Biomarker-Driven Developments in the Context of the New Regulatory Framework for Companion Diagnostics in the European Union.

The new In Vitro Diagnostic Regulation (EU) 2017/746 (IVDR) introduces important changes in the EU legal framework for companion diagnostics (CDx), including a new risk-based classification system for in vitro diagnostic tests (IVDs), a first legal definition for CDx and enhanced involvement of notified bodies in the conformity assessment and certification process of CDx. The IVDR also establishes an important link between the assessment of a CDx and the corresponding medicinal product by requiring the notified body to seek a scientific opinion from the medicines regulator on the suitability of the CDx for use with the concerned medicinal product(s) before issuing an IVD certificate. Whereas the IVDR aims at establishing a robust regulatory framework for IVDs, it is also associated with several challenges, such as insufficient capacity of notified bodies and readiness of manufacturers. To ensure timely access for patients to essential IVDs, a progressive roll-out for this new legislation has been introduced. In addition, the new consultation process for CDx requires increased collaboration and alignment of assessments performed by the different stakeholders involved in this process. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) and notified bodies are currently building experience based on the first CDx consultation procedures that have been submitted from January 2022 onward. In the current article, we describe the new European regulatory framework for certification of CDx and highlight several challenges for medicine and CDx co-development. In addition, we briefly touch upon the interplay between the Clinical Trial Regulation (EU) No. 536/2014 (CTR) and the IVDR.

Repurposing of Medicines in the EU: Launch of a Pilot Framework.

Repurposing of authorised medicines has been under discussion for a long time. Drug repurposing is the process of identifying a new use for an existing medicine in an indication outside the scope of the original approved indication. Indeed, the COVID-19 health crisis has brought the concept to the frontline by proving the usefulness of this practise in favour of patients for an early access to treatment. Under the umbrella of the Pharmaceutical Committee and as a result of the discussions at the European Commission Expert Group on Safe and Timely Access to Medicines for Patients (STAMP) a virtual Repurposing Observatory Group (RepOG) was set up in 2019 to define and test the practical aspects of a pilot project thought to provide support to "not-for-profit" stakeholders generating or gathering data for a new therapeutic use for an authorised medicine. The group's initial plan was impacted by the outbreak of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic and the launch of the pilot needed to be postponed. This article describes the progress and the activities conducted by the group during this past and yet extraordinary 2020-2021 to keep the project alive and explores on the background of this topic together with the obvious opportunities this health crisis has brought up in terms of repurposing of medicines.

A Comparison of EMA and FDA Decisions for New Drug Marketing Applications 2014-2016: Concordance, Discordance, and Why.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) have robust scientific and technical collaborations. As a window to the impact of these activities we compared the agencies' decisions on drug marketing applications. Decisions were compared for 107 new drug applications with a regulatory outcome at both agencies in the period 2014-2016. Further analysis addressed individual applications for which the agencies had differing outcomes in terms of marketing approval, type of approval, and approved indication, including reasons underlying differences. The EMA and the FDA had high concordance (91-98%) in decisions on marketing approvals. Divergence in approval decisions, type of approval, and approved indication were primarily due to differences in agencies' conclusions about efficacy based on review of the same data or differing clinical data submitted to support the application. This high rate of concordance suggests that engagement and collaboration on regulatory science has a positive impact.