Comparison of regulatory pathways for the approval of advanced therapies in the European Union and the United States.

BACKGROUND AIMS: Regulatory agencies in the European Union (EU) and in the United States of America (USA) have adapted and launched regulatory pathways to accelerate patient access to innovative therapies, such as advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs). The aim of this study is to analyze similarities and differences between regulatory pathways followed by the approved ATMPs in both regions. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the ATMPs approved by EU and US regulatory agencies was carried out until May 31, 2020. Data were collected on the features and timing of orphan drug designation (ODD), scientific advice (SA), expedited program designation (EP), marketing authorization application (MAA) and marketing authorization (MA) for both regions. RESULTS: In the EU, a total of fifteen ATMPs were approved (eight gene therapies, three somatic cell therapies, three tissue-engineered products and one combined ATMP), whereas in the USA, a total of nine were approved (five gene therapies and four cell therapies); seven of these were authorized in both regions. No statistical differences were found in the mean time between having the ODD or EP granted and the start of the pivotal clinical trial or MAA in the EU and USA, although the USA required less time for MAA assessment than the EU (mean difference, 5.44, P = 0.012). The MAA assessment was shorter for those products with a PRIME or breakthrough designation.. No differences were found in the percentage of ATMPs with expedited MAA assessment between the EU and the USA (33.3% versus 55.5%, respectively, P = 0.285) or in the time required for the MAA expedited review (mean difference 4.41, P = 0.105). Approximately half of the products in both regions required an Advisory Committee during the MAA review, and 60% required an oral explanation in the EU. More than half of the approved ATMPs (67% and 55.55% in the EU and the USA, respectively) were granted an ODD, 70% by submitting preliminary clinical data in the EU. The mean number of SA and protocol assistance per product conducted by the European Medicines Agency was 1.71 and 3.75, respectively, and only 13% included parallel advice with health technology assessment bodies. A total of 53.33% of the products conducted the first SA after the pivotal clinical study had started, reporting more protocol amendments. Finally, of the seven ATMPs authorized in both regions, the type of MA differed for only two ATMPs (28.6%), and four out of eight products non-commercialized in the USA had a non-standard MA in the EU. CONCLUSIONS: The current approved ATMPs mainly target orphan diseases. Although EU and US regulatory procedures may differ, the main regulatory milestones reached by the approved ATMPs are similar in both regions, with the exception of the time for MAA evaluation, the number of authorized products in the regions and the type of authorization for some products. More global regulatory convergence might further simplify and expedite current ATMP development in these regions.

Escalating costs of innovative medicines: perspective and proposals.

Public healthcare systems are challenged by the soaring costs of medications that require increasing resources, often at the expense of other investments. The increasing pharmaceutical budget poses a threat to the allocation of funds for essential preventive and primary healthcare services while also raising concerns about equitable access, particularly in models where patients bear part of the costs out of their own pockets. Proposals on how to ensure ongoing and long-term accessibility, efficiency, and financial stability are required. The escalating costs of medicines may be explained in part by the mismatch between the traditional value-based pricing and reimbursement frameworks and the type of clinical development of targeted therapies and precision medicine in clinical practice. New appraisal methods and managed access strategies should be adapted to therapies targeting small populations and addressing increased uncertainty. Fair pricing strategies, transparent healthcare investments based on problems and outcomes, regulatory reforms, international cooperation, and critically examining the drug acquisition model are potential solutions. Transitioning from an industry-driven pricing approach to a health-driven payment model can help align the cost of treatments with actual health outcomes, establishing a foundation for a healthcare system that addresses immediate challenges and fosters long-term well-being. Acknowledging the lack of a universally applicable solution, the practical implementation of interventions requires a reframing of the pricing and access system and adaption to the targeted therapeutic approaches. Balancing innovation with financial sustainability necessitates a collaborative, adaptive, and transparent approach, as well as transitioning toward health-driven payment models, moving the focus from the cost of medications to the well-being of populations worldwide.

The challenges of access to innovative medicines with limited evidence in the European Union.

The European Medicines Agency (EMA) fosters access to innovative medicines through accelerated procedures and flexibility in the authorization requirements for diseases with unmet medical needs, such as many rare diseases as well as oncological diseases. However, the resulting increase of medicines being marketed with conditional authorizations and in exceptional circumstances has lead to higher clinical uncertainty about their efficacy and safety than when the standard authorizations are applied. This uncertainty has significant implications for clinical practice and the negotiation of pricing and reimbursement, particularly as high prices are based on assumptions of high value, supported by regulatory prioritization. The burden of clinical development is often shifted towards public healthcare systems, resulting in increased spending budgets and opportunity costs. Effective management of uncertainty, through appropriate testing and evaluation, and fair reflection of costs and risks in prices, is crucial. However, it is important not to sacrifice essential elements of evidence-based healthcare for the sake of access to new treatments. Balancing sensitive and rational access to new treatments, ensuring their safety, efficacy, and affordability to healthcare systems requires thoughtful decision-making. Ultimately, a responsible approach to timely access to innovative medicines that balances the needs of patients with healthcare systems' concerns is necessary. This approach emphasizes the importance of evidence-based decision-making and fair pricing and reimbursement.

Evolution of Pharmacological Treatments and Associated Costs for Multiple Myeloma in the Public Healthcare System of Catalonia: A Retrospective Observational Study.

(1) Background: Our understanding of and treatment for multiple myeloma (MM) has advanced significantly, and new pharmacological treatments have promising benefits but high price tags. This study analyzes prescription patterns and pharmaceutical expenditure for MM treatments in Catalonia's public healthcare system over eight years. (2) Methods: A retrospective observational study examined MM treatment data from 2015 to 2022 in Catalonia, using healthcare registries from the Catalan Health Service to collect information on patients, medicines used, and treatment costs. (3) Results: A total of 4556 MM patients received treatment, with a rising trend in the number of treated patients each year from 902 in 2015 to 1899 in 2022. The mean age was 68.9 years, and patients were almost evenly distributed by gender (51.5% male). Most patients were treated with bortezomib (3338 patients), lenalidomide (2952), and/or daratumumab (1093). Most drugs showed increased utilization annually, most significantly for lenalidomide and daratumumab. The total pharmacological treatment cost throughout the entire study period was EUR 321,811,249, with lenalidomide leading with the highest total cost (EUR 157,236,784), and daratumumab exhibiting the highest increase in annual expenditure. (5) Conclusions: The study reveals a progressive increase in the number of MM patients treated and rising pharmaceutical costs. Lenalidomide and daratumumab incurred the highest costs. The findings highlight MM treatment's economic impact and the need to monitor prescription patterns and expenditures to optimize healthcare resources and decision making. Understanding these trends can guide resource allocation effectively.

Methodological Characteristics of Clinical Trials Supporting the Marketing Authorisation of Advanced Therapies in the European Union.

Several advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) have been approved in the European Union (EU). The aim of this study is to analyse the methodological features of the clinical trials (CT) that supported the marketing authorization (MA) of the approved ATMPs in the EU. A systematic review of the characteristics of pivotal CT of ATMPs approved in the EU until January 31st, 2021 was carried out. A total of 17 ATMPs were approved and 23 CT were conducted to support the MA (median, 1, range, 1-3). Of those studies, 8 (34.78%) were non-controlled and 7 (30.43%) used historical controls. Only 7 (30.4%) were placebo or active-controlled studies. Among all CT, 21 (91.3%) were open-label and 13 (56.52%) had a single-arm design. To evaluate the primary endpoint, 18 (78.26%) studies used an intermediate and single variable. The median (IQR) number of patients enrolled in the studies was 75 (22-118). To date, ATMPs' approval in the EU is mainly supported by uncontrolled, single-arm pivotal CT. Although there is a trend toward an adaptive or a life cycle approach, a switch to more robust clinical trial designs is expected to better define the benefit and the therapeutic added value of ATMPs.

Effect of an intervention on the features of adverse drug reactions spontaneously reported in a hospital.

OBJECTIVES: A continuous intervention based on healthcare management agreements was associated in our hospital with an increase in the absolute number of spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs), and also with an increase in the number of reports of serious or unexpected ADRs and ADRs associated with new drugs. The objective was to analyse the effect of this intervention on the features of ADRs spontaneously reported in a hospital, the drugs involved and the number of signals identified. METHODS: A longitudinal study with two periods, the 1st period without intervention from 1998 to 2002 and the 2nd period with intervention from 2003 to 2005, was carried out in a tertiary teaching hospital. Changes between the two periods with regard to the following variables were analysed: the patients' characteristics, such as gender and age; the reported ADRs, and the medical assistance required; the suspected drugs involved in the ADRs; the main signals identified. RESULTS: Gender and age distribution of patients described in the spontaneous reports were no different in the two periods. During the second period, spontaneously reported cases requiring hospital admission and those occurring in hospital increased (236 from 2 in the first period and 277 from 99 in the first period respectively) and cases from outpatient hospital consultations began to be reported (13.9% of reports). The spontaneous reporting on all kinds of ADRs and drugs increased during the second period. Cutaneous reactions were the most frequently spontaneously reported ADRs in both periods followed by cardiovascular and neurological reactions in the first period, and haematological and gastrointestinal reactions in the second one. However, during the second period the higher increase was for endocrinological, urinary and hepatic reactions. Systemic antibiotics, anti-thrombotics and cardiac therapy drugs were the most common therapeutic subgroups reported to be suspected drugs in both periods, but in the second period the proportion of immunostimulants, beta blocking agents, immunosuppressants and psychoanaleptics increased. No signals were recognised during the first period; however, two signals and one additional safety concern were identified during the second. CONCLUSION: An intervention based on healthcare management agreements, was associated with an important increase in spontaneous reporting of ADRs by hospital physicians and also with a change in terms of the type of ADRs identified affecting different organs or systems, and the therapeutic groups of drugs involved. Future studies should analyse the effect of different types of intervention on the spontaneous reporting of ADRs in hospitals.

Corrigendum: Regulatory Framework for Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products in Europe and United States.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2019.00921.].

Regulatory Framework for Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products in Europe and United States.

Advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) are a fast-growing field of innovative therapies. The European Union (EU) and the United States (US) are fostering their development. For both regions, ATMPs fall under the regulatory framework of biological products, which determines the legal basis for their development. Sub-classifications of advanced therapies are different between regions, while in EU, there are four major groups, i.e., gene therapy, somatic cell therapy, tissue-engineered therapies, and combined advanced therapies; in US, the sub-classification covers two major groups of products, i.e., gene therapy and cellular therapy. The inclusion criteria that define a gene therapy are equivalent in both regions, and the exclusion criteria are directly related to the indications of the product. In the EU, there is a clear differentiation between cell- and tissue-based products regarding their classification as advanced therapies or coverage by other legal frameworks, whereas in US, there is a broader classification about whether or not these products can be categorized as biologic products. Both in EU and in US, in order to classify a cell- or a tissue-based product as an advanced therapy, it must be ensured that the processing of the cells implies a manipulation that alters their biological characteristics, although the term of manipulation in US differentiates between structural and non-structural cells and tissues. The regulatory terminology used to define ATMPs and their sub-classification reveals some differences between EU and US.

Use of α2-Adrenergic Agonists to Improve Surgical Field Visibility in Endoscopy Sinus Surgery: A Systematic Review of Randomised Controlled Trials.

PURPOSE: We assessed the evidence for the use of α2-adrenergic agonists (A2AAs) in bleeding control and field quality in endoscopic sinus surgery. METHODS: We systematically reviewed randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing A2AAs in endoscopic sinus surgery. Abstracts were reviewed by 2 investigators for eligibility, and selected articles were fully reviewed. Data on study design, population, A2AA drug and control groups, bleeding and surgical field quality outcomes, and adverse effects were extracted and synthesized. FINDINGS: A total of 13 RCTs that included 896 individuals (7 double-blind trials, 5 single-blind trials, and 1 open-label trial) were selected that assessed the efficacy of clonidine (6 RCTs, 407 patients), dexmedetomidine (6 RCT, 423 patients), or both (1 RCT, 66 patients). Clonidine was compared with placebo (3 RCTs), midazolam (1 RCT), and remifentanil (2 RCTs). Dexmedetomidine was compared with esmolol (2 RCTs), remifentanil (2 RCTs), nitroglycerin and esmolol (1 RCT), and magnesium sulfate (1 RCT). Clonidine and dexmedetomidine were compared in 1 RCT. Clonidine reduced the proportion of individuals with an impaired surgical field by 23% vs placebo (number needed to treat = 4). Clonidine was better than midazolam and remifentanil in 2 trials, and dexmedetomidine was better than magnesium sulfate and esmolol in 2 trials but was not superior to esmolol, remifentanil, or nitroglycerin in 4 trials. Dexmedetomidine produced significantly better differences in bleeding outcomes versus clonidine. Adverse events were infrequent and mainly caused by hypotension or bradycardia. IMPLICATIONS: RCTs consistently report that A2AAs reduce bleeding and improve surgical field quality during endoscopic sinus surgery. Adverse event reporting was often omitted in RCTs. Well-designed RCTs with appropriate sample sizes are desirable to identify the best A2AAs and confirm their potential effects on clinical outcomes.

Have We Improved Pain Control in Cancer Patients? A Multicenter Study of Ambulatory and Hospitalized Cancer Patients.

BACKGROUND: Pain in cancer patients is recognized as a major health problem, yet few studies of both inpatient and outpatient populations have been carried out. OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to assess the frequency, type, and characteristics of pain in adult cancer patients, including both inpatients and outpatients. METHODS: This cross-sectional study involved 1064 adult cancer patients (437 outpatients and 627 inpatients) from 44 hospitals and/or long-term-care centers in Catalonia, Spain. Cancer patients suffering from pain of any etiology for ≥2 weeks and/or under analgesic treatment ≥2 weeks were enrolled. Demographic and pain data were collected. The Spanish version of the Brief Pain Inventory was used to assess pain. RESULTS: Pain frequency was 55.3%. Pain was less frequent in outpatients than inpatients (41.6% versus 64.7%; p<0.001), although median pain duration was longer in outpatients (20 versus 6 weeks; p<0.001). Pain was assessable in 333 patients, and intensity was similar in both out- and inpatients; however, outpatients reported less improvement, less pain interference with daily life, and less pain related to the cancer per se. In both groups, patients with multiple myeloma (73%), breast (65%), and lung cancer (61%) were most likely to report pain. CONCLUSIONS: Pain in cancer patients, both ambulatory and hospitalized, remains a challenge for health care professionals, health administrators, and stakeholders. Our study reveals the high level of pain and distress that cancer patients continue to suffer, a problem that is particularly notable in outpatients due to the intensity and duration of the pain.

Use of venous thromboprophylaxis and adherence to guideline recommendations: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Consensus Conferences and Guidelines for deep vein thrombosis prophylaxis have been published, which recommend the use of prophylactic heparins in patients with risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE). The aim of this study was the assessment of the prophylaxis of VTE and the adherence to accepted guideline recommendations throughout the hospital. METHODS: A cross-sectional study was carried out in a teaching hospital after guidelines were implemented. Patients' risk factors of deep vein thrombosis, risk categories of patients, and prophylaxis used in different wards were recorded. Appropriate adherence to the guidelines was analysed. RESULTS: Of 397 patients, prophylaxis was used in 231 patients (58%), and low-molecular-weight heparins (LMWH) were used in 224 of them (97%). Patients with prophylaxis had a higher mean number of risk factors (SD) than those without prophylaxis [3.1 (1.4) vs 1.9 (1.4); p < 0.05)]. Prophylaxis was used in 72% and 90% of moderate and high-risk patients respectively. Appropriate adherence to all guideline recommendations was observed in 42% of patients. Adherence to guidelines was high as regards the use of prophylaxis according to patients' risk factors (78%) and the use of appropriate types of prophylaxis (99%), but was low regarding appropriate heparin dosage (47%) and preoperative dosage (37%). Appropriate prophylaxis use was higher in critical care and surgical wards than in medical wards. CONCLUSION: Prophylaxis of VTE is generally used in risk patients, but appropriate adherence to guidelines is less frequent and variable among different wards. Continuing medical education, discussion and dissemination of guidelines, and regular clinical audit are necessary to improve prophylaxis of VTE in clinical practice.

Educational sessions in pharmacovigilance: What do the doctors think?

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine physicians' opinion regarding pharmacovigilance feedback sessions. A survey was conducted in a teaching hospital, and the physicians who attended the sessions were invited to participate by filling out a structured questionnaire. All sessions included a review of adverse drug reactions identified at the hospital and information on pharmacovigilance issues (news on warnings released by regulatory agencies or drug toxicity problems identified by recently published studies in medical journals). The survey questions were related to the interest, satisfaction, and belief in the utility of the sessions. A Likert scale (0-10 points) was used to assess physicians' opinions. FINDINGS: A total of 159 physicians attended the sessions and 115 (72.3%) participated in the survey. The mean (SD) age was 38.9 (12.1) years, and 72 (62.6%) were men. The mean (SD) scores of interest, satisfaction with the information provided, and belief in the utility of these sessions were 7.52 (1.61), 7.58 (1.46), and 8.05 (1.38) respectively. Significant differences were observed among physicians according to medical category and speciality in terms of interest, satisfaction, and belief in the utility of those sessions. CONCLUSIONS: Educational activities for physicians, such as feedback sessions, can be integrated into the pharmacovigilance activities. Doctors who attend the sessions are interested in and satisfied with the information provided and consider the sessions to be useful. Additional studies on the development and effectiveness of educational activities in pharmacovigilance are necessary.