Do efficacy results obtained from randomized controlled trials translate to effectiveness data from observational studies for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis?

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials are considered the gold standard in regulatory decision making, as observational studies are known to have important methodological limitations. However, real-world evidence may be helpful in specific situations. This review investigates how the effect estimates obtained from randomized controlled trials compare to those obtained from observational studies, using drug therapy for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis as an example. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials and observational studies was conducted. The primary outcome was the annualized relapse rate. Using (network) meta-analysis together with posterior predictive distributions, the drug-specific rate ratios from the network of randomized controlled trials were compared with those from the network of observational studies. RESULTS: Effect estimates from 26 observational studies showed greater magnitudes and were less precise compared to estimates obtained from 21 randomized controlled trials. Twenty of the 28 treatment comparisons between designs had similar rate ratios. Seven inconsistencies in observed rate ratios could be attributed to two specific disease-modifying therapies. CONCLUSION: In this case study, estimates from observational studies predominantly agreed with estimates from randomized controlled trials given their posterior predictive distributions. Multiple observational studies together may therefore supplement additional pivotal randomized controlled trials in relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis, for instance facilitating the extrapolation of trial results to the broader patient population.

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

In the Netherlands, drug regulatory science is a vibrant national and internationally oriented community. In this review, we present the factors that have contributed to this successful collaboration between relevant stakeholders and that led to a surge of activities around how regulatory science became embedded in the ecosystem of medicines research, clinical pharmacology, policymaking and regulation. We distinguished three pivotal episodes: (i) TI Pharma Escher-project, (ii) Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board as catalyst of the big jump, and (iii) Regulatory Science Network Netherlands and multistakeholder engagement. The research agenda has been influenced by the dynamic evolution of legal frameworks in Europe, such as the EU orphan medicines legislation of 2001 and the EU pharmacovigilance legislation of 2012. All these developments have inspired and have raised pertinent regulatory sciences questions. Furthermore, clinical pharmacology as a discipline has been very influential in shaping regulatory science, contributing to discussions on the level of clinical evidence that is necessary to justify marketing approval of a new medicine. With a growing interest of multiple parties such as academics, European Medicines Agency, national agencies, patient organizations and EFPIA, connecting regulatory science activities is key.

Monoclonal antibody biosimilars for cancer treatment.

Monoclonal antibodies are important cancer medicines. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) approved 48 and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 56 anticancer monoclonal antibody-based therapies. Their high prices burden healthcare systems and hamper global drug access. Biosimilars could retain costs and expand the availability of monoclonal antibodies. In Europe, five rituximab biosimilars, six trastuzumab biosimilars, and eight bevacizumab biosimilars are available as anti-cancer drugs. To gain insight into the biosimilar landscape for cancer treatment, we performed a literature search and analysis. In this review, we summarize cancer monoclonal antibodies' properties crucial for the desired pharmacology and point out sources of variability. The analytical assessment of all EMA-approved bevacizumab biosimilars is highlighted to illustrate this variability. The global landscape of investigational and approved biosimilars is mapped, and the challenges for access to cancer biosimilars are identified.

Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists use and associations with outcomes in heart failure and type 2 diabetes: data from the Swedish Heart Failure and Swedish National Diabetes Registries.

AIMS: To assess the use and associations with outcomes of glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RA) in a real-world population with heart failure (HF) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). METHODS AND RESULTS: The Swedish HF Registry was linked with the National Diabetes Registry and other national registries. Independent predictors of GLP-1 RA use were assessed by multivariable logistic regressions and associations with outcomes were assessed by Cox regressions in a 1:1 propensity score-matched cohort. Of 8188 patients enrolled in 2017-21, 9% received a GLP-1 RA. Independent predictors of GLP-1 RA use were age <75 years, worse glycaemic control, impaired renal function, obesity, and reduced ejection fraction (EF). GLP-1 RA use was not significantly associated with a composite of HF hospitalization (HHF) or cardiovascular (CV) death regardless of EF, but was associated with a lower risk of major adverse CV events (CV death, non-fatal stroke/transient ischaemic attack, or myocardial infarction), and CV and all-cause death. In patients with body mass index ≥30 kg/m2, GLP-1 RA use was also associated with a lower risk of HHF/CV death and HHF alone. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with HF and T2DM, GLP-1 RA use was independently associated with more severe T2DM, reduced EF, and obesity and was not associated with a higher risk of HHF/CV death but with longer survival and less major CV adverse events. An association with lower HHF/CV death and HHF was observed in obese patients. Our findings provide new insights into GLP-1 RA use and its safety in HF and T2DM.

Real-World Evidence to Support EU Regulatory Decision Making-Results From a Pilot of Regulatory Use Cases.

Studies using real-world data (RWD) can complement evidence from clinical trials and fill evidence gaps during different stages of a medicine's lifecycle. This review presents the experience resulting from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) pilot to generate RWE to support evaluations by EU regulators and down-stream decision makers from September 2021 to February 2023. A total of 61 research topics were identified for RWE generation during this period, covering a wide range of research questions, primarily generating evidence on medicines safety (22, 36%), followed by questions on the design and feasibility of clinical trials (11, 18%), drug utilization (10, 16%), clinical management (10, 16%), and disease epidemiology. A significant number of questions were related to the pediatric population and/or rare diseases. A total of 27 regulatory-led RWD studies have been conducted. Most studies were descriptive and aimed at estimating incidence and prevalence rates of clinical outcomes including adverse events or to evaluate medicines utilization. The review highlights key learnings to guide further efforts to enable the use and establish the value of real-world evidence (RWE) for regulatory decisions. For instance, there is a need to access additional fit-for-purpose and representative data, and to explore further means to provide timely evidence that meets regulatory timelines. The need for early interactions and close collaboration with study requesters, e.g., from the Agency's scientific Committees, to better understand the research question is equally important. Finally, the review provides our perspective on the way forward to maximize the potential of regulatory-led RWE generation.

A full-document analysis of the semantic relation between European Public Assessment Reports and EMA guidelines using a BERT language model.

In the European Union, the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) develop guidelines to guide drug development, supporting development of efficacious and safe medicines. A European Public Assessment Report (EPAR) is published for every medicine application that has been granted or refused marketing authorisation within the EU. In this work, we study the use of text embeddings and similarity metrics to investigate the semantic similarity between EPARs and EMA guidelines. All 1024 EPARs for initial marketing authorisations from 2008 to 2022 was compared to the 669 current EMA scientific guidelines. Documents were converted to plain text and split into overlapping chunks, generating 265,757 EPAR and 27,649 guideline text chunks. Using a Sentence BERT language model, the chunks were transformed into embeddings and fed into an in-house piecewise matching algorithm to estimate the full-document semantic distance. In an analysis of the document distance scores and product characteristics using a linear regression model, EPARs of anti-virals for systemic use (ATC code J05) and antihemorrhagic medicines (B02) present with statistically significant lower overall semantic distance to guidelines compared to other therapeutic areas, also when adjusting for product age and EPAR length. In conclusion, we believe our approach provides meaningful insight into the interplay between EMA scientific guidelines and the assessment made during regulatory review, and could potentially be used to answer more specific questions such as which therapeutic areas could benefit from additional regulatory guidance.