Conditional approval and approval under exceptional circumstances as regulatory instruments for stimulating responsible drug innovation in Europe

The Epistemic Policies of Anti-Ageing Medicines in the European Union

Anti-ageing medicines are products intended to extend lifespan and healthspan in humans that have a good potential use in public health policies. In the European Union, their development, production and consumption are dependent on regulatory science performed by the European Medicines Agency and its associated epistemic policies. They impose, among other things, an unfavourable burden of proof, a strict standard of proof and meta-methodological constrictions related to some theoretical issues. This results in a distribution of errors that tends to reduce false positives while increasing false negatives, leading to a set of social consequences that are generally accepted when the focus is placed on conventional medicines. However, when the same epistemic policies are applied to anti-ageing medicines, the distribution of errors is imbalanced, and undesirable outcomes like research discouragement and waiting time extensions appear. Three possible strategies that policymakers could implement to unblock the situation are presented for future reflection: the consideration of ageing as a disease, the application of methodological asymmetry and the use of biomarkers during clinical research.

The Evolution of Drug Regulatory Sciences in the Netherlands: More than a Country Report

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.

Comparison between European Medicines Agency and US Food and Drug Administration in Granting Accelerated Marketing Authorizations for Covid-19 Medicines and their Utilized Regulations

BACKGROUND

Prompted by the Covid-19 pandemic and the need to ensure timely and safe access to medicines during a pandemic, the aim of this study was to compare and contrast the EU and US regulations, processes, and outcomes pertaining to the granting of accelerated Marketing Authorizations (MAs) for COVID-19 vaccines and treatments with a view to determining how effective these regulations were in delivering safe medicines in a timely manner.

METHODS

MAs for medicines approved for Covid-related indications in the first two pandemic years (March 2020-February 2022) were identified using the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) websites. Authorization reports and utilized regulations were reviewed to determine and compare approval timelines, facilitated pathways, accepted clinical evidence, and effectiveness of the regulations by assessing them against time and safety standards.

RESULTS

By the end of February 2022, the EMA and FDA had granted 12 and 14 MAs, respectively. Two EU and two US approvals were issued in relation to new indications for already-approved treatments; the remaining ones were first-time approvals of novel vaccines and treatments. The median time to approval was 24 days for the EMA's conditional MAs and 36 days for the USFDA's Emergency Use Authorizations (EUA) for all Covid-19 medicines. This is compared with 23 and 28 days, respectively, specifically for first-time novel vaccines and treatments authorized by both USFDA and EMA. The USFDA and EMA differed markedly in terms of the time taken to approve new indications of already-approved treatment; the USFDA took 65 days for such approval, compared with 133 days for the EMA. Where MAs were issued by both authorities, USFDA approvals were issued before EMA approvals; applications for approval were submitted to the FDA before submission to the EMA. Three EU and two US MAs were based on data from two or more phase 3 clinical trials; the remaining ones were based on single trial data. Only six EU and four US trials had been completed by the time of authorization. This was in line with regulations. While the applicable regulations shared many similarities, there were marked differences. For instance, the EU's conditional MA regulation pertains only to first approvals of new treatments. It does not cover new indications of already-approved treatments. This contrasts with the US, where the EUA regulation applies to both types of applications, something that may have impacted approval timelines. Overall, both EU and US utilized regulations were considered to be effective. For most cases, utilizing such regulations for Covid-19 MAs resulted in faster approval timelines compared to standard MAs. They were flexible enough to manage the process of granting emergency approvals while maintaining strict requirements and allowing comprehensive reviews of the supporting evidence.

CONCLUSION

US and EU regulations were effective in ensuring timely accelerated market access to Covid-19 medicines during the pandemic without compromising the approval standards related to safety or efficacy. The population in both regions will receive comparable access to medicines during a pandemic if sponsors submit their applications to both authorities in parallel.

European Conditional Marketing Authorization in a Rapidly Evolving Treatment Landscape: A Comprehensive Study of Anticancer Medicinal Products in 2006-2020

Since 2006, the European conditional marketing authorization (CMA) aims to facilitate timely patient access to medicinal products for which there is an unmet medical need by accepting less comprehensive data than normally required. The granting of CMA requires a positive benefit-risk balance, unmet medical needs to be fulfilled, likely submission of comprehensive data postauthorization, and the benefit of immediate availability to outweigh the risks of data noncomprehensiveness. Since its first use, more than half of all CMAs represent (hemato-)oncology indications. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the conditions in which CMA has been applied for anticancer medicinal products and whether they have changed over time. We retrospectively assessed the European public assessment reports of the 30 anticancer medicinal products granted CMA in 2006-2020 (51% of all 59 CMAs). Comparison of 2006-2013 to 2014-2020 highlighted increased proportions of proactively requested CMAs (+40%), medicinal products that addressed unmet medical needs by providing a major therapeutic advantage over authorized treatments (+38%), and orphan designated indications (+32%). In contrast, it showed decreased proportions of medicinal products for which a scientific advisory group was consulted (-55%) and phase III randomized controlled trial data were available (-38%). This suggests that applicants and the European Medicines Agency have learned how to use the CMA as a regulatory tool, among others, through better planning and proactive interaction. However, the increasing number of granted CMAs complicates the establishment of unmet medical need and the benefit-risk balance, especially in crowded indications and when only phase II uncontrolled trials are available.

HTA Barriers for Conditional Approval Drugs

BACKGROUND

Conditional approval pathways facilitate accelerated marketing authorisation based on immature clinical evidence for drugs that address an unmet medical need in a life-threatening or chronically debilitating condition. Lowering evidence requirements for marketing authorisation results in higher clinical uncertainty, which may present challenges for the health technology assessment (HTA) of these products.

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study is to assess whether conditionally approved drugs face higher probabilities of HTA rejection or delays in HTA approval relative to drugs with standard marketing authorisation.

METHODS

This paper adopts a mixed-methods approach to provide a meta-analysis of HTA outcomes across 80 drug-indication pairs in France, England, Scotland and Canada. Differences in the characteristics (i.e. disease rarity and clinical trial design) of conditionally approved drugs and drugs with standard marketing authorisation and drivers of HTA outcomes are assessed through logistics regressions. Delays in HTA approval are assessed through a survival analysis.

RESULTS

Relative to standard approval drugs, conditionally approved drugs are less likely to include phase III trial designs, less likely to include clinical endpoints and less likely to include an active comparator. Uncertainties in clinical and economic evidence are raised more frequently by HTA agencies for conditionally approved drugs, which have a marginally lower probability of receiving HTA approval relative to drugs with standard approval. Conditionally approved drugs face moderate delays (an average of 6 months) in receiving HTA approval relative to standard approval drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, conditionally approved drugs likely face increased barriers at the HTA level.

Pre-approval and post-approval availability of evidence and clinical benefit of conditionally approved cancer drugs in Europe: a comparison with standard approved cancer drugs

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.

Associations between uncertainties identified by the European Medicines Agency and national decision making on reimbursement by HTA agencies

We aimed to determine whether uncertainties identified by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) were associated with negative relative effectiveness assessments (REAs) and negative overall reimbursement recommendations by national health technology assessment (HTA) agencies. Therefore, we identified all HTA reports from Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS; France), National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE; England/Wales), Scottish Medicine Consortium (SMC; Scotland), and Zorginstituut Nederland (ZIN; The Netherlands) for a cohort of innovative medicines that the EMA had approved in 2009 to 2010 (excluding vaccines). Uncertainty regarding pivotal trial methodology, clinical outcomes, and their clinical relevance were combined to reflect a low, medium, or high level of uncertainty. We assessed associations by calculating risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and agreement between REA and overall reimbursement recommendation outcomes. We identified 36 medicines for which 121 reimbursement recommendations had been issued by the HTA agencies between September 2009 and July 2018. High versus low uncertainty was associated with an increased risk for negative REAs and negative overall reimbursement recommendations: RRs 1.9 (95% CI 0.9-3.9) and 1.6 (95% CI 0.7-3.5), respectively, which was supported by further sensitivity analyses. We identified a lack of agreement between 33 (27%) REA and overall reimbursement recommendation outcomes, which were mostly restricted recommendations that followed on negative REAs in case of low or medium uncertainty. In conclusion, high uncertainty identified by the EMA was associated with negative REAs and negative overall reimbursement recommendations. To reduce uncertainty and ultimately facilitate efficient patient access, regulators, HTA agencies, and other stakeholders should discuss how uncertainties should be weighed and addressed early in the drug life cycle of innovative treatments.

Physicians' attitudes towards accelerated access to medicines

In recent years, a variety of 'accelerated access' schemes have been introduced by pharmaceutical regulators and funders globally. These schemes aim to overcome perceived regulatory and reimbursement barriers to accessing medicines - particularly for patients with limited time or therapeutic options. However, patient access to approved medicines is mediated by a number of third parties including regulators and payers, and physicians who act both as gatekeepers and guides to prescribed medications. It is therefore essential to know how physicians think about accelerated access as they are responsible for advising patients on and prescribing medicines made available via these pathways. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 18 Australian physicians focusing on their attitudes towards accelerated access. We identified three 'archetypes' of physicians: 'confident accelerators', 'cautious accelerators', and 'decelerators'. Although all acknowledged the potential risks and benefits of accelerated access, they disagreed on their magnitude and extent and how they should be balanced in both policy formation and clinical practice. Overall, our results illustrate the diversity of clinical opinions in this area and the importance of monitoring both the prescribing and clinical outcomes that result from accelerated access programmes to ensure that these are both clinically and morally acceptable.

Breakthrough Therapy, PRIME and Sakigake: A Comparison Between Neuroscience and Oncology in Obtaining Preferred Regulatory Status

BACKGROUND

Because of the increasing demand for drugs addressing life-threatening and rare diseases, regulatory agencies have developed a variety of accelerated regulatory pathways. These programs are aimed at prioritizing the most promising drug candidates for diseases lacking satisfactory treatments. The most prominent accelerated programs introduced have been Breakthrough-Therapy Designation (BTD) in the United States, Priority Medicine (PRIME) in the European Union and Sakigake in Japan. This article reviews these designations and looks at differences in how they are granted across the 3 jurisdictions focusing on neuroscience and oncology.

METHODS

Our objective was to analyze BTD, PRIME, and Sakigake approvals between 2012 and 2019 with a focus on numerical disparities of designations granted between the 2 therapeutic areas. A search of public sources pertaining to topics of BTD, PRIME, and Sakigake was undertaken.

RESULTS

This analysis revealed that 48% of BTD were granted in oncology, while neuroscience received 8% of these designations, for PRIME designations were 27% received by oncology and 15% by neuroscience and in Japan, 50% of Sakigake were granted to oncology and 22% to neuroscience products.

CONCLUSION

Given the global nature of drug development and relative similarity of these regulatory mechanisms, there is an apparent disparity between the US granting special status at 6:1 (oncology: neuroscience) and both the EU and Japan granting at 2:1. This disproportionate ratio is likely impacted by multifactorial issues; however, this difference is worth further investigation.

Flexible and Expedited Regulatory Review Processes for Innovative Medicines and Regenerative Medical Products in the US, the EU, and Japan

Several expedited regulatory review projects for innovative drugs and regenerative medical products have been developed in the US, the EU, and Japan. Each regulatory agency has elaborated an original regulatory framework and adopted regulatory projects developed by the other regulatory agencies. For example, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) first developed the breakthrough therapy designation, and then the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA) introduced the Sakigake designation and the priority medicines (PRIME) designation, respectively. In addition, the necessity of the product being first development in Japan is the original feature of the Sakigake designation, while actively supporting the development of advanced-therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) by academia or small/medium-sized sponsors is the original feature of the PRIME; these particular features are different from the breakthrough therapy designation in the US. In this review article, flexible and expedited review processes for new drugs, and cell and gene therapies in the US, the EU, and Japan are described. Moreover, all the drugs and regenerative medical products that were granted conditional approval or Sakigake designation in Japan are listed and analyzed herein.

Health Canada’s Use of its Notice of Compliance With Conditions Drug Approval Policy: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis

Health Canada has developed its Notice of Compliance with conditions (NOC/c) policy to get promising new drugs for serious diseases to market faster than would be possible through its standard approval process. Companies can receive an NOC/c for a new drug or a new indication based on incomplete evidence in return for agreeing to conduct post-market studies. This paper investigates the additional therapeutic gain from drugs approved under this policy, the percent of drugs that have fulfilled their conditions, and the length of time for fulfillment. From the inception of the policy in 1998 to the end of 2017, 89 new drugs and new indications for existing drugs received an NOC/c. Therapeutic evaluations were available for 78 of the drugs, and 54 offered only minimal or no gains over existing products. Fifty NOC/c were fulfilled, 31 were not fulfilled, and 8 were withdrawn. The median time to fulfillment was 1,040 days. Twelve NOC/c took more than 5 years to fulfill their conditions. The unfulfilled NOC/c had been issued for a median of 1,161 days, and 10 had been issued more than 5 years. The value of the NOC/c policy to patients is uncertain.

Changing standards for drug approval: A longitudinal analysis of conditional marketing authorisation in the European Union

Drug regulatory agencies around the world increasingly implement expedited regulatory pathways allowing for approval of medicines that intend to address unmet medical needs based on lower evidentiary standards than would be conventionally required. Few studies have investigated how companies and regulators utilise these pathways. We therefore conducted a longitudinal analysis of the emergence and implementation of the conditional marketing authorisation (CMA) instrument in the European Union. Drawing on archival documents, procedural data and interviews, we show that there was substantial ambiguity among regulators and companies about how to strike a new balance between evidentiary requirements and patient needs. As ambiguities were left unresolved, parties became reluctant to use CMA and in the majority of procedures did not use the pathway in a prospectively planned fashion. Rather, CMA became an option for regulators and companies to apply when submitted data were not strong enough to justify standard approval. Particularly, incumbent companies profited from this. The results stress the challenges of realising institutional change in drug regulation by showing how interest-driven actors can act upon ambiguities in attempts to shape regulatory outcomes and stretch rule interpretations.

Caution needed in introduction of provisional approvals for medicines

The Australian government recently released its response to the Review of Medicines and Medical Devices Regulation, accepting most recommendations. One recommendation involves the introduction of provisional approvals for perceived life-saving and innovative new treatments, allowing these to be approved on the basis of more limited data on the condition that further safety and efficacy data (including real-world evidence) are collected to determine whether full approval should be granted. However, experience with similar schemes overseas raises significant questions about the safety and efficacy of products made available through these pathways. These uncertainties are compounded by the challenges associated with the collection and use of 'real-world' data and the difficulty of withdrawing products from the market once patients and clinicians become familiar with them. Although there may be good reasons to provide patients with earlier access to medicines on the basis of provisional evidence (including providing treatment options and hope to patients with serious illnesses), we must exercise caution in order to protect both current and future patients from potentially harmful and futile treatments and ensure that healthcare systems use their resources wisely.

Regenerative medicine and responsible research and innovation: proposals for a responsible acceleration to the clinic

This paper asks how regenerative medicine can be examined through the ‘responsible research and innovation’ (RRI) approach which has been developed over the past decade. It describes the drivers to the development of RRI, and then argues for the need to understand innovation itself through drawing on social science analysis rooted in science and technology studies. The paper then identifies a number of highly specific challenges faced by the regenerative medicine field and the implications these have for value creation. It offers a number of examples of how a combined RRI/science and technology studies perspective can identify priority areas for policy and concludes by arguing for a ‘responsible acceleration’, more likely to foster readiness at a time when much of the policy domain is pushing for ever-rapid access to cell therapies.

LEGITIMACY OF MEDICINES FUNDING IN THE ERA OF ACCELERATED ACCESS

OBJECTIVES

In recent years, numerous frameworks have been developed to enhance the legitimacy of health technology assessment processes. Despite efforts to implement these "legitimacy frameworks," medicines funding decisions can still be perceived as lacking in legitimacy. We, therefore, sought to examine stakeholder views on factors that they think should be considered when making decisions about the funding of high-cost breast cancer therapies, focusing on those that are not included in current frameworks and processes.

METHODS

We analyzed published discourse on the funding of high-cost breast-cancer therapies. Relevant materials were identified by searching the databases Google, Google Scholar, and Factiva in August 2014 and July 2016 and these were analyzed thematically.

RESULTS

We analyzed fifty published materials and found that stakeholders, for the most part, want to be able to access medicines more quickly and at the same time as other patients and for decision makers to be more flexible with regards to evidence requirements and to use a wider range of criteria when evaluating therapies. Many also advocated for existing process to be accelerated or bypassed to improve access to therapies.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results illustrate that a stakeholder-derived conceptualization of legitimacy emphasizes principles of accelerated access and is not fully accounted for by existing frameworks and processes aimed at promoting legitimacy. However, further research examining the ethical, political, and clinical implications of the stakeholder claims raised here is needed before firm policy recommendations can be made.

Opening the gateways to market and adoption of regenerative medicine? The UK case in context

Regenerative medicine is a site for opposing forces of gatekeeping and innovation. This applies both to regulation of market entry and to clinical adoption. Key gateways include the EU's Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products Regulation, technology assessment body NICE and commissioning/service contractor National Health Service England. The paper maps recent gatekeeping flexibilities, describing the range of gateways to market and healthcare adoption seen as alternatives to mainstream routes. The initiatives range from exemptions in pharmaceutical and ATMP regulations, through 'adaptive pathways' and 'risk-based' approaches, to special designation for promising innovation, value-based assessment and commissioner developments. Future developments are considered in the UK's 'accelerated access review'. Caution is urged in assessing the impact of these gateway flexibilities and their market and public health implications.

Regulatory approval pathways for anticancer drugs in Japan, the EU and the US

The Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency and the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare in Japan and the US Food and Drug Administration are responsible for reviewing applications and approving drugs, medical devices, and regenerative medicines. In the EU, the European Medicines Agency is responsible for the centralized authorization procedure of medicines including oncologic drugs. In this review, we discuss general pathways for the marketing authorization of oncologic drugs and other drugs in Japan, the EU, and the US. There are still unmet medical needs in oncology, whereas scientific innovation and clinical development in oncology are rapid and active, suggesting a reasonable scope for new regulatory schemes for expedited review. Because regulatory schemes are also evolving rapidly, clinicians and academic researchers may have difficulty following the updated regulations in other regions as well as those in their own countries. However, keeping current with new regulations is important for the conduct of translational research and clinical development of new therapeutic products efficiently. This review is intended to help an international audience better understand the essence of the regulatory frameworks for the marketing authorization of oncologic drugs in Japan, the EU, and the US.

Post-market safety warnings for drugs approved in Canada under the Notice of Compliance with conditions policy

AIMS

Health Canada has developed a pathway to approve drugs that have limited efficacy and safety data, the Notice of Compliance with conditions (NOC/c) policy. Increased safety reporting is required for these drugs but there has not been any systematic review of their post-market safety. This study compares safety warnings for NOC/c drugs with drugs with a priority and a standard review.

METHODS

A list of drugs approved between January 1 1998 and March 31 2013 was developed and serious safety warnings for these drugs were identified. Drugs were put into one of three groups based on the way that they were approved. Kaplan-Meier curves were generated to examine the likelihood of NOC/c drugs receiving a serious safety warning compared with drugs with a priority and a standard review. The time spent in the review process for each of the groups was also measured.

RESULTS

Compared with drugs with a priority review, NOC/c drugs were not more likely to receive a serious safety warning (P = 0.5940) but were more likely than drugs with a standard review (P = 0.0113). NOC/c drugs spent less time in the review process compared with drugs with a standard review.

CONCLUSIONS

Possible reasons for the increase likelihood of a serious safety warning are the limited knowledge of the safety of NOC/c drugs when they are approved and the length of time that they spend in the review process. Health Canada should consider spending longer reviewing these drugs and monitor their post-market safety more closely.

Approvals of drugs with uncertain benefit-risk profiles in Europe

PURPOSE

This paper examines conditional approvals that allow the marketing of medicines with unsettled benefit-risk profiles in the European Union.

METHODS

We identified medicines that had received conditional approval from the European Medicines Agency in the period January 2006-June 2015. We searched the reasons and bases for approvals, the median time to address the specific obligations imposed in order to cover the information gap and allow regular authorisations, and their extent of fulfilment.

RESULTS

Of the 26 products conditionally authorised two were withdrawn for commercial reasons, ten were switched to regular approval, and 14 are still under conditional approval. Conditional approval was granted mainly to medicinal products intended for seriously debilitating disease or life-threatening disease. The median time to address the specific obligations was four years (range 0.2 to 7.7). There were delays or discrepancies in the fulfilment of these obligations in more than one third of the authorisation procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

In most cases there was limited evidence supporting the positive benefit-risk balance at the time of approval. Delays or discrepancies in the fulfilment of obligations allow medicinal products with unsettled benefit-risk profiles onto the market for several years. This should be taken into account when further early or step-wise licensing strategies are considered.

Re-examination of regulatory opinions in Europe: possible contribution for the approval of the first gene therapy product Glybera

The first commercially approved human gene therapy in the Western world is Glybera (alipogene tiparvovec), which is an adenoassociated viral vector encoding the lipoprotein lipase gene. Glybera was recommended for marketing authorization by the European Medicines Agency in 2012. The European Medicines Agency had only ever reviewed three marketing authorization applications for gene therapy medicinal products. Unlike in the case of Glybera, the applications of the first two products, Cerepro and Contusugene Ladenovec Gendux/Advexin, both of which were for cancer diseases, were withdrawn. In this report, we studied the European public assessment reports of the three gene therapy products. During the assessment process, Glybera was re-examined and reviewed for a fourth time. We therefore researched the re-examination procedure of the European Union regulatory process. Approximately 25% of the new medicinal products initially given negative opinions from the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use were ultimately approved after re-examination from 2009 to 2013. The indications of most medicines were changed during the re-examination procedure, and the products were later approved with a mode of approval. These results suggested that the re-examination system in the European Union contributed to the approval of both several new drugs and the first gene therapy product.

Similarities and differences in the oncology drug approval process between FDA and European Union with emphasis on in vitro companion diagnostics

Drug approval [U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), or market authorization for the European Union's European Medicines Agency (EMA)] is the most significant regulatory milestone for any drug, as drugs can only be marketed after marketing approval by a health authority. This article focuses on the main regulatory aspects of the drug approval process in the European Union (EU) and the United States. Although the procedures, requirements, and timelines for drug approvals are different between the EU and the United States, several global harmonization efforts have been developed during the past few years to have more consistent regulatory procedures/outcomes in different parts of the world. One of the most different procedures/requirements among these regions is co-development, also known as in vitro companion diagnostic. In the United States, it is expected that for a drug that requires an in vitro diagnostic test to select the population to be treated, the companion diagnostic should be already/concomitantly approved by the FDA. In the EU, these requirements are not as stringent as in the United States. However, it is anticipated that in the very near future, legislation changes in the EU will lead to similar requirements for the companion diagnostics for EMA. In summary, although the principles, procedures, and requirements for drug approvals may differ between the United States and EMA, novel efforts to harmonize them are being considered and implemented, thereby leading to simpler global drug development. It is of outmost importance that drug developers understand and appreciate differences in regional regulations. Otherwise, lack of understanding may lead to rejection or delays in drug approvals for useful anticancer agents. See all articles in this CCR Focus section, "The Precision Medicine Conundrum: Approaches to Companion Diagnostic Co-development."

Governance of conditional reimbursement practices in The Netherlands

When entering the market, orphan drugs are associated with substantial prices and a high degree of uncertainty regarding safety and effectiveness. This makes decision making about the reimbursement of these drugs a complex exercise. To advance on this, the Dutch government introduced a conditional reimbursement trajectory that requires a re-evaluation after four years. This article focuses on the origins, governance and outcomes of such a conditional reimbursement trajectory for orphan drugs. We find that the conditional reimbursement scheme is the result of years of discussion and returning public pressure about unequal access to expensive drugs. During the implementation of the scheme the actors involved went through a learning process about the regulation. Our analysis shows that previous collaborations or already existing organisational structures led to faster production of the required data on cost-effectiveness. However, cost-effectiveness evidence resulting from additional research seems to weigh less than political, judicial and ethical considerations in decision making on reimbursement of orphan drugs in The Netherlands.

Adaptive approaches to licensing, health technology assessment, and introduction of drugs and devices

BACKGROUND

Adaptive approaches to the introduction of drugs and medical devices involve the use of an evolving evidence base rather than conventional single-point-in-time evaluations as a proposed means to promote patient access to innovation, reduce clinical uncertainty, ensure effectiveness, and improve the health technology development process.

METHODS

This report summarizes a Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) Policy Forum discussion, drawing on presentations from invited experts, discussions among attendees about real-world case examples, and background paper.

RESULTS

For adaptive approaches to be understood, accepted, and implemented, the Forum identified several key issues that must be addressed. These include the need to define the goals of and to set priorities for adaptive approaches; to examine evidence collection approaches; to clarify the roles and responsibilities of stakeholders; to understand the implications of adaptive approaches on current legal and ethical standards; to determine costs of such approaches and how they will be met; and to identify differences in applying adaptive approaches to drugs versus medical devices. The Forum also explored the different implications of adaptive approaches for various stakeholders, including patients, regulators, HTA/coverage bodies, health systems, clinicians, and industry.

CONCLUSIONS

A key outcome of the meeting was a clearer understanding of the opportunities and challenges adaptive approaches present. Furthermore, the Forum brought to light the critical importance of recognizing and including a full range of stakeholders as contributors to a shared decision-making model implicit in adaptive pathways in future discussions on, and implementation of, adaptive approaches.

Post-approval safety issues with innovative drugs: a European cohort study

BACKGROUND

At time of approval, knowledge of the full benefit risk of any drug is limited, in particular with regards to safety. Post-approval surveillance of potential drug safety concerns is recognized as an important task of regulatory agencies. For innovative, often first-in-class drugs, safety knowledge at time of approval is often even less extensive and these may require tighter scrutiny post approval.

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated whether more post-approval serious safety issues were identified for drugs with a higher level of innovation.

METHODS

A cohort study was performed that included all new active substances approved under the European Centralized Procedure and for which serious safety issues were identified post-approval from 1 January 1999 to 1 January 2012. Serious safety issues were defined as issues requiring a Direct Healthcare Professional Communication to alert individual healthcare professionals of a new serious safety issue, or a safety-related drug withdrawal. Data were retrieved from publicly available websites of the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board and the European Medicines Agency. The level of innovation was scored using a validated algorithm, grading drugs as important (A), moderate (B) or modest (C) innovations or as pharmacological or technological (pharm/tech) innovations. The data were analyzed using appropriate descriptive statistics and Kaplan-Meier analysis, with a Mantel-Cox log-rank test, and Cox-regression models correcting for follow-up duration, to identify a possible trend in serious safety issues with an increasing level of innovation.

RESULTS

In Europe, 279 new drugs were approved between 1999 and 2011. Fifty-nine (21 %) were graded as important, 63 (23 %) moderate, or 34 (12 %) modest innovations and 123 (44 %) as non-innovative (pharm/tech), while 15 (25 %), 13 (21 %), 8 (24 %) and 17 (14 %) had post-approval safety issues, respectively (p = 0.06, linear-by-linear test). Five drugs were withdrawn from the market. The Kaplan-Meier-derived probability for having a first serious safety issue was statistically significant, log-rank (Mantel-Cox) p = 0.036. In the final adjusted Cox proportional hazard model there was no statistically significant difference in occurrence of a first serious safety issue for important, moderate and modest innovations versus non-innovative drugs; hazard ratios 1.76 (95 % CI 0.82-3.77), 1.61 (95 % CI 0.76-3.41)], and 1.25 (95 % CI 0.51-3.06), respectively.

CONCLUSION

A higher level of innovation was not clearly related to an increased risk of serious safety issues identified after approval.

A fresh perspective on comparing the FDA and the CHMP/EMA: approval of antineoplastic tyrosine kinase inhibitors

We compared and determined the reasons for any differences in the review and approval times of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European EMA/CHMP. Applications for these novel cancer drugs were submitted to them within a mean of 31.2 days of each other, providing a fair basis for comparison. The FDA had granted priority review to 12 TKIs but the EMA/CHMP did not grant the equivalent accelerated assessment to any. The FDA granted accelerated approvals to six (38%) and CHMP granted (the equivalent) conditional approvals to four (29%) of these agents. On average, the review and approval times were 205.3 days in the US compared with 409.6 days in the European Union (EU). The active review times, however, were comparable (225.4 days in the EU and 205.3 days in the US). Since oncology drug development lasts about 7 years, the 20 days difference in review times between the two agencies is inconsequential. Clock stops during review and the time required to issue an approval had added the extra 184.2 days to review time in the EU. We suggest possible solutions to expedite the EU review and approval processes. However, post-marketing emergence of adverse efficacy and safety data on gefitinib and lapatinib, respectively, indicate potential risks of expedited approvals. We challenge the widely prevalent myth that early approval translates into early access or beneficial impact on public health. Both the agencies collaborate closely but conduct independent assessments and make decisions based on distinct legislation, procedures, precedents and societal expectations.

Clinical studies in lysosomal storage diseases: Past, present, and future

Lysosomal storage disorders (LSDs) consist of over 40 diseases, some of which are amenable to treatment. In this review, we consider the regulatory context in which LSDs studies are performed, highlight design specificities and explore operational challenges.

Orphan drug legislations, both in Europe and US, were effective to stimulate LSDs drug development. However, regulators flexibilities toward approval vary leading to global discrepancies in access to treatments.

Study designs are constrained because few patients can be studied. This implies LSDs treatments need to demonstrate large levels of clinical efficacy. If not, an appropriate level of evidence is difficult to achieve. While biomarkers could address this issue, none have been truly accepted as primary outcome.

Enrichment of study population can increase the chance of success, especially with clinical outcomes. Adaptive designs are operationally challenging. Innovative methods of analysis can be used, notably using a patient as his/her own control and responder analysis. The use of extension phases and patient registries as a source of historical comparison can facilitate data interpretation.

Operationally, few patients are available per centers and multiple centers need to be initiated in multiple countries. This impacts time-lines and budget.

In the future, regulators flexibility will be essential to provide patients access to innovative treatments.

The placebo arm in clinical studies for treatment of psychiatric disorders: a regulatory dilemma

BACKGROUND

The use of placebo in clinical trials, and, related to this, ethical and feasibility aspects, are often debated. However, regulatory authorities must ensure that only new drugs with a positive benefit/risk would be granted a marketing authorization. It is therefore not surprising that they often put forward the need for placebo control in clinical trials in an area where many trials fail, and assay sensitivity is not self-evident. To illustrate the complexity that regulatory authorities encounter when faced with the registration dossier of products in the main psychiatric therapeutic areas, Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and schizophrenia, the trial outcome for products receiving an opinion in the EU during the past 15 years were reviewed.

DATA SOURCE

European Public Assessment Reports and registration files.

RESULTS

A total of 45 studies qualified for analysis. For the indication MDD 38% of the studies (10/26) were recorded as failed, and another 15% (4/26) as negative. For schizophrenia, these figures were 16% (3/19) and 11% (2/19). Further exploration of the trials in MDD revealed an inconsistent pattern in terms of magnitude of placebo- and drug-mediated response (i.e. similar studies with consistent placebo response provided different treatment outcomes).

CONCLUSION

From a regulatory perspective the dilemma of a priori exclusion of the placebo arm in clinical trials in the domains of depression or schizophrenia cannot be solved at this time as long as factors influencing trial variability are not better identified or understood. This counts in particular for MDD where the added drug effect is not consistent across trials with almost identical inclusion criteria. Unfortunately, this trend has not changed over the past 15 years. However, all efforts should be taken to optimize the clinical development of drugs in the psychiatric domain, and improve the intrinsic quality of the clinical trials in order to allow for a different viewpoint.

Differences in drug approval processes of 3 regulatory agencies: a case study of gemtuzumab ozogamicin

Major discrepancies concerning risk-benefit assessments and regulatory actions are frequent among regulatory agencies. We explored the differences by scrutinizing a case of gemtuzumab ozogamicin (GO) in patients with acute myeloid leukaemia (AML). Assessment reports of GO were retrieved form the websites of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and Japanese regulatory agency, and we also reviewed published clinical trials. While GO was approved by the US FDA under the accelerated approval program in 2000, it was withdrawn from the market in 2010, based on the required post-marketing commitment failure. The EMA refused granting marketing authorization for GO in 2008 on the grounds that there were no randomised controlled trials (RCTs). GO was approved as an orphan drug in Japan in 2005, and the Japanese regulatory authority decided to continue with the approval in 2010 on the condition that post-marketing surveillance is strengthened. Under these situations, promising new results of RCTs appeared in 2011, and the role of GO in AML treatment was refocused worldwide. The stringent regulation may not be suitable in case of an orphan drug of targeted therapy, and more room should be kept to facilitate effective developments of new anti-neoplastic agents.

Additional safety risk to exceptionally approved drugs in Europe?

AIMS

Regulatory requirements for new drugs have increased. Special approval procedures with priority assessment are possible for drugs with clear 'unmet medical need'. We question whether these Exceptional Circumstances (EC) or Conditional Approval (CA) procedures have led to a higher probability of serious safety issues.

METHODS

A retrospective cohort study was performed of new drugs approved in Europe between 1999 and 2009. The determinant was EC/CA vs. standard procedure approval. Outcome variables were frequency and timing of a first Direct Healthcare Professional Communication (DHPC). An association between approval procedure and the time from market approval to DHPC was assessed using Kaplan-Meyer survival analysis and Cox-regression to correct for covariates.

RESULTS

In total 289 new drugs were approved. Forty-six (16.4%) were approved under EC or CA, of which seven received a DHPC (15%). This was similar to the standard approval drugs (243), of which 33 received one or more DHPC (14%, P= 0.77). The probability of acquiring a DHPC for standard approval drugs vs. EC/CA drugs during 11-year follow-up is 22% (95% CI 14%, 29%) and 26% (95% CI 8%, 44%), respectively (log-rank P= 0.726). This difference remained not significant in the Cox-regression model: hazard ratio 0.94 (95% CI 0.40, 2.20). Only drug type was identified as a confounding covariate.

CONCLUSION

The EC/CA procedure is not associated with a higher probability of DHPCs despite limited clinical development data. These data do not support the view that early drug approval increases the risk of serious safety issues emerging after market approval.