The risks of risk aversion in drug regulation

Assessing Post-Marketing Requirements for Orphan Drugs: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of FDA and EMA Oversight

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) oversee pharmaceutical regulations, including orphan drugs targeting rare diseases with limited patient populations. Post-marketing studies are crucial for monitoring safety and efficacy, with post-marketing requirements (PMRs) mandated by the regulatory agencies to ensure compliance. This study aims to compare PMR statuses, objectives, and pivotal trial characteristics of orphan drugs approved by the FDA (n = 154) and EMA (n = 79) from 2008 to 2018, shedding light on regulatory differences and their impact on drug development. Contrary to expectations, our analysis found no significant disparity in the proportion of orphan drugs with and without PMRs approved by both the FDA (48.1%) and EMA (55.7%). Safety concerns surrounding orphan drugs post-approval, attributed partly to pivotal trial design, underscore the need for robust post-marketing surveillance. While the FDA primarily focuses on post-marketing safety (36.1%), the EMA places a higher emphasis on both efficacy and safety (47.1%), reflecting distinct approaches to PMR management between the two regulatory bodies. The observed trend of delayed PMRs at the EMA (47.1%) highlights the importance of effective cooperation between regulators and pharmaceutical companies to ensure the timely completion of PMRs and enhance drug safety.

Technology Assessment vs. Technology Appraisal-How to Strengthen the Science/Value Dichotomy with EU HTA?

Many countries around the world use health technology assessment (HTA) to inform reimbursement and pricing decisions. HTA is often split into two steps, called assessment and appraisal. While the term HTA itself has been defined by international consortia, there is heterogeneity in the way different stakeholders use the terms assessment and appraisal. This creates ambiguity regarding which activities are included in technology assessment. With the new EU HTA Regulation, the HTA community should urgently seek to clarify the distinction between assessment and appraisal, as the regulation aims to centralize the clinical part of technology assessment at the European level. Failure to clarify this terminology will put the ambition of the regulation such as increased efficiency and reduction in duplication at risk. In this article, we argue that the distinction between assessment and appraisal should be seen as a science/value dichotomy. We discuss the transition from centralized assessment activities to country-level appraisal, which should culminate in a categorization of the overall added benefit in a local context. Finally, we touch on the important dimension of uncertainty always present in medical decision making.

Expediting treatments in the 21st century: orphan drugs and accelerated approvals

BACKGROUND

In response to activated patient communities' catalyzation, two significant efforts by the FDA to expedite treatments have now been in place for multiple decades. In 1983, the United States Congress passed the Orphan Drug Act to provide financial incentives for development of drugs for rare diseases. In 1992, partly in response to the HIV epidemic, the FDA implemented Accelerated Approval (AA) to expedite access to promising new therapies to treat serious conditions with unmet medical need based on surrogate marker efficacy while additional clinical data is confirmed. The uses of these regulatory approaches over time are assessed in this study.

METHODS

The following U.S. FDA CDER published lists were used in this analysis: 1. all orphan designations and approvals; 2. all AA and their details updated through December 31, 2022; new molecular entities (NMEs).

RESULTS

Orphan drug designations and approvals have increased several-fold over the past four decades. The largest increase recently has been in therapies targeting oncological diseases (comprised of both oncology and malignant hematology). Although orphan drug approvals based on NMEs are the minority of orphan drug designations, the count of approved orphan drug NMEs has increased in recent years. The characteristics of orphan drug approvals show notable differences by disease area with rare diseases and medical genetics (49%) having a relatively large fraction of orphan drug approvals with NMEs compared to the oncological diseases (32%). Similar to the use of orphan drug designation, oncological disease therapies have been the largest utilizers of AA. Many therapies targeting these diseases address unmet medical need and can leverage surrogate markers that have previously been used in similar trials. The timings of conversion of AA (confirmed or withdrawn) were assessed and found to be consistent across decades and to have some dependency upon the broad disease area (when assessed by three large groups: HIV conversions were fastest; followed by oncology; followed by all others). By the end of 2022, 98% of the first 105 (approved in 2010 or earlier) AA had been converted to confirmed or withdrawn.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the typical timings for AA to be confirmed or withdrawn has not changed significantly over the decades, the disease areas utilizing orphan drug designation and AA have changed significantly over time. Both programs have had increases in their use for therapies targeting oncological diseases. The re-use of surrogate markers for oncological diseases has been an advantage in a way that may not be scientifically feasible in many other disease areas that have greater differentiation across disease etiology. For non-oncological diseases, applicability of AA is, in part, dependent upon greater focus on characterization and acceptance of novel surrogate markers.

Healthcare decision-making for tumour-agnostic therapies in Europe: lessons learned

The tumour-agnostic authorisations of larotrectinib and entrectinib shifted the paradigm for indication setting. European healthcare decision-makers agreed on their therapeutic potential but diverged primarily in identified uncertainties concerning basket trial designs and endpoints, prognostic value of neurotrophic tropomyosin receptor kinase (NTRK) gene fusions, and resistance mechanisms. In addition, assessments of relevant comparators, unmet medical needs (UMNs), and implementation of NTRK-testing strategies diverged. In particular, the tumour-specific reimbursement recommendations and guidelines do not reflect tumour-agnostic thinking. These differences indicate difficulties experienced in these assessments and provide valuable lessons for future disruptive therapies. As we discuss here, early multistakeholder dialogues concerning minimum evidence requirements and involving clinicians are essential.

Uncertainty management in regulatory and health technology assessment decision-making on drugs: guidance of the HTAi-DIA Working Group

OBJECTIVES

Uncertainty is a fundamental component of decision making regarding access to and pricing and reimbursement of drugs. The context-specific interpretation and mitigation of uncertainty remain major challenges for decision makers. Following the 2021 HTAi Global Policy Forum, a cross-sectoral, interdisciplinary HTAi-DIA Working Group (WG) was initiated to develop guidance to support stakeholder deliberation on the systematic identification and mitigation of uncertainties in the regulatory-HTA interface.

METHODS

Six online discussions among WG members (Dec 2021-Sep 2022) who examined the output of a scoping review, two literature-based case studies and a survey; application of the initial guidance to a real-world case study; and two international conference panel discussions.

RESULTS

The WG identified key concepts, clustered into twelve building blocks that were collectively perceived to define uncertainty: "unavailable," "inaccurate," "conflicting," "not understandable," "random variation," "information," "prediction," "impact," "risk," "relevance," "context," and "judgment." These were converted into a checklist to explain and define whether any issue constitutes a decision-relevant uncertainty. A taxonomy of domains in which uncertainty may exist within the regulatory-HTA interface was developed to facilitate categorization. The real-world case study was used to demonstrate how the guidance may facilitate deliberation between stakeholders and where additional guidance development may be needed.

CONCLUSIONS

The systematic approach taken for the identification of uncertainties in this guidance has the potential to facilitate understanding of uncertainty and its management across different stakeholders involved in drug development and evaluation. This can improve consistency and transparency throughout decision processes. To further support uncertainty management, linkage to suitable mitigation strategies is necessary.

Role of innovation in pharmaceutical regulation: A proposal for principles to evaluate EU General Pharmaceutical Legislation from the innovator perspective

Because the EU General Pharmaceutical Legislation is under review, the EFPIA Innovation Board developed evaluation principles for the policy proposals and key considerations on how the regulatory framework can support innovation while ensuring only safe, efficacious and quality medicines are authorized. The evaluation principles are anchored on actions to promote: agile adoption of new methodologies with soft law tools; continued emphasis on regulatory science to inform policies; a cost/benefit assessment of the new regulation to ensure they have an overall positive impact; and mitigation of any negative externalities or unintended effects for any type of innovation or products. The evaluation principles are intended to guide the impact assessment of the pharmaceutical legislation in the EU but the principles can be applied globally.

The ethical dilemmas of risky decisions

Even in a pandemic there seem to be inherent conflicts of interest between the individual and societal consequences of remedial actions and strategies. Actions taken in the sole interests of patients, as required by the Hippocratic oath, can have broadly inconvenient economic implications for the State. ("Average" benefits for a population can impose individual inconveniences for the vulnerable.). Understandably these decisions are not normally made explicitly and transparently by governments. This leads to seemingly illogical and inhumane strategies which are not understood and hence mistrusted and often ignored by the public. Vaccination sentiments on social media are often an unwanted symptom of this dilemma. This article outlines and discusses a number of examples of such situations with a focus on ethical aspects. It concludes that each case must be considered individually as to the issues that need to be weighed in these difficult decisions; and that there are no clear and universally acceptable ethical solutions. What can be learned from the COVID-19 crisis is that short term utilitarianism has consequences that in the eyes of the population are unacceptable. This lesson seems equally valid for cost benefit evaluations regarding other risks, such as from hazardous industries, flood defenses, and air transport. Decisionmakers and politicians can learn that persuasion only goes so far. In the end the people appear to prioritize in terms of deontology.

Ethics review of decentralized clinical trials (DCTs): Results of a mock ethics review

Decentralized clinical trials (DCTs) can be a valuable addition to the clinical trial landscape. However, the practice of DCTs is dependent on a regulatory system designed for conventional (site-based) trials. This study provides insight into the ethics review of DCTs. A 'mock ethics review' was performed in which members of European ethics committees (ECs) and national competent authorities (NCAs) discussed and reviewed a DCT protocol. Respondents expressed hesitancy toward DCTs and focused on potential risks and burdens. We advise to address these aspects explicitly when submitting a DCT protocol. We propose that both the benefits and risks of DCTs should be carefully monitored to advance the review and practice of this innovative approach to ethically optimize drug development.

Regulatory Evaluation of Biosimilars: Refinement of Principles Based on the Scientific Evidence and Clinical Experience

The World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines on evaluation of similar biotherapeutic products (SBPs; also called biosimilars) were adopted by the WHO Expert Committee on Biological Standardization (ECBS) in 2009. In 2019, the ECBS considered that a more tailored and potentially reduced clinical data package may be acceptable in cases where this was clearly supported by the available scientific evidence. The goal of this publication is to review the current clinical experience and scientific evidence and to provide an expert perspective for updating the WHO guidelines to provide more flexibility and clarity. As the first step, the relevant guidelines by other regulatory bodies were reviewed in order to identify issues that might help with updating the WHO guidelines. Next, a literature search was conducted for information on the long-term efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity of biosimilars to identify possible long-term problems. Finally, a search for articles concerning the role of clinical studies in the benefit-risk evaluation of biosimilars was conducted. The analysis of other guidelines suggested that the WHO guidelines may need more emphasis on the importance of the state-of-the-art physicochemical and structural comparability exercise and in vitro functional testing. The use of "foreign" reference product will also need clarifications. The value of in vivo toxicological tests in the development of biosimilars is questionable, and the non-clinical part needs revisions accordingly. The concepts of "totality of evidence," "stepwise development," and "residual uncertainty" were applied in the evaluation of the clinical sections of the guideline. The review of long-term safety and efficacy demonstrated the robustness of the current biosimilar development concept. The analysis of the roles of different development phases suggested that the large efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity studies are, in most cases, redundant. The residual uncertainty of safety, immunogenicity, and efficacy of biosimilars that has shaped the current regulatory guidelines is now substantially reduced. This will allow the re-evaluation of the non-clinical and clinical requirements of the current WHO main guideline. The shift of the relative impact of the development phases towards physico-chemical and in vitro functional testing will provide a relief to the manufacturers and new challenges to the regulators.

Context-Dependent Risk & Benefit Sensitivity Mediate Judgments About Cognitive Enhancement

Opinions about cognitive enhancement (CE) are context-dependent. Prior research has demonstrated that factors like peer pressure, the influence of authority figures, competition, moral relevance, familiarity with enhancement devices, expertise, and the domain of CE to be enhanced can influence opinions. The variability and malleability of patient, expert, and public attitudes toward CE is important to describe and predict because these attitudes can influence at-home, clinical, research, and regulatory decisions. If individual preferences vary, they could influence opinions about practices and regulations due to disagreements about the desirable levels of risks and benefits. The study of attitudes about CE would benefit from psychological theories that explain judgments. In particular, we suggest that variability in risk and benefit sensitivity could psychologically mediate judgments about CE in many contexts. Drawing from prospect theory, which originated in behavioral economics, it is likely that framing effects, shifted reference points, and the tendency to weigh losses (risks) more heavily than gains (benefits) predict decisions about CE. We suggest that public policy could benefit from a shared conceptual framework, such as prospect theory, that allows us to describe and predict real-world decisions about CE by patients, experts, and the public.

[Digital Health Applications: A Qualitative Study of Approaches to Improve Access to Statutory Health Insurance]

BACKGROUND

 There is a lack of integration of appropriate digital health applications (DiGA) into the first healthcare market in Germany. In order to enable a valid and reliable use of previously examined digital health products, their implementation into services of the statutory health insurance (SHI) is necessary. The aim of this study was the development of strategies to modify and improve access of DiGA to SHI reimbursement. The recently introduced Digitale-Versorgung-Gesetz (DVG) is an initial step in this direction.

METHODS

 Using a qualitative approach, focus group interviews were conducted with key stakeholders of existing access paths. Previously elaborated problem-solving approaches were discussed. The approaches ranged between adapting existing structures and implementing an original digital pathway. Subsequently, a comparison of the project results and legislative provision of the DVG was carried out.

RESULTS

 The proposed approaches were discussed heterogeneously and varied depending on the position of the participants. The implementation of an Advisory Council had a greater consensus than the introduction of a digital-specific pathway. Also individual measures like administrative support for generating the necessary evidence was considered as positive and beneficial. However, a deviation from the current evidence standards should be avoided. Furthermore, the legitimacy and time expenditure for the digital-specific pathway was called into doubt.

CONCLUSIONS

 In principle, a better focus on existing structures on digital health applications can be endorsed. For a short-term use of DiGA potentials, adaptions of existing structures are preferable. The DVG legislation, although conforming to the project results only to some degree, can be considered as a first step. An amendment, in particular from the viewpoint of diagnostic or therapeutic DiGA, appears to be necessary.

Transforming vaccine development

The urgency to develop vaccines against Covid-19 is putting pressure on the long and expensive development timelines that are normally required for development of lifesaving vaccines. There is a unique opportunity to take advantage of new technologies, the smart and flexible design of clinical trials, and evolving regulatory science to speed up vaccine development against Covid-19 and transform vaccine development altogether.

Postmarket Safety Communication for Protection of Public Health: A Comparison of Regulatory Policy in Australia, Canada, the European Union, and the United States

In the wake of the withdrawal of the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug rofecoxib, regulators worldwide reconsidered their approach to postmarket safety. Many have since adopted a "life cycle" approach to regulation of medicines, facilitating faster approval of new medicines while planning for potential postmarket safety issues. A crucial aspect of postmarket safety is the effective and timely communication of emerging risk information using postmarket safety advisories, commonly issued as letters to healthcare professionals, drug safety bulletins, media alerts, and website announcements. Yet regulators differ in their use of postmarket safety advisories. We examined the capacity of regulators in the United States, Europe, Canada, and Australia to warn about postmarket safety issues through safety advisories by assessing their governance, legislative authority, risk communication capabilities, and transparency.

The Evolution of Master Protocol Clinical Trial Designs: A Systematic Literature Review

PURPOSE

Recent years have seen a change in the way that clinical trials are being conducted. There has been a rise of designs more flexible than traditional adaptive and group sequential trials which allow the investigation of multiple substudies with possibly different objectives, interventions, and subgroups conducted within an overall trial structure, summarized by the term master protocol. This review aims to identify existing master protocol studies and summarize their characteristics. The review also identifies articles relevant to the design of master protocol trials, such as proposed trial designs and related methods.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive systematic search to review current literature on master protocol trials from a design and analysis perspective, focusing on platform trials and considering basket and umbrella trials. Articles were included regardless of statistical complexity and classified as reviews related to planned or conducted trials, trial designs, or statistical methods. The results of the literature search are reported, and some features of the identified articles are summarized.

FINDINGS

Most of the trials using master protocols were designed as single-arm (n = 29/50), Phase II trials (n = 32/50) in oncology (n = 42/50) using a binary endpoint (n = 26/50) and frequentist decision rules (n = 37/50). We observed an exponential increase in publications in this domain during the last few years in both planned and conducted trials, as well as relevant methods, which we assume has not yet reached its peak. Although many operational and statistical challenges associated with such trials remain, the general consensus seems to be that master protocols provide potentially enormous advantages in efficiency and flexibility of clinical drug development.

IMPLICATIONS

Master protocol trials and especially platform trials have the potential to revolutionize clinical drug development if the methodologic and operational challenges can be overcome.

An Efficient Development Paradigm for Biosimilars

The current development paradigm for biosimilars required by regulators in highly regulated jurisdictions is derived from the development of novel drugs and is unnecessarily burdensome and inefficient. It requires the accumulation of data from analytical, nonclinical (including in vivo studies in some jurisdictions), and clinical studies (including powered efficacy studies in most cases); this paradigm is known as 'totality of evidence' (ToE) and does not admit a conclusion of biosimilarity from analytical data alone. The record of biosimilar approvals in these jurisdictions shows that no biosimilar candidate that has been found highly similar to its reference in analytical and pharmacokinetic studies has failed to be approved. We propose a new paradigm ('confirmation of sufficient likeness', CSL) that emphasizes the demonstration of analytical resemblance between the biosimilar candidate and its reference, and permits the conclusion of biosimilarity upon this basis. CSL does not entail bridging studies between reference products, in vivo nonclinical studies, or powered efficacy studies and is, therefore, substantially more efficient than ToE while maintaining equivalent scientific rigor. Such efficiency will contribute to the attractiveness as well as the sustainability of biosimilars as a therapeutic modality.

Opportunities and challenges for the inclusion of patient preferences in the medical product life cycle: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

The inclusion of patient preferences (PP) in the medical product life cycle is a topic of growing interest to stakeholders such as academics, Health Technology Assessment (HTA) bodies, reimbursement agencies, industry, patients, physicians and regulators. This review aimed to understand the potential roles, reasons for using PP and the expectations, concerns and requirements associated with PP in industry processes, regulatory benefit-risk assessment (BRA) and marketing authorization (MA), and HTA and reimbursement decision-making.

METHODS

A systematic review of peer-reviewed and grey literature published between January 2011 and March 2018 was performed. Consulted databases were EconLit, Embase, Guidelines International Network, PsycINFO and PubMed. A two-step strategy was used to select literature. Literature was analyzed using NVivo (QSR international).

RESULTS

From 1015 initially identified documents, 72 were included. Most were written from an academic perspective (61%) and focused on PP in BRA/MA and/or HTA/reimbursement (73%). Using PP to improve understanding of patients' valuations of treatment outcomes, patients' benefit-risk trade-offs and preference heterogeneity were roles identified in all three decision-making contexts. Reasons for using PP relate to the unique insights and position of patients and the positive effect of including PP on the quality of the decision-making process. Concerns shared across decision-making contexts included methodological questions concerning the validity, reliability and cognitive burden of preference methods. In order to use PP, general, operational and quality requirements were identified, including recognition of the importance of PP and ensuring patient understanding in PP studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the array of opportunities and added value of using PP throughout the different steps of the MPLC identified in this review, their inclusion in decision-making is hampered by methodological challenges and lack of specific guidance on how to tackle these challenges when undertaking PP studies. To support the development of such guidance, more best practice PP studies and PP studies investigating the methodological issues identified in this review are critically needed.

Are There Different Evidence Thresholds for Genomic Versus Clinical Precision Medicine? A Value of Information-Based Framework Applied to Antiplatelet Drug Therapy

BACKGROUND

The threshold of sufficient evidence for adoption of clinically- and genomically-guided precision medicine (PM) has been unclear.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate evidence thresholds for clinically guided PM versus genomically guided PM.

METHODS

We develop an "evidence threshold criterion" (ETC), which is the time-weighted difference between expected value of perfect information and incremental net health benefit minus the cost of research, and use it as a measure of evidence threshold that is proportional to the upper bound of disutility to a risk-averse decision maker for adopting a new intervention under decision uncertainty. A larger (more negative) ETC value indicates that only decision makers with low risk aversion would adopt new intervention. We evaluated the ETC plus cost of research (ETCc), assuming the same cost of research for both interventions, over time for a pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing intervention and avoidance of a drug-drug interaction (aDDI) intervention for acute coronary syndrome patients indicated for antiplatelet therapy. We then examined how the ETC may explain incongruous decision making across different national decision-making bodies.

RESULTS

The ETCc for PGx increased over time, whereas the ETCc for aDDI decreased to a negative value over time, indicating that decision makers with even low risk aversion will have doubts in adopting PGx, whereas decision makers who are highly risk-averse will continue to have doubts about adopting aDDI. National recommendation bodies appear to be consistent over time within their own decision making, but had different levels of risk aversion.

CONCLUSION

The ETC may be a useful metric for assessing policy makers' risk preferences and, in particular, understanding differences in policy recommendations for genomic versus clinical PM.

Group sequential adaptive designs in series of time-to-event randomised trials in rare diseases: A simulation study

In rare diseases, fully powered large trials may not be doable in a reasonable time frame even with international collaborations. In a previous work, we proposed an approach based on a series of smaller parallel group two-arm randomised controlled trials (RCT) performed over a long research horizon. Within the series of trials, the treatment selected after each trial becomes the control treatment of the next one. We concluded that running more trials with smaller sample sizes and relaxed α-levels leads in the long term and under reasonable assumptions to larger survival benefits with a moderate increase of risk as compared to traditional designs based on larger but fewer trials designed to meet stringent evidence criteria. We now extend this quantitative framework with more 'flexible' designs including interim analyses for futility and/or efficacy, and three-arm adaptive designs with treatment selection at interim. In the simulation study, we considered different disease severities, accrual rates, and hypotheses of how treatments improve over time. For each design, we estimated the long-term survival benefit as the relative difference in hazard rates between the end and the start of the research horizon, and the risk defined as the probability of selecting at the end of the research horizon a treatment inferior to the initial control. We assessed the impact of the α-level and the choice of the stopping rule on the operating characteristics. We also compared the performance of series based on two- vs. three-arm trials. We show that relaxing α-levels within the limit of 0.1 is associated with larger survival gains and moderate increase of risk which remains within acceptable ranges. Including an interim analysis with a futility rule is associated with an additional survival gain and a better risk control as compared to series with no interim analysis, when the α-level is below or equal to 0.1, whereas the benefit of including an interim analysis is rather small for higher α-levels. Including an interim analysis for efficacy yields almost no additional gain. Series based on three-arm trials are associated with a systematic improvement in terms of survival gain and risk control as compared to series of two-arm trials.

Patient-Focused Drug Development Methods for Benefit-Risk Assessments: A Case Study Using a Discrete Choice Experiment for Antiepileptic Drugs

Regulatory decisions may be enhanced by incorporating patient preferences for drug benefit and harms. This study demonstrates a method of weighting clinical evidence by patients’ benefit–risk preferences. Preference weights, derived from discrete choice experiments, were applied to clinical trial data to estimate the expected utility of alternative drugs. In a case study, the rank ordering of antiepileptic drugs (AEDs), as indicated from clinical studies, was compared with ordering based on weighting clinical evidence by patients’ preferences. A statistically significant change in rank ordering of AEDs was observed for women of childbearing potential who were prescribed monotherapy for generalized or unclassified epilepsy. Rank ordering inferred from trial data, valproate > topiramate > lamotrigine, was reversed. Modeling the expected utility of drugs might address the need to use more systematic, methodologically sound approaches to collect patient input that can further inform regulatory decision making.

Patient Involvement in the Lifecycle of Medicines According to Belgian Stakeholders: The Gap Between Theory and Practice

Background: Patient involvement is often acknowledged as an important aspect of the lifecycle of medicines. Although different typologies exist, patient involvement has been described as the involvement of patients in decision-making regarding medicines. In view of the diversity of stakeholders and types of decisions in which patients might be involved, an in-depth understanding of these stakeholders' views toward involving patients in the lifecycle of medicines is essential. Methods: Interviews and surveys were used to gain insights into the perspectives and experiences of Belgian healthcare stakeholders. Interviews (n = 22) were conducted with academics, hospital pharmacists and representatives from health insurance funds, the Belgian reimbursement agency, pharmaceutical industry and patient organizations. Interviews underwent a framework analysis. Surveys (n = 108) were completed by hospital visitors and analyzed descriptively. Results: Despite an increasing amount of efforts to involve patients, interviewees labeled the level of actively involving patients as rather low and scattered across the different phases of the lifecycle of medicines. The main opportunities for patient involvement highlighted by interviewees were for: (i) informing early development decisions on which treatments to develop, (ii) clinical trial endpoint selection and (iii) clinical trial protocol design. However, remaining questions surrounding patient knowledge, and particularly how and which patients to involve represent important barriers toward implementing patient involvement in the lifecycle of medicines. Of survey participants, 77% indicated to be willing to participate in patient preference studies. Reasons for participating mentioned most frequently were "to improve development of treatments," because "it is important to explore and listen to patient preferences" and "to have a voice as patients". Conclusions: The barriers identified in this study hamper transitioning patient involvement from theory to practice. Bridging this gap requires addressing the identified barriers and unresolved questions surrounding the right methodology for involving patients, the "right patients" to involve and means to increase patient knowledge. In order to do so, further research should focus on assessing the value of methods that allow to indirectly capture patients' perspective both in the context of development as well as in the context of evaluation.

A proposal for a new PhD level curriculum on quantitative methods for drug development

This paper provides an overview of "Improving Design, Evaluation and Analysis of early drug development Studies" (IDEAS), a European Commission-funded network bringing together leading academic institutions and small- to large-sized pharmaceutical companies to train a cohort of graduate-level medical statisticians. The network is composed of a diverse mix of public and private sector partners spread across Europe, which will host 14 early-stage researchers for 36 months. IDEAS training activities are composed of a well-rounded mixture of specialist methodological components and generic transferable skills. Particular attention is paid to fostering collaborations between researchers and supervisors, which span academia and the private sector. Within this paper, we review existing medical statistics programmes (MSc and PhD) and highlight the training they provide on skills relevant to drug development. Motivated by this review and our experiences with the IDEAS project, we propose a concept for a joint, harmonised European PhD programme to train statisticians in quantitative methods for drug development.

Applying Reflective Multicriteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) to Patient-Clinician Shared Decision-Making on the Management of Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors (GEP-NET) in the Spanish Context

Introduction

Unresectable, well-differentiated nonfunctioning gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) can be monitored (watchful waiting, WW) or treated with systemic therapy such as somatostatin analogues (SSAs) to delay progression. We applied a reflective multicriteria decision analysis (MCDA) shared-decision framework (previously developed for the USA) to explore what matters to Spanish patients and clinicians considering GEP-NET treatment options.

Methods

The EVIDEM-derived framework was updated and adapted to the Spanish context. During a Chatham House session, five patients and six physicians assigned criteria weights using hierarchical point allocation and direct rating scale (alternative analysis). Informed by synthesized evidence embedded in the framework, participants scored how each criterion favored SSA treatment (reference case lanreotide) or WW and shared insights and knowledge. Weights and scores were combined into value contributions (norm. weight × score/5), which were added across criteria to derive the relative benefit–risk balance (RBRB, scale − 1 to + 1). Exploratory comparisons to US study findings were performed.

Results

Focusing on intervention outcomes (effectiveness, patient-reported, and safety), the mean RBRB favored treatment over WW (+ 0.32 ± 0.24), with the largest contributions from progression-free survival (+ 0.11 ± SD 0.07), fatal adverse events (+ 0.06 ± SD 0.08), and impact on HRQoL (+ 0.04 ± SD 0.04). Consideration of modulating criteria (type of benefit, need, costs, evidence, and feasibility) increased the RBRB to + 0.50 ± 0.14, with type of therapeutic benefit (+ 0.10 ± SD 0.08) and quality of evidence (+ 0.08 ± SD 0.06) contributing most towards treatment. Alternative weighting yielded similar results. Results were broadly comparable to those derived from the US study.

Conclusion

The multicriteria framework helped Spanish patients and clinicians identify and express what matters to them. The approach is transferable across decision-making contexts.

Funding

IPSEN Pharma.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-018-0745-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Post-marketing withdrawal of analgesic medications because of adverse drug reactions: a systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Many analgesics have been withdrawn from the market because of adverse drug reactions. Controversy still surrounds the use of some approved analgesics for pain management. However, the trends and reasons for withdrawal of analgesics when harms are attributed to their use have not been systematically assessed. .

AREAS COVERED

We conducted searches in PubMed; Embase; Google Scholar; clinicaltrials.gov; WHO databases of withdrawn products; websites of the European Medicines Agency, the US Food and Drug Administration, the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency; Meyler's Side Effects of Drugs; Stephens' Detection of New Adverse Drug Reactions; the Pharmaceutical Manufacturing Encyclopedia; and the Merck Index. We included licensed analgesics that were withdrawn after marketing because of adverse reactions between 1950 and March 2017. We excluded herbal products, non-human medicines, and non-prescription medicines. We used the Oxford Centre for Evidence Based Medicine criteria to document the levels of evidence, and chi-squared tests to compare withdrawal patterns across geographical regions.

EXPERT OPINION

Pharmacovigilance systems in low-resource settings should be strengthened. Greater co-ordination across regulatory authorities in assessing and interpreting the benefit-harm balance of new analgesics should be encouraged. Future reporting of harms in clinical trials of analgesics should follow standardized guidelines.

Development of a Framework Based on Reflective MCDA to Support Patient-Clinician Shared Decision-Making: The Case of the Management of Gastroenteropancreatic Neuroendocrine Tumors (GEP-NET) in the United States

Introduction

Well- or moderately differentiated gastroenteropancreatic neuroendocrine tumors (GEP-NETs) are often slow-growing, and some patients with unresectable, asymptomatic, non-functioning tumors may face the choice between watchful waiting (WW), or somatostatin analogues (SSA) to delay progression. We developed a comprehensive multi-criteria decision analysis (MCDA) framework to help patients and physicians clarify their values and preferences, consider each decision criterion, and support communication and shared decision-making.

Methods

The framework was adapted from a generic MCDA framework (EVIDEM) with patient and clinician input. During a workshop, patients and clinicians expressed their individual values and preferences (criteria weights) and, on the basis of two scenarios (treatment vs WW; SSA-1 [lanreotide] vs SSA-2 [octreotide]) with evidence from a literature review, expressed how consideration of each criterion would impact their decision in favor of either option (score), and shared their knowledge and insights verbally and in writing.

Results

The framework included benefit-risk criteria and modulating factors, such as disease severity, quality of evidence, costs, and constraints. Overall and progression-free survival being most important, criteria weights ranged widely, highlighting variations in individual values and the need to share them. Scoring and considering each criterion prompted a rich exchange of perspectives and uncovered individual assumptions and interpretations. At the group level, type of benefit, disease severity, effectiveness, and quality of evidence favored treatment; cost aspects favored WW (scenario 1). For scenario 2, most criteria did not favor either option.

Conclusions

Patients and clinicians consider many aspects in decision-making. The MCDA framework provided a common interpretive frame to structure this complexity, support individual reflection, and share perspectives.

Funding

Ipsen Pharma.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s12325-017-0653-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Active Surveillance versus Spontaneous Reporting for First-Line Antiretroviral Medicines in Namibia: A Cost-Utility Analysis

INTRODUCTION

Active surveillance pharmacovigilance is a systematic approach to medicine safety assessment and health systems strengthening, but has not been widely implemented in low- and middle-income countries. This study aimed to assess the cost effectiveness of a national active surveillance pharmacovigilance system for highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) compared with the existing spontaneous reporting system in Namibia.

METHODS

A cost-utility analysis from a governmental perspective compared active surveillance pharmacovigilance to spontaneous reporting. Data from a sentinel site active surveillance program in Namibia from August 2012 to April 2013 was projected to all HIV-infected adults initiating HAART in Namibia. Costs (pharmacovigilance program, HAART, adverse event [AE] treatment), quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs, dollars/QALY) were evaluated. Analysis was completed for (i) cohort analysis: a single cohort beginning HAART in 1 year in Namibia followed over their remaining lifetime, and (ii) population analysis: patients continued to enter and leave care and treatment over 10 years.

RESULTS

For the cohort analysis, totals were US$21,267,902 (2015 US dollars) and 116,224 QALYs for care and treatment under active surveillance pharmacovigilance versus US$15,257,381 and 116,122 QALYs for care and treatment under spontaneous reporting pharmacovigilance, resulting in an ICER of US$58,867/QALY for active surveillance compared with spontaneous reporting pharmacovigilance. The population analysis ICER was US$4989/QALY. Results were sensitive to quality of life associated with AEs.

CONCLUSION

Active surveillance pharmacovigilance was projected to be highly cost effective to improve treatment for HIV in Namibia. Active surveillance pharmacovigilance may be valuable to improve lives of HIV patients and more efficiently allocate health resources in Namibia.

Adaptive Pathways: Possible Next Steps for Payers in Preparation for Their Potential Implementation

Medicines receiving a conditional marketing authorization through Medicines Adaptive Pathways to Patients (MAPPs) will be a challenge for payers. The "introduction" of MAPPs is already seen by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) as a fait accompli, with payers not consulted or involved. However, once medicines are approved through MAPPs, they will be evaluated for funding by payers through different activities. These include Health Technology Assessment (HTA) with often immature clinical data and high uncertainty, financial considerations, and negotiations through different types of agreements, which can require monitoring post launch. Payers have experience with new medicines approved through conditional approval, and the fact that MAPPs present additional challenges is a concern from their perspective. There may be some activities where payers can collaborate. The final decisions on whether to reimburse a new medicine via MAPPs will have more variation than for medicines licensed via conventional processes. This is due not only to increasing uncertainty associated with medicines authorized through MAPPs but also differences in legal frameworks between member states. Moreover, if the financial and side-effect burden from the period of conditional approval until granting full marketing authorization is shifted to the post-authorization phase, payers may have to bear such burdens. Collection of robust data during routine clinical use is challenging along with high prices for new medicines during data collection. This paper presents the concept of MAPPs and possible challenges. Concerns and potential ways forward are discussed and a number of recommendations are presented from the perspective of payers.

A 'Global Reference' Comparator for Biosimilar Development

Major drug regulators have indicated in guidance their flexibility to accept some development data for biosimilars generated with reference product versions licensed outside their own jurisdictions, but most authorities require new bridging studies between these versions and the versions of them licensed locally. The costs of these studies are not trivial in absolute terms and, due to the multiplier effect of required repetition by each biosimilar sponsor, their collective costs are substantial. Yet versions of biologics licensed in different jurisdictions usually share the same development data, and any manufacturing changes between versions have been justified by a rigorous comparability process. The fact that a biosimilar is usually expected to be licensed in multiple jurisdictions, in each case as similar to the local reference product, confirms that minor analytical differences between versions of reference biologics are typically inconsequential for clinical outcomes and licensing. A greatly simplified basis for selecting a reference comparator, that does not require conducting new bridging studies, is proposed and justified based on the shared data of the reference product versions as well as the proof offered where biosimilars have already been approved. The relevance of this proposal to the interchangeability designation available in the US is discussed.

Between January 2009 and April 2016, 134 novel anticancer therapies were approved: what is the level of knowledge concerning the clinical benefit at the time of approval?

Objective

In the last decade an increasing number of high-priced, new cancer treatments received marketing authorisation in Europe. What is actually known about the clinical benefit of those therapies at the time of approval needs to be elucidated in order to inform decisions about the use and reimbursement of these novel treatment options. Thus, the aim of the current analysis was to systematically investigate oncological therapies approved between January 2009 and April 2016 and extract as well as quantify the level of knowledge of the clinical benefit at the time of marketing authorisation.

Methods

To assess the benefit of new interventions as well as expanded indications, we extracted the median gain of the two study end points: progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Information is based on approval documents provided by the European Medicines Agency and assessments from the Austrian Horizon Scanning programme. We included all cancer therapies approved in Europe between 2009 (January 1) and 2016 (April 15).

Results

Cancer drugs for 134 new indications approved since 2009 were identified. In the case of 37 indications (27%), no data were available for PFS or for OS. A positive difference in median OS was reached by 76 licensed indications (55.5%); 22 (16%) of them showed a difference of more than 3 months. Regarding the study end point PFS, an improvement was shown in 90 indications (65.2%).

Conclusion

Scarce knowledge regarding the clinical benefit of anticancer therapies is available at the time of approval. In addition, the survival benefit of the approved indications is less than 3 months in the majority of approved therapies.

Effective Partnering in Conducting Benefit-Risk Patient Preference Studies: Perspectives From a Patient Advocacy Organization, a Pharmaceutical Company, and Academic Stated-Preference Researchers

BACKGROUND

Formal incorporation of patients' perspectives is becoming increasingly important in medical product development and decision making. This article shares practical advice regarding how patient advocacy organizations, the pharmaceutical industry, and academic experts in stated-preference research can effectively partner on benefit-risk patient preference studies.

METHODS

The authors partnered on a benefit-risk patient preference study related to the treatment of psoriasis. The authors from Duke Clinical Research Institute also share their experiences in collaborating with numerous other organizations in conducting benefit-risk patient preference studies.

RESULTS

Upon initiation of the study partnership with appropriate experts, training is important to ensure all collaborators have a common understanding of the methodology, what objectives stated-preference methods can support, and expectations for the project. To the extent possible, partners should align on and document relevant clinical and logistical details prior to study implementation. During study implementation, partners should use good communication practices and document and maintain a record of any changes to the original plan. Presentation of the study results should be tailored to the particular audience, with the appropriate partner leading the presentation based on its format and audience.

CONCLUSION

Partners from patient advocacy organizations, the pharmaceutical industry, and academia can effectively collaborate on benefit-risk patient preference studies with sufficient planning and ongoing communication. This article is a call for action for other organizations to engage in sharing of experiences regarding effective partnering in quantifying patient preferences in medical product development.

Alternative designs for clinical trials in rare diseases

Evidence-based medicine requires strong scientific evidence upon which to base treatment. In rare diseases, study populations are often small, and thus this evidence is difficult to accrue. Investigators, though, should be creative and develop a flexible toolkit of methods to deal with the problems inherent in the study of rare disease. This narrative review presents alternative clinical trial designs for studying treatments of rare diseases, including cross-over and n-of-1 trials, randomized placebo-phase design, enriched enrollment, randomized withdrawal design, and classes of adaptive designs. Examples of applications of these designs are presented along with their advantages and disadvantages. Additional analytical considerations such as Bayesian analysis, internal pilots, and use of biomarkers as surrogate outcomes are further discussed. A framework for selecting appropriate clinical trial design is proposed to guide investigators in the process of selecting alternative designs for rare diseases. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Adaptive Biomedical Innovation: Evolving Our Global System to Sustainably and Safely Bring New Medicines to Patients in Need

The current system of biomedical innovation is unable to keep pace with scientific advancements. We propose to address this gap by reengineering innovation processes to accelerate reliable delivery of products that address unmet medical needs. Adaptive biomedical innovation (ABI) provides an integrative, strategic approach for process innovation. Although the term "ABI" is new, it encompasses fragmented "tools" that have been developed across the global pharmaceutical industry, and could accelerate the evolution of the system through more coordinated application. ABI involves bringing stakeholders together to set shared objectives, foster trust, structure decision-making, and manage expectations through rapid-cycle feedback loops that maximize product knowledge and reduce uncertainty in a continuous, adaptive, and sustainable learning healthcare system. Adaptive decision-making, a core element of ABI, provides a framework for structuring decision-making designed to manage two types of uncertainty - the maturity of scientific and clinical knowledge, and the behaviors of other critical stakeholders.

Quantifying benefit-risk preferences for new medicines in rare disease patients and caregivers

Background

Rare disease patients and caregivers face uncommon, serious, debilitating conditions often characterised by poor prognosis and limited treatment options. This study aimed to explore what they consider of value when choosing between hypothetical therapeutic options and to quantify both their benefit-risk preferences and the influence of disease context.

Methods

A mixed-methods survey with patients and caregivers was conducted in the United Kingdom across a range of rare diseases. Discrete-choice experiments that compared hypothetical treatment profiles of benefits and risks were used to measure respondent preferences across a set of seven attributes related to health outcomes, safety, and process of care. Bespoke questions on current disease management and the joint use of the 12-item WHODAS 2.0 questionnaire and of two Likert scales capturing self- and proxy-assessed disease-induced threat to life and impairment were implemented to describe disease context. Additionally, qualitative insights on the definitions of value and risk were collected from respondents.

Results

Final study sample included 721 patients and 152 informal caregivers, across 52 rare diseases. When choosing between hypothetical novel treatments for rare diseases, respondents attributed most importance to drug response, risk of serious side effects, and the ability to conduct usual activities while on treatment. In contrast, attributes related to treatment modalities were the least important. Respondents expressed a willingness to accept risks in hopes of finding some benefit, such as a higher chance of drug response or greater health improvement potential. Increasing disease severity, impairment or disability, and the lack of effective therapeutic options were shown to raise significantly the willingness to gain benefit through increased risk.

Conclusions

This is the first study performing a quantitative discrete choice experiment amongst patients and caregivers across 52 rare conditions. It enables a more detailed understanding of the relationship between disease context, treatment attributes and the degree of risk respondents are willing to take to gain a specific degree of benefit. Researchers of novel therapeutics for rare diseases should be encouraged to invest in preference elicitation studies to generate rigorous patient evidence and specific regulatory guidance should be issued to acknowledge their importance and their use in marketing authorisations.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13023-016-0444-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Sentinel site active surveillance of safety of first-line antiretroviral medicines in Namibia

PURPOSE

Active surveillance pharmacovigilance systems better estimate the burden of adverse events (AEs) and can generate useful information on risk factors of AEs for more effective medicine use, especially in conjunction with introduction of new medicines and/or changes in treatment guidelines. This project aimed to implement an active surveillance pilot program for first-line antiretroviral therapy (ART) at sentinel sites in Namibia.

METHODS

Sentinel sites were outpatient ART clinics at the Windhoek Central Hospital and Katutura Intermediate Hospital. An active surveillance data collection form was developed and placed into patient charts. HIV+ adults naïve to ART were enrolled. Physicians recorded ART and health information during each follow-up visit, including presence or absence of AEs.

RESULTS

A total of 413 patients were included from August 2012 to April 2013. Average age was 37 years; 51% of patients were at WHO clinical stage 1; and mean baseline CD4 count was 216. The most common ART regimen was tenofovir/lamivudine/nevirapine. Presence or absence of AEs was recorded in active surveillance forms for 94% of first follow-up visits. In total, 66 patients experienced 119 AEs of any severity. Incidence of experiencing at least one AE was 33/100 person-years. Most common AEs were rash and abdominal pain. On active surveillance forms, demographic variables were missing in 14% of patients, and follow-up visits were recorded for 82% of patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Completeness of AE recording on active surveillance forms was high. With improved logistical considerations, such as incorporation of active surveillance forms into medical records, long-term active surveillance programs could be successful. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Falsified Medicines-Bridging the Gap between Business and Public Health

The pharmaceutical industry is one of the most regulated industries in the world. While legislation is necessary to protect patients, too much legislation is said to hamper innovation and increase medicine prices. Using qualitative methods such as interviews and document analysis, we investigated the role of private stakeholders in the EU policymakers' decision to initiate legislation to combat falsified medicines in 2008. Our results show that the pharmaceutical industry, brand owners in particular, were strong proponents of legislation to combat falsified medicines. Their support was not fueled by fear that falsified medicines would harm patients or their own business, but rather because legislative action in this area would advance policies that benefit their businesses objectives. The brand owners framed the issue to policymakers as best to support their business objectives. In general, supply chain actors lobbied for stricter requirements in order to challenge competitors. In the end, the Falsified Medicines Directive may have suffered from company influence not by addressing the primary problem of falsified medicines, but rather by creating additional legislation that benefits the supply chain actors.

Understanding drug preferences, different perspectives

AIMS

To compare the values regulators attach to different drug effects of oral antidiabetic drugs with those of doctors and patients.

METHODS

We administered a 'discrete choice' survey to regulators, doctors and patients with type 2 diabetes in The Netherlands. Eighteen choice sets comparing two hypothetical oral antidiabetic drugs were constructed with varying drug effects on glycated haemoglobin, cardiovascular risk, bodyweight, duration of gastrointestinal complaints, frequency of hypoglycaemia and risk of bladder cancer. Responders were asked each time which drug they preferred.

RESULTS

Fifty-two regulators, 175 doctors and 226 patients returned the survey. Multinomial conditional logit analyses showed that cardiovascular risk reduction was valued by regulators positively (odds ratio 1.98, 95% confidence interval 1.11-3.53), whereas drug choices were negatively affected by persistent gastrointestinal problems (odds ratio 0.24, 95% confidence interval 0.14-0.41) and cardiovascular risk increase (odds ratio 0.49, 95% confidence interval 0.27-0.87). Doctors and patients valued these effects in a similar manner to regulators. The values that doctors attached to large changes in glycated haemoglobin and that both doctors and patients attached to hypoglycaemia and weight gain also reached statistical significance. No group's drug choice was affected by a small absolute change in risk of bladder cancer when presented in the context of other drug effects. When comparing the groups, the value attached by regulators to less frequent hypoglycaemic episodes was significantly smaller than by patients (P = 0.044).

CONCLUSIONS

Regulators may value major benefits and risks of drugs for an individual diabetes patient mostly in the same way as doctors and patients, but differences may exist regarding the value of minor or short-term drug effects.

Blood donor selection in European Union directives: room for improvement

BACKGROUND

Transfusion-transmissible infections have made both blood bankers and health authorities overly cautious. The general public expects and hence reinforces this policy. To obtain a high level of blood product safety, blood and plasma donors have to meet increasingly stringent eligibility criteria; however, it is not known whether this policy translates into improved outcomes for patients. There is a risk that the management of donors does not match the ambition of greater safety for patients. European directives related to the collection process and donor selection will probably be reconsidered in the next few years.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The development of European directives on donor selection and their basis in the literature were reviewed with an emphasis on the background and considerations for eligibility criteria to be included in the directives.

RESULTS

The precautionary principle appears to be the predominant reason behind the set of eligibility criteria. However, the formal eligibility criteria, put into force in 2004, do not balance with the developments of the past decade in laboratory tests and measures that have substantially reduced actual infection risks. In no cases were the effects of eligibility criteria on the donor pool and donor well-being quantified. Regional differences in the epidemiology of transfusion-transmissible infections were not taken into consideration either.

DISCUSSION

First, the Authors promote the collection of epidemiological data on the incidence and prevalence of conditions in the general population and in blood and plasma donors which could pose a risk for transfused patients, in order to use these data as a basis for decision-making in donor-selection policies. Second, the Authors suggest including allowance for differential deferral criteria throughout Europe, based on factual risk levels. There should be an accepted balance between donor and patient welfare, and also between risk to transfusion safety and risk of compromising the blood supply.

Why does increasing public access to medicines differ between countries? Qualitative comparison of nine countries

Objective

To identify factors associated with differences between developed countries in reclassifying (switching) medicines from prescription to non-prescription availability.

Methods

Cross-national qualitative research using a heuristic approach in the US, UK, Japan, Australia and New Zealand, supplemented by data from Canada, Denmark, the Netherlands and Singapore. In-depth interviews with 80 key informants (65 interviews) explored and compared factors in terms of barriers and enablers to reclassification of medicines in each country. Document analysis supplemented interview data.

Results

Each country had a unique mix of enablers and barriers to reclassification. Enablers included government policy (particularly in UK), pharmacist-only scheduling (particularly in Australia and New Zealand) and large market size (particularly in the US and Europe). Local barriers included limited market potential in small countries, the cost of a reclassification (particularly in the US), competition from distributors of generic medicines, committee inconsistency and consumer behavior. UK had more enablers than barriers, whereas in Australia the opposite was true.

Conclusions

Different factors limit or enable reclassification, affecting consumer access to medicines in different countries. For countries attempting to reduce barriers to reclassification, solutions may include garnering government support for reclassification, support and flexibility from the medicines regulator, having a pharmacy-only and/or pharmacist-only category, providing market exclusivity, ensuring best practice in pharmacy, and minimizing the cost and delays of reclassification.

Emerging drug for diarrhea predominant irritable bowel syndrome

INTRODUCTION

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is one of the most common gastrointestinal disorders with a 9 - 23% prevalence estimated in the general population. Patients can be subdivided into those who tend to have predominant diarrhea (IBS-D) or predominant constipation (IBS-C). Total annual productivity loss related to IBS in US is estimated at $205 million, with a significant impairment of health-related quality of life. A gold standard for the treatment of IBS is not established. Symptoms might improve with the use of few drugs and behavioral therapy, however, data concerning efficacy, safety and tolerability are limited. Therefore, development and validation of new therapies targeting at the molecular level are widely awaited.

AREAS COVERED

We will specifically describe in this review Phase II and Phase III trials, with specific focus on treatment of IBS-D patients. Unfortunately, it is difficult to draw definite conclusions from Phase II and Phase III trials, because of the known high placebo effect.

EXPERT OPINION

Drugs active on opioid receptor subtypes and neurokinin (NK) receptors seem to be the most promising, but substantial progress of information in this field is still needed. The achievement of more insights on the pathogenesis of IBS could surely better drive and target the therapy, but still strong efforts are awaited.

New opportunities of real-world data from clinical routine settings in life-cycle management of drugs: example of an integrative approach in multiple sclerosis

The assessment and demonstration of a positive benefit-risk balance of a drug is a life-long process and includes specific data from preclinical, clinical development and post-launch experience. However, new integrative approaches are needed to enrich evidence from clinical trials and sponsor-initiated observational studies with information from multiple additional sources, including registry information and other existing observational data and, more recently, health-related administrative claims and medical records databases. To illustrate the value of this approach, this paper exemplifies such a cross-package approach to the area of multiple sclerosis, exploring also possible analytic strategies when using these multiple sources of information.