Advancing rare disease treatment: EMA's decade-long insights into engineered adoptive cell therapy for rare cancers and orphan designation.

Adoptive cell therapy (ACT), particularly chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-T cell therapy, has emerged as a promising approach for targeting and treating rare oncological conditions. The orphan medicinal product designation by the European Union (EU) plays a crucial role in promoting development of medicines for rare conditions according to the EU Orphan Regulation.This regulatory landscape analysis examines the evolution, regulatory challenges, and clinical outcomes of genetically engineered ACT, with a focus on CAR-T cell therapies, based on the European Medicines Agency's Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products review of applications evaluated for orphan designation and maintenance of the status over a 10-year period. In total, 30 of 36 applications were granted an orphan status, and 14 subsequently applied for maintenance of the status at time of marketing authorisation or extension of indication. Most of the products were autologous cell therapies using a lentiviral vector and were developed for the treatment of rare haematological B-cell malignancies. The findings revealed that 80% (29/36) of the submissions for orphan designation were supported by preliminary clinical data showing a potential efficacy of the candidate products and an added clinical benefit over currently authorised medicines for the proposed orphan condition. Notably, in 89% (32/36) of the cases significant benefit of the new products was accepted based on a clinically relevant advantage over existing therapies. Twelve of fourteen submissions reviewed for maintenance of the status at time of marketing authorisation or extension of indication demonstrated significant benefit of the products over existing satisfactory methods of treatment within the approved therapeutic indications, but one of the applications was withdrawn during the regulatory evaluation.This article summarises the key findings related to the use of engineered ACT, primarily CAR-T cell therapies, in targeting and treating rare cancers in the EU. It emphasises the importance of use of clinical data in supporting medical plausibility and significant benefit at the stage of orphan designation and highlights the high success rate for these products in obtaining initial orphan designations and subsequent maintaining the status at the time of marketing authorisation or extension of indication.

The European landscape for gene therapies in orphan diseases: 6-year experience with the EMA Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products.

In 2000, the European Union (EU) introduced the orphan pharmaceutical legislation to incentivize the development of medicinal products for rare diseases. The Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products (COMP), the European Medicines Agency committee responsible for evaluation of applications for orphan designation (OD), received an increasing flow of applications in the field of gene therapies over the last years. Here, the COMP has conducted a descriptive analysis of applications regarding gene therapies in non-oncological rare diseases, with respect to (a) targeted conditions and their rarity, (b) characteristics of the gene therapy products proposed for OD, with a focus on the type of vector used, and (c) regulatory aspects pertaining to the type of sponsor and development, by examining the use of available frameworks offered in the EU such as protocol assistance and PRIME. It was noted that gene therapies are being developed by sponsors from different backgrounds. Most conditions being targeted are monogenic, the most common being lysosomal disorders, and with a very low prevalence. Generally, adeno-associated viral vectors were being used to deliver the transgene. Finally, sponsors are not frequently using the incentives that may support the development and the reasons for this are unclear.

The EMA Assessment of Asciminib for the Treatment of Adult Patients With Philadelphia Chromosome-Positive Chronic Myeloid Leukemia in Chronic Phase Who Were Previously Treated With at Least Two Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors.

Asciminib is an allosteric high-affinity tyrosine kinase inhibitor (TKI) of the BCR-ABL1 protein kinase. This kinase is translated from the Philadelphia chromosome in chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). Marketing authorization for asciminib was granted on August 25, 2022 by the European Commission. The approved indication was for patients with Philadelphia chromosome-positive CML in the chronic phase which have previously been treated with at least 2 TKIs. Clinical efficacy and safety of asciminib were evaluated in the open-label, randomized, phase III ASCEMBL study. The primary endpoint of this trial was major molecular response (MMR) rate at 24 weeks. A significant difference in MRR rate was shown between the asciminib treated population and the bosutinib control group (25.5% vs. 13.2%, respectively, P = .029). In the asciminib cohort, adverse reactions of at least grade 3 with an incidence ≥ 5% were thrombocytopenia, neutropenia, increased pancreatic enzymes, hypertension, and anemia. The aim of this article is to summarize the scientific review of the application which led to the positive opinion by the European Medicines Agency's Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use.

Haemophilia, state of the art and new therapeutic opportunities, a regulatory perspective.

Haemophilia A and B are rare bleeding disorders. Over the past decades, they have been transformed from debilitating diseases to manageable conditions in the Western world. However, optimizing haemophilia care remains challenging in developing countries. Several challenges and unmet needs remain in the treatment of the haemophilia limiting the QoL of patients. These challenges are now being addressed by extended half-life recombinant factors, rebalancing and substitution therapies. Gene therapy and genome editing show promise for a definite clinical cure. Here, we provide an overview of new therapeutic opportunities for haemophilia and their advances and limitations from a regulatory perspective. The database on human medicines from the European Medicines Agency (EMA) was used and data from rare disease (orphan) designations and EPARs were retrieved for the analysis. Clinical trial databases were used to query all active studies on haemophilia. Gene therapy medicinal products based on AAV and lentiviral vectors are in development and clinical trials have reported substantial success in ameliorating bleeding tendency in haemophilia patients. The prospect of gene editing for correction of the underlying mutation is on the horizon and has considerable potential. With regard to the benefit of the gene therapy medicinal products, more long-term efficacy and safety data are awaited. We are entering an era of innovation and abundance in treatment options for those affected by bleeding disorders, but issues remain about the affordability and accessibility to patients.

Regulatory Standards in Orphan Medicinal Product Designation in the EU.

Twenty years of orphan regulation in Europe have now elapsed, with almost 2,400 orphan designated medicinal products and more than 190 orphan products authorised in the EU. Alongside the evolution in understanding of rare diseases, considerable regulatory knowledge has also been accumulated regarding the level of evidence that would support inclusion of products into the framework. This article reviews publications and regulatory documents pertaining to orphan medicinal product designation in the EU and discusses the general expectations in submitted applications as reflected in the current regulatory practise. Important elements to recommend granting a European orphan designation are the key considerations of orphan condition, medical plausibility, seriousness, and prevalence, while significant benefit is also assessed when there are authorised medicinal products for the sought indication. This review attempts to clarify the specific concepts currently used in that regard and discusses how the available data can be used to justify the criteria for designation. Moving away from theoretical expectations or assumptions, it stresses that the applications have to be complemented with nosological and epidemiological justifications pertaining to the proposed condition, as well as relevant data in specific non-clinical in vivo models or in affected patients to support inclusion into the orphan scheme.

Orphan Medicinal Products for the Treatment of Pancreatic Cancer: Lessons Learned From Two Decades of Orphan Designation.

Pancreatic cancer has a dismal prognosis and only a few treatment options are available. In the European Union, pancreatic cancer classifies as a rare disease, allowing drug developers to apply for orphan medicinal product (OMP) designation. The aim of this study was to provide more detail on OMPs for pancreatic cancer. All applications for OMP designation submitted to the EMA between 2000 and 2019 were identified. For each medicinal product that received an OMP designation, the mode of drug action, use of protocol assistance, and current life cycle status was determined. Fifty-two medicinal products received an OMP designation. At the time of submission, eighteen OMPs were at the non-clinical and 34 OMPs were at the clinical stage of development. At least fourteen kinds of mode of action were explored in the condition. For eighteen out of 52 OMPs protocol assistance was sought. At the time of data analysis, one OMP received marketing authorisation and 24 OMPs were ongoing in development. Many medicinal products for pancreatic cancer received an OMP designation and the majority of these products was already in the clinical stage of development. Nonetheless, the success rate of OMPs for pancreatic cancer that reach the market is low, and increasing this rate is something to aspire. Fortunately, development is still ongoing for a part of the OMPs, and a few developers are planning to submit a marketing authorisation application in the near future. This however does not guarantee success, as pancreatic cancer remains a difficult disease to treat. Developers are advised to make optimal use of incentives such as protocol assistance, establishing (early) dialogue between regulators and drug developers and to agree on important topics such as clinical trial design.

Defining Satisfactory Methods of Treatment in Rare Diseases When Evaluating Significant Benefit-The EU Regulator's Perspective.

Since the implementation of the EU Orphan Regulation in 2000, the Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products at the European Medicines Agency has been evaluating the benefits of proposed orphan medicines vs. satisfactory treatment methods. This type of evaluation is foreseen in the Orphan Regulation as the orphan designation criterion called the "significant benefit." In this article, based on 20 years of experience, we provide a commentary explaining what is considered a satisfactory method of treatment in the context of the EU Orphan Regulation and for the purpose of the assessment of significant benefit. We discuss the challenges posed by continuously changing clinical practise, which is associated with the increasing number of treatment options, evolving nature of medicinal therapeutic indications and our understanding of them.

Nonclinical data supporting orphan medicinal product designations in the area of rare infectious diseases.

This review provides an overview of nonclinical in vivo models that can be used to support orphan designation in selected rare infectious diseases in Europe, with the aim to inform and stimulate the planning of nonclinical development in this area of often neglected diseases.

Establishing rarity in the context of orphan medicinal product designation in the European Union.

In the European Union (EU) legislative framework for orphan medicinal product designation, establishing that a condition affects not more than five in 10,000 people is a prerequisite for applications based on rarity. Demonstrating this requirement to the Committee of Orphan Medicinal Products (COMP) can be a particularly challenging task for sponsors. Here, we identify and examine three common issues with the estimation of prevalence in orphan drug applications in the EU (the discernment between diagnosed and undiagnosed cases; the duration of the disease; and the need for an explicit contemporary conclusion) as critical factors for acceptable prevalence estimation. These concerns are discussed in detail based on recent examples of applications, which are reflected in published European Medicines Agency (EMA) documents.

Comparative analysis of the scope of European Union paediatric investigation plans with corresponding orphan designations.

BACKGROUND: Market forces may not be sufficient to stimulate research and development of medicines for small patient populations, such as children and patients with rare diseases. Both the European Union Orphan and Paediatric Regulations were introduced to address the unmet public health needs of these smaller patient populations through the use of incentives, rewards and obligations. Developers for new medicines for rare diseases must agree a paediatric investigation plan (PIP) or waiver with the European Medicines Agency's (EMA) Paediatric Committee (PDCO), and can also apply for an orphan designation (OD) from the EMA's Committee of Orphan Medicinal Products (COMP). The scope of both the OD and the PIP (or waiver) is defined by the agreed condition. OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to analyse the approach of PDCO and COMP in defining the appropriate condition for a PIP or OD, respectively, in order to investigate potential challenges in the paediatric development of orphan medicines which have to meet the requirements of both legislations. METHODS: A comparative analysis of PIP conditions and OD conditions was performed for medicines that have been reviewed by both Committees. RESULTS: We found that in the substantial majority of cases there is no divergence between the conclusions of COMP and PDCO with regard to the condition for which a medicine is to be developed. CONCLUSION: These findings demonstrate that a collaborative approach allows both Regulations to work synergistically to foster pharmaceutical development for rare diseases in childhood.

Nonclinical data supporting orphan medicinal product designations: lessons from rare neurological conditions.

Here, we provide an in-depth literature and experience-based review of nonclinical models and data used to support orphan medicinal product designations (OMPDs) in rare neurodegenerative conditions. The Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products (COMP) of the European Medicines Agency updates its assessment processes based on scientific progress and aims to provide transparent criteria required in support of OMPDs. Thus, we also provide an updated analysis of existing nonclinical models in selected conditions and identify key features of nonclinical studies that are crucial for the support of OMPDs. This could not only inform future drug development in rare neurological conditions, but also indicate areas where the use of nonclinical models can be made more efficient.

Beta-cell preservation with thiazolidinediones.

Progressive beta-cell dysfunction and beta-cell failure are fundamental pathogenic features of type 2 diabetes. Ultimately, the development and continued progression of diabetes is a consequence of the failure of the beta-cell to overcome insulin resistance. Strategies that aim to prevent diabetes must, therefore, ultimately aim to stabilize the progressive decline of the beta-cell. Clinical study evidence from several sources now suggests that thiazolidinediones (TZDs) have profound effects on the beta-cell, such as improving insulin secretory capacity, preserving beta-cell mass and islet structure and protecting beta-cells from oxidative stress, as well as improving measures of beta-cell function, such as insulinogenic index and homeostasis model assessment of beta-cell function (HOMA-%B). Furthermore, intervention studies suggest that TZDs have the potential to delay, stabilize and possibly even prevent the onset on diabetes in high-risk individuals, and these effects appear to accompany improvements in beta-cell function. Here, we review the evidence, from in vitro studies to large intervention trials, for the effects of TZDs on beta-cell function and the consequences for glucose-lowering therapy.

Long-term effects of pioglitazone versus gliclazide on hepatic and humoral coagulation factors in patients with type 2 diabetes.

This study compared the long-term effects of pioglitazone and gliclazide on the production of coagulation factors in patients with type 2 diabetes. Patients (n=283) with glycosylated haemoglobin > 7.5% were randomised to receive either pioglitazone (30-45 mg/day) or gliclazide (80-320 mg/day) for one year. Coagulation factors were measured at baseline and at six and 12 months. While both pioglitazone and gliclazide induced a comparable improvement in glycaemic control, only pioglitazone improved insulin sensitivity. Pioglitazone significantly (p < or = 0.001) decreased circulating levels of von Willebrand factor (-9.7%, -9.4%) and plasminogen activator inhibitor-1 (-16.8 ng/ml, -12.3 ng/ml), and increased levels of antithrombin-III (+1.3 mg/dL, +1.5 mg/dL) after six and 12 months, respectively. The beneficial effects of pioglitazone on glycaemic control, lipid homeostasis, and coagulation and thrombosis, may improve vascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes.

A lifetime modelled economic evaluation comparing pioglitazone and rosiglitazone for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: Adding pioglitazone or rosiglitazone to existing therapy are alternative treatment options for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who have insufficient glycaemic control while receiving the maximal tolerated dose of metformin monotherapy. Our objective was to develop a lifetime model of type 2 diabetes mellitus and its sequelae in order to compare the costs and benefits of pioglitazone versus rosiglitazone in combination with metformin. METHODS: A decision-analytic model employing a first order Monte Carlo simulation of a Markov process was constructed. The model incorporated surrogate outcome measures from a large randomised controlled trial (RCT) [n = 802] that compared the glycaemic and lipid control of pioglitazone and rosiglitazone monotherapy. These efficacy data were used with a recently validated and peer-reviewed UKPDS (UK Prospective Diabetes Study) algorithm to simulate the progression of these surrogate outcomes to final health outcomes, including quality of life (QOL) and mortality, and to calculate the risks of diabetic complications and death. The model perspective was of the UK NHS and included direct healthcare costs only (pounds, 2004/5 values). Patient outcomes measured in the model included life-expectancy (LE) and QALYs. The base-case analysis was run for 56-year-old male Caucasions with a haemoglobin A(1c) (HbA(1c)) of 7.57% and a body mass index of 33.14 kg/m(2). RESULTS: Patients treated with pioglitazone experienced a reduction in the total cholesterol to high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (TC : HDL-C) ratio of 0.34, whereas the TC : HDL-C ratio increased by 0.65 in those receiving rosiglitazone (p < 0.001). The HbA(1c) profile was similar between the treatment groups (p = 0.13), as were other known risk factors for diabetes complications. The lifetime healthcare costs per patient estimated by the model were 9585 pounds for pioglitazone and 10,299 pounds for rosiglitazone. Patients treated with pioglitazone had a discounted LE of 8.83 years versus 8.79 years for those treated with rosiglitazone. Patients treated with pioglitazone also gained additional QALYs (6.8070 vs 6.7686). With improved health outcomes and lower costs, treatment with pioglitazone dominated rosiglitazone treatment. CONCLUSION: Evidence from the only large head-to-head RCT comparing rosiglitazone and pioglitazone suggests that more favourable changes in serum lipid profiles in patients treated with pioglitazone translate into improved health outcomes in terms of reduced morbidity and mortality and greater gains in QOL. In addition, this analysis indicates that treatment with pioglitazone is associated with lower costs than rosiglitazone. Therefore, in the UK, adjunctive pioglitazone may represent a cost-effective treatment choice for patients with type 2 diabetes who have insufficient glycaemic control while receiving the maximal tolerated dose of metformin monotherapy.

Evolving prevalence of haematological malignancies in orphan designation procedures in the European Union.

The Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products (COMP) evaluates prevalence of rare conditions as one of the criteria for granting an orphan designation with a prevalence threshold of 5 in 10.000. At the time of Marketing Authorisation (MA) these criteria are reassessed to ensure they are still met. The COMP has noted discordance between the prevalence of certain haematological malignancies at the time of Orphan Designation and at the time of Marketing Authorisation. Consequently, we conducted a retrospective assessment of Chronic Lymphocytic Lymphoma and Multiple Myeloma/Plasma cell Myeloma as well as several other haematological rare aetiologies frequently subject of orphan designation. These were: Diffuse large B-Cell Lymphoma (DLBCL), Follicular Lymphoma (FL), Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma (CTCL), Mantle Cell Lymphoma (MCL) and Chronic Myeloid Leukaemia (CML). The review used submissions as well as recent publications and results from external and EMA databases. As a first step in the analysis, an increase over time in the number of people affected was evident for four conditions in the COMP designation documents, whereas for DLBCL, FL, CTCL and MCL there had been no significant change, since the introduction of the Regulation in 2000. Specifically, the prevalence estimates increased from 1.2 to 3.6 per 10,000 for multiple myeloma, from 0.4 to 1.7 in acute lymphoblastic leukaemia, and from 2.7 to 4.85 for chronic lymphocytic leukaemia/small lymphocytic leukaemia and 1 to 2 in 10,000 for chronic myeloid leukaemia. The reasons for the changes in the prevalence of these four haematological conditions over the last 15 years were not assessed but recent publications have alluded to better outcomes due to new treatments being made available. In addition, many orphan diseases have a median age of onset over 60 years so that also the aging of the population may be a relevant contributing factor.

Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products for Rare Diseases: State of Play of Incentives Supporting Development in Europe.

In 2008, the European Union introduced the Advanced Medicines Regulation aiming to improve regulation of advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs). We applied the ATMPs classification definitions in this Regulation to understand the link of this emerging group of medicinal products and the use of the Orphan Regulation. A total of 185 products that can be classified as ATMPs based on this Regulation have been submitted for orphan designation. Prior to its introduction in 2008, 4.5% of the products submitted for orphan designation met these criteria. This percentage went up to 15% after 2008. We analyzed several parameters associated with active ATMP ODDs focusing on sponsor type and EU-Member State origin, therapeutic area targeted, and ATMP classification [i.e., somatic cell therapy medicinal product, tissue-engineered product (TEP), or gene therapy medicinal product (GTMP)] and the use of regulatory services linked to incentives such as the use of protocol assistance (PA) and other Committees [Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT) and the Pediatric Committee]. The aim here was to gain insight on the use of different services. The UK submits the largest number of ATMPs for ODD representing ~30% of the total to date. Few submissions have been received from central and Eastern European Member States as well as some of the larger Member States such as Germany (3.6%). ATMPs ODDs were primarily GTMPs (48.7%) and SCTMPs (43.3%). TEPs only represented 8% of all submissions for this medicinal class. This is different from non-ODDs ATMPs where GTMPs make only 20% of ATMPs. A total of 11.7% of ATMP ODDs had received formal CAT classification. A total of 29.8% of all orphan drug (OD) ATMPs requested PA. A total of 71.8% did not have an agreed pediatric investigation plan (PIP). Four products (Glybera one PA; Zalmoxis two; Holoclar one; Strimvelis three) have received a marketing authorization (MAA) and a 10-year market exclusivity. Strimvelis also completed their PIP, which was compliant and received the additional 2-year extension to their 10-year market exclusivity. One OD ATMP (Cerepro) received a negative opinion for MAA. The use of services linked to incentives offered by different legislations for ATMP ODDs is low, indicating a need for increasing awareness.

Establishing medical plausibility in the context of orphan medicines designation in the European Union.

In the European Union, sponsors have the responsibility to demonstrate the "intention to diagnose, prevent or treat" a serious and rare condition before the Committee of Orphan Medicinal Products (COMP), for a medicinal product to meet the criteria for Orphan Designation. This requirement is commonly referred to as "medical plausibility" and the justification of this intention is assessed on the merits of each application by the COMP, which deliberates over the scientific evaluation of the evidence submitted. The scientific assessment of the applications for orphan designation by the Committee is based on the review of non-clinical (such as in vitro and in vivo) and/or clinical data submitted by the sponsor. Several challenges regarding the evidence provided emerge when the sponsor is applying for a designation at an early stage of development. Herein we discuss specific examples from the experience of the COMP, in order to elaborate on the type and level of evidence generally considered necessary for the purpose of justification of the intention to treat an orphan condition. Importantly, it is pointed out that bridging of data from other products, irrespectively of how comparable they may be, or from settings not directly associated with the condition as applied for designation, is by and large not a successful exercise and may only be exceptionally considered. It is further exemplified that, as reflected in the updated 'Guideline on the format and context of the applications for designation' and the guidance document 'Recommendation on elements required to support the medical plausibility and the assumption of significant benefit for an orphan designation' available on the EMA website, the sponsor should provide data with the specific product as applied for in specific models of the condition or in patients affected by the same condition subject of each application.

Use of biomarkers in the context of orphan medicines designation in the European Union.

The use of biomarkers within the procedures of the Committee of Orphan Medicinal Products (COMP) of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) is discussed herein. The applications for Orphan Medicinal Product designation in the EU are evaluated at two stages. At the time of orphan designation application, the file undergoes an assessment to establish whether the proposed condition is a distinct and serious condition affecting not more than 5 in 10,000 people in the EU, and whether the product is plausible as a therapy for that condition. In cases where therapies already exist, the significant benefit of the candidate product over existing therapies is also evaluated. The orphan criteria are reassessed at the time of marketing authorisation, so that marketing exclusivity for the product in the orphan medical condition can be granted. Within this context, biomarkers have been used in submissions in order to define an orphan condition and to justify that the criteria for orphan designation are met. The current work discusses specific examples from the experience of the COMP, where biomarkers have played a decisive role. Importantly, it identifies the proposal of sub-sets of non-rare conditions based on biomarkers as a challenging issue in the evaluation of applications. In particular two specific requirements for the candidate orphan medicines in relation to the biomarker-based subsets are highlighted: the "plausible link to the condition" and the "exclusion of effects outside the subset".

The development and registration of topical pharmaceuticals.

From our own experience we have seen that over the past 60 years topical delivery of drugs with its advantages and disadvantages has become much more widely understood and much more is now known about the disposition of drugs in the skin. Today, pharmaceutical scientists produce dermatological vehicles which are tailored to patients' needs and better appreciate how the formulation may affect rates of drug delivery, and ultimately, efficacy and safety. The guidelines for developing a New Chemical Entity (NCE) to be administered by the topical route are rather straightforward. What appears to be less well understood are the pathways for development, and the regulatory routes for topical formulations of a known established Active Pharmaceutical Ingredient (API) either in a new formulation, at a different concentration, or with APIs where topical administration is an alternative route of administration. This article provides guidance, on the regulatory routes which can help achieve marketing approval in Europe for topical formulations, with particular emphasis on clinical development. Some comments on NCE's will be given, and further detail is provided in cases where the topical route is a new method of administration for delivering a known API.