Mandatory requirements for pediatric drug development in the EU and the US for novel drugs-A comparative study.

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

Guidance for pediatric use in prescription information for novel medicinal products in the EU and the US.

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

Hydroxyzine Initiation Following Drug Safety Advisories on Cardiac Arrhythmias in the UK and Canada: A Longitudinal Cohort Study.

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

Influence of drug safety advisories on drug utilisation: an international interrupted time series and meta-analysis.

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

Improving Interactions Between Health Technology Assessment Bodies and Regulatory Agencies: A Systematic Review and Cross-Sectional Survey on Processes, Progress, Outcomes, and Challenges.

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

The effectiveness of direct to healthcare professional communication - A systematic review of communication factor studies.

BACKGROUND: Direct to healthcare professional communication (DHPC) is the prevalent regulatory measure to inform about and potentially mitigate newly identified drug risks in EU and USA. According to multiple studies and reviews, however, the effectiveness of DHPC to reduce risk is less than optimal. Prior systematic reviews have indicated that contextual, qualitative knowledge of communication factors related to the clinical setting is needed to further explain and supplement findings in quantitative effectiveness studies. OBJECTIVES: This article systematically reviews studies of DHPC and, on that basis, describes the communication factors that influence the effectiveness of DHPC in order to discuss future research trajectories. METHODS: PubMed, Scopus (including Embase) and Web of Science databases were searched for studies on communication about emergent drug risk to healthcare professionals, excluding studies limited to the quantifiable effect of communication. The search results were deductively categorized using the Communication Sequence Model. Then, prevalent themes within categories were identified and described using thematic analysis. RESULTS: A total of 16 studies published between 1993 and 2017 were included; 12 based on surveys, 2 on document analysis, and 2 primarily on interviews. The prevalent themes included "Health Care Professionals (HCPs) have less trust in communication from industry than authorities and medical associations", "HCPs have diverse preferences for how to receive drug risk information" and "Clinical usability of the presented information is less than optimal." CONCLUSION: Communication factors in DHPCs are multiple, multi-facetted and are examined primarily by surveys. Future research would benefit from identifying nationally dependent factors and employing methods that better provide knowledge on the qualitative reception and handling of drug risk communication.

Recommendations for benefit-risk assessment methodologies and visual representations.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study is to draw on the practical experience from the PROTECT BR case studies and make recommendations regarding the application of a number of methodologies and visual representations for benefit-risk assessment. METHODS: Eight case studies based on the benefit-risk balance of real medicines were used to test various methodologies that had been identified from the literature as having potential applications in benefit-risk assessment. Recommendations were drawn up based on the results of the case studies. RESULTS: A general pathway through the case studies was evident, with various classes of methodologies having roles to play at different stages. Descriptive and quantitative frameworks were widely used throughout to structure problems, with other methods such as metrics, estimation techniques and elicitation techniques providing ways to incorporate technical or numerical data from various sources. Similarly, tree diagrams and effects tables were universally adopted, with other visualisations available to suit specific methodologies or tasks as required. Every assessment was found to follow five broad stages: (i) Planning, (ii) Evidence gathering and data preparation, (iii) Analysis, (iv) Exploration and (v) Conclusion and dissemination. CONCLUSIONS: Adopting formal, structured approaches to benefit-risk assessment was feasible in real-world problems and facilitated clear, transparent decision-making. Prior to this work, no extensive practical application and appraisal of methodologies had been conducted using real-world case examples, leaving users with limited knowledge of their usefulness in the real world. The practical guidance provided here takes us one step closer to a harmonised approach to benefit-risk assessment from multiple perspectives.

Literature review of visual representation of the results of benefit-risk assessments of medicinal products.

BACKGROUND: The PROTECT Benefit-Risk group is dedicated to research in methods for continuous benefit-risk monitoring of medicines, including the presentation of the results, with a particular emphasis on graphical methods. METHODS: A comprehensive review was performed to identify visuals used for medical risk and benefit-risk communication. The identified visual displays were grouped into visual types, and each visual type was appraised based on five criteria: intended audience, intended message, knowledge required to understand the visual, unintentional messages that may be derived from the visual and missing information that may be needed to understand the visual. RESULTS: Sixty-six examples of visual formats were identified from the literature and classified into 14 visual types. We found that there is not one single visual format that is consistently superior to others for the communication of benefit-risk information. In addition, we found that most of the drawbacks found in the visual formats could be considered general to visual communication, although some appear more relevant to specific formats and should be considered when creating visuals for different audiences depending on the exact message to be communicated. CONCLUSION: We have arrived at recommendations for the use of visual displays for benefit-risk communication. The recommendation refers to the creation of visuals. We outline four criteria to determine audience-visual compatibility and consider these to be a key task in creating any visual. Next we propose specific visual formats of interest, to be explored further for their ability to address nine different types of benefit-risk analysis information.

Benefit-risk assessment in a post-market setting: a case study integrating real-life experience into benefit-risk methodology.

PURPOSE: Difficulties may be encountered when undertaking a benefit-risk assessment for an older product with well-established use but with a benefit-risk balance that may have changed over time. This case study investigates this specific situation by applying a formal benefit-risk framework to assess the benefit-risk balance of warfarin for primary prevention of patients with atrial fibrillation. METHODS: We used the qualitative framework BRAT as the starting point of the benefit-risk analysis, bringing together the relevant available evidence. We explored the use of a quantitative method (stochastic multi-criteria acceptability analysis) to demonstrate how uncertainties and preferences on multiple criteria can be integrated into a single measure to reduce cognitive burden and increase transparency in decision making. RESULTS: Our benefit-risk model found that warfarin is favourable compared with placebo for the primary prevention of stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation. This favourable benefit-risk balance is fairly robust to differences in preferences. The probability of a favourable benefit-risk for warfarin against placebo is high (0.99) in our model despite the high uncertainty of randomised clinical trial data. In this case study, we identified major challenges related to the identification of relevant benefit-risk criteria and taking into account the diversity and quality of evidence available to inform the benefit-risk assessment. CONCLUSION: The main challenges in applying formal methods for medical benefit-risk assessment for a marketed drug are related to outcome definitions and data availability. Data exist from many different sources (both randomised clinical trials and observational studies), and the variability in the studies is large.

Balancing benefit and risk of medicines: a systematic review and classification of available methodologies.

BACKGROUND: The need for formal and structured approaches for benefit-risk assessment of medicines is increasing, as is the complexity of the scientific questions addressed before making decisions on the benefit-risk balance of medicines. We systematically collected, appraised and classified available benefit-risk methodologies to facilitate and inform their future use. METHODS: A systematic review of publications identified benefit-risk assessment methodologies. Methodologies were appraised on their fundamental principles, features, graphical representations, assessability and accessibility. We created a taxonomy of methodologies to facilitate understanding and choice. RESULTS: We identified 49 methodologies, critically appraised and classified them into four categories: frameworks, metrics, estimation techniques and utility survey techniques. Eight frameworks describe qualitative steps in benefit-risk assessment and eight quantify benefit-risk balance. Nine metric indices include threshold indices to measure either benefit or risk; health indices measure quality-of-life over time; and trade-off indices integrate benefits and risks. Six estimation techniques support benefit-risk modelling and evidence synthesis. Four utility survey techniques elicit robust value preferences from relevant stakeholders to the benefit-risk decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Methodologies to help benefit-risk assessments of medicines are diverse and each is associated with different limitations and strengths. There is not a 'one-size-fits-all' method, and a combination of methods may be needed for each benefit-risk assessment. The taxonomy introduced herein may guide choice of adequate methodologies. Finally, we recommend 13 of 49 methodologies for further appraisal for use in the real-life benefit-risk assessment of medicines.

A comprehensive approach to benefit-risk assessment in drug development.

Major regulatory agencies, for example, FDA and EMA, have started to request comprehensive benefit-risk analyses of pharmaceutical products prior to approval or labelling expansion. The purpose of this study is to develop a generally applicable and reliable data-driven benefit-risk assessment method, where two or more drugs/doses can be compared. Our aim is to formulate an approach that is simple to apply, allows direct comparison of different types of risks and benefits, and is tailored for application in different disease areas both during clinical development and in the marketing approval phase. The proposed benefit-risk assessment method involves eight successive steps: (1) establishment of the decision context, (2) identification of benefit and risk criteria, (3) weighting, (4) scoring, (5) evaluation of uncertainty, (6) calculation of weighted scores, (7) visualization, and (8) discussion and formulation of an overall conclusion. To reduce the impact of subjective judgements, scores are assigned to each criterion on the basis of objective information (data) wherever possible. The proposed benefit-risk evaluation approach offers comprehensive, data-driven assessments that can facilitate decision processes. It employs descriptive statistical methods to highlight the clinically significant differences between drugs in clinical trials. The approach can be used in single as well as in multiple trials and provides clear diagrams as the basis for presentation and discussion of the results.

A model of NEFA dynamics with focus on the postprandial state.

To improve the understanding of the mechanisms underlying the behavior of plasma non-esterified fatty acids (NEFA) in the postprandial state, we have developed a physiology-based mathematical model of plasma NEFA dynamics. Known physiological mechanisms are quantified and used to describe NEFA dynamics. Insulin is the major regulator of NEFA metabolism in the postprandial state. Plasma NEFA levels are thus highly dependent on the insulin concentration, the insulin sensitivity of adipose tissue, and the maximal lipolytic rate. In the postabsorptive state, e.g., at low insulin, adipose tissue lipolysis results in a net export of NEFA from adipose tissue to other tissues. Postprandially, the rise in insulin results in: Decreased lipolysis; a higher rate of lipoprotein lipase (LPL) activity; and decreased NEFA uptake and reesterification by adipose tissue stimulation of reesterification. The result is a drop in plasma NEFA after a carbohydrate containing meal. When insulin returns to postabsorptive levels, a rebound in plasma NEFA often occurs. This rebound is due to a restoration of lipolysis, a decrease in NEFA reesterification by adipose tissue and an increased LPL-as insulin activates LPL with a delay of several hours. In conclusion, movements of NEFA depend strongly on insulin-with postprandial plasma NEFA being almost inversely related to the insulin concentration in healthy humans. The model provides an integrative view of NEFA dynamics and a framework for quantitative and conceptual understanding of plasma NEFA fluxes.