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.

The European Network for Health Technology Assessment (EUnetHTA) organizes an annual Forum with stakeholders to receive feedback on its activities, processes, and outputs produced. The fourth edition of the EUnetHTA Forum brought together representatives of HTA bodies, patient organizations, healthcare professionals (HCPs), academia, payers, regulators, and industry. The aim of this paper is to provide an overview of the highlights presented at the 2019 EUnetHTA Forum, reporting the main items and themes discussed in the plenary panel and breakout sessions. The leading topic was the concept of unmet medical need seen from different stakeholders' perspectives. Breakout sessions covered the joint production of assessment reports and engagement with payers, patients, and HCPs. Synergies, pragmatism, and inclusiveness across Member States and stakeholders were emphasized as leading factors to put in place a collaboration that serves the interest of patients and public health in a truly European spirit.

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

An increasing number of genome-editing technologies are being developed. Here, we highlight some of the key issues for future therapies using these technologies from a regulatory perspective. An increasing number of genome-editing technologies are being developed. Here, we highlight some of the key issues for future therapies using these technologies from a regulatory perspective.

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.

Animal models are important tools in the discovery and development of treatments for rare diseases, particularly given the small populations of patients in which to evaluate therapeutic candidates. Here, we provide a compilation of mammalian animal models for metabolic, neuromuscular and ophthalmological orphan-designated conditions based on information gathered by the European Medicines Agency's Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products (COMP) since its establishment in 2000, as well as from a review of the literature. We discuss the predictive value of the models and their advantages and limitations with the aim of highlighting those that are appropriate for the preclinical evaluation of novel therapies, thereby facilitating further drug development for rare diseases.

In the European Union rare diseases have been defined as life-threatening or chronically debilitating conditions that affect no more than 5 in 10,000 people in the EU [1].

The orphan designation procedure relates to medicinal products for human use aimed at the treatment, prevention or diagnosis of diseases. It is a free of charge procedure and can be requested at any stage of the development by a sponsor who can be either a company or an individual, as long as is established in EU, Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Norway. Once the Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products (COMP) adopts opinion on designation, the European Commission grants a decision that gives access to the incentives.

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.

In 2010, the European Regulation for Orphan Medicinal Products (OMPs) was in force for ten years. In this study we assessed possible determinants of applications for OMPs in the EU since 2000 that are associated with a successful marketing authorisation. Our analysis shows that clinical trial characteristics such as demonstrating convincing evidence of a beneficial effect on the primary endpoint, the selection of a clinically relevant endpoint, providing RCT data as pivotal study evidence and the submission of sound dose finding data are critical success factors. In addition, high medical need seems to counterweigh uncertainties about the scientific evidence in the benefit–risk assessment of OMPs.

In 2000, regulation on orphan medicinal products was adopted in the European Union with the aim of benefiting patients who suffer from serious, rare conditions for which there is currently no satisfactory treatment. Since then, more than 850 orphan drug designations have been granted by the European Commission based on a positive opinion from the Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products (COMP), and more than 60 orphan drugs have received marketing authorization in Europe. Here, stimulated by the tenth anniversary of the COMP, we reflect on the outcomes and experience gained in the past decade, and contemplate issues for the future, such as catalysing drug development for the large number of rare diseases that still lack effective treatments.

A legislative framework introducing European public health measures on orphan medicinal products came into force in the European Union in April 2000. The aim of the orphan legislation is to stimulate research and development of medicinal products for rare diseases by providing incentives to the sponsors. Incentives include, among others, an unreserved access to the centralized procedure with a 10-year period of market exclusivity and fee reductions including free scientific advice for drug development. Nine years after the implementation of the orphan legislation, more than 690 products have been designated and 58 have received marketing authorizations in Europe. The orphan designations granted to date cover a wide variety of diseases for which there are either no authorized treatments or only limited treatment options with a need for improvement. At the dawn of the tenth anniversary of the orphan legislation, the aim of this article is to review how the European Medicines Agency has supported the mechanisms fostering development of orphan medicines in the E.U. since 2000.