Search

Mandatory pediatric legislation has been implemented in the European Union (EU) and the United States (US) to increase research and the availability of drugs for the pediatric population. Differences in the legislative framework can cause different pediatric requirements for similar indications granted for similar drugs across jurisdictions. This cross-sectional study compares the pediatric requirements for therapeutic indications granted at the time of initial approval for novel drugs approved in the two regions from 2010 to 2018. We collected the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) decisions to grant a waiver and/or to agree on a pediatric development plan and deferrals hereof at marketing authorization (MA) from publicly available documents. An agreed pediatric development plan was required for 66% (N = 188/285) and 63% (N = 134/212) of the indications granted in the EU and the US at the time of approval, respectively. Almost all (EU; 98%, US; 89%) were deferred until after MA. Based on the broad scope of the EU Pediatric Regulation, an additional 36 PIPs originated from the indications granted at MA. In the subset of indications granted for drugs approved in both the EU and the US (N = 232), significantly more indications resulted in an agreed pediatric development plan for one or more subsets of the pediatric population in the EU (N = 185) as compared to the US (N = 82). This was based on the exemption of orphan designated drugs in the US and the broader scope of the EU Pediatric Regulation. However, indications subject to the mandatory pediatric legislation in both regions (N = 131) most often had similar regulatory requirements for the inclusion of the pediatric population from the EMA and the US FDA (83%, N = 109). In conclusion, when comparing mandatory pediatric requirements, more pediatric development plans were agreed upon in the EU than in the US, in line with the broader mandates of the EU Pediatric Regulati

Introduction: Regulatory advisories on hydroxyzine and risk of QT prolongation and Torsade de pointes (TdP) were issued in the UK in April 2015 and Canada in June 2016. We hypothesized patients with risk factors for QT prolongation and TdP, compared with those without risk factors, would be less likely to initiate hydroxyzine in the UK and in British Columbia (BC), Canada, following advisories. Methods: We conducted a longitudinal study with repeated measures, and evaluated hydroxyzine initiation in a UK cohort and a concurrent BC control cohort (April 2013–March 2016) as well as in a BC advisory cohort (June 2014–May 2017). Results: This study included 247,665 patients in the UK cohort, 297,147 patients in the BC control cohort, and 303,653 patients in the BC advisory cohort. Over a 12-month post-advisory period, hydroxyzine initiation decreased by 21% in the UK (rate ratio 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.66–0.96) relative to the expected level of initiation based on the pre-advisory trend. Hydroxyzine initiation did not change in the BC control cohort or following the Canadian advisory in the BC advisory cohort. The decrease in hydroxyzine initiation in the UK in the 12 months after the advisories was not significantly different for patients with risk factors compared with those without risk factors. Conclusion: Hydroxyzine initiation decreased in the UK, but not in BC, in the 12 months following safety advisories. The decrease in hydroxyzine initiation in the UK was not significantly different for patients with versus without risk factors for QT prolongation and TdP.

Pediatric legislations in the European Union (EU) and the United States (US) have increased medicines approved for use in the pediatric population. Despite many similarities between these frameworks, the EU Paediatric Regulation more often provides regulators with a mandate to require pediatric drug development for novel medicinal products compared to US regulators. If used, this could give rise to differences in the guidance for pediatric use provided for clinicians in the two regions. However, the level of discordance in the guidance for pediatric use between the two regions is unknown. This cross-sectional study compares guidance for pediatric use in the EU Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) and the US Prescription Information (USPI) on the level of indications granted for novel medicinal products approved after the pediatric legislations came in to force in both regions. For all indications granted as of March 2020 for novel medicinal products approved in both regions between 2010 and 2018, we compared the guidance for pediatric use in the EU SmPC and the USPI. The guidance for pediatric use differed for 18% (61/348) of the listed indications covering 21% (45/217) of the products, but without the guidance being contradictory. Where guidance differed, an equal share was observed for indications with a higher level of information for pediatric use in one region over the other (49% (30/61) in the US; 51% (31/61) in the EU). The discrepancies in pediatric information could be explained by differences in regulations for 21% (13/61) of the indications. Only a few conditions and diseases (EU n = 4; US n = 1) were observed to cover potential pediatric use outside the approved adult indication. Although the EU Paediatric Regulation more often provides regulators a mandate for requiring pediatric drug development as compared to the US PREA, this was not reflected in the prescription information approved by the two regulatory authorities.

Objective To evaluate the association between regulatory drug safety advisories and changes in drug utilisation. Design We conducted controlled, interrupted times series analyses with administrative prescription claims data to estimate changes in drug utilisation following advisories. We used random-effects meta-analysis with inverse-variance weighting to estimate the average postadvisory change in drug utilisation across advisories. Study population We included advisories issued in Canada, Denmark, the UK and the USA during 2009-2015, mainly concerning drugs in common use in primary care. We excluded advisories related to over-the-counter drugs, drug-drug interactions, vaccines, drugs used primarily in hospital and advisories with co-interventions within +/- 6 months. Main outcome measures Change in drug utilisation, defined as actual versus predicted percentage change in the number of prescriptions (for advisories without dose-related advice), or in the number of defined daily doses (for dose-related advisories), per 100 000 population. Results Among advisories without dose-related advice (n=20), the average change in drug utilisation was -5.83% (95% CI -10.93 to -0.73; p=0.03). Advisories with dose-related advice (n=4) were not associated with a statistically significant change in drug utilisation (-1.93%; 95% CI -17.10 to 13.23; p=0.80). In a post hoc subgroup analysis of advisories without dose-related advice, we observed no statistically significant difference between the change in drug utilisation following advisories with explicit prescribing advice, such as a recommendation to consider the risk of a drug when prescribing, and the change in drug utilisation following advisories without such advice. Conclusions Among safety advisories issued on a wide range of drugs during 2009-2015 in 4 countries (Canada, Denmark, the UK and the USA), the association of advisories with changes in drug utilisation was variable, and the average association was modest.

The need to optimize drug development and facilitate faster access for patients has ignited discussions around the importance of improving interactions between health technology assessment (HTA) bodies and regulatory agencies. In this study, we conducted a systematic review to examine processes, progress, outcomes, and challenges of harmonization/interaction initiatives between HTA bodies and regulatory agencies. MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the International Pharmaceutical Abstracts database were searched up to 21 October 2019. Searches for gray literature (working papers, commissioned reports, policy documents, etc.) were performed via Google scholar and several institutional websites. An online cross-sectional survey was also conducted among HTA (n = 22) and regulatory agencies (n = 6) across Europe to supplement the systematic review. Overall, we found that while there are areas of divergence, there has been progress over time in narrowing the gap in evidentiary requirements for HTA bodies and regulatory agencies. Most regulatory agencies (4/6; 67%) and half (11/22, 50%) of the HTA bodies reported having a formal link for "collaborating" with the other. Several mechanisms such as early tripartite dialogues, parallel submissions (reviews), adaptive licensing pathways, and postauthorization data generation have been explored as avenues for improving collaboration. A number of pilot initiatives have shown positive effects of these models to reduce the time between regulatory and HTA decisions, which may translate into faster access for patients to life-saving therapies. Thus, future approaches aimed at improving harmonization/interaction between HTA bodies and regulatory agencies should build on these existing models/mechanisms while examining their long-term impacts. Several barriers including legal, organizational, and resource-related factors were also identified, and these need to be addressed to achieve greater alignment in the current regulatory and reimbursement