2=96%) and findings for clinical outcomes were inconsistent. Neither ACEi or ARB were beneficial in reducing SARS-CoV-2 infection. Most of the evidence from clinical trials was of moderate quality and of lower quality in observational studies.Conclusions Results from our analysis are insufficient to support an evidence-based repurposed drug policy for SARS-CoV-2 prophylaxis because of inconsistency. In the view of scarce supportive evidence on repurposing drugs for COVID-19, alternative strategies such as immunisation of vulnerable people are warranted to prevent the future waves of infection.PROSPERO registration number CRD42021292797.

BackgroundThe Dutch Institute for Clinical Auditing (DICA) Medicines Program was set up in September 2018 to evaluate expensive medicine use in daily practice in terms of real-world effectiveness using only existing data sources. ObjectiveThe aim of this study is to describe the potential of the addition of declaration data to quality registries to provide participating centers with benchmark information about the use of medicines and outcomes among patients. MethodsA total of 3 national population-based registries were linked to clinical and financial data from the hospital pharmacy, the Dutch diagnosis treatment combinations information system including in-hospital activities, and survival data from health care insurers. The first results of the real-world data (RWD) linkage are presented using descriptive statistics to assess patient, tumor, and treatment characteristics. Time-to-next-treatment (TTNT) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method. ResultsA total of 21 Dutch hospitals participated in the DICA Medicines Program, which included 7412 patients with colorectal cancer, 1981 patients with metastasized colon cancer, 3860 patients with lung cancer, 1253 patients with metastasized breast cancer, and 7564 patients with rheumatic disease. The data were used for hospital benchmarking to gain insights into medication use in specific patient populations, treatment information, clinical outcomes, and costs. Detailed treatment information (duration and treatment steps) led to insights into differences between hospitals in daily clinical practices. Furthermore, exploratory analyses on clinical outcomes (TTNT and OS) were possible. ConclusionsThe DICA Medicines Program shows that it is possible to gather and link RWD about medicines to 4 disease-specific population-based registries. Since these RWD became available with minimal registration burden and effort for hospitals, this method can be explored in other population-based registries to evaluate real-world efficacy.