IABS/CEPI platform technology webinar: Is it possible to reduce the vaccine development time?

The International Alliance for Biological Standardization and the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations organized a joint webinar on the use of platform technologies for vaccine development. To tackle new emerging infectious diseases, including SARS-CoV-2, rapid response platforms, using the same basic components as a backbone, yet adaptable for use against different pathogens by inserting new genetic or protein sequences, are essential. Furthermore, it is evident that development of platform technologies needs to continue, due to the emerging variants of SARS-CoV-2. The objective of the meeting was to discuss techniques for platform manufacturing that have been used for COVID-19 vaccine development, with input from regulatory authorities on their experiences with, and expectations of, the platforms. Industry and regulators have been very successful in cooperating, having completed the whole process from development to licensing at an unprecedented speed. However, we should learn from the experiences, to be able to be even faster when a next pandemic of disease X occurs.

Risk of serious adverse effects of biological and targeted drugs in patients with rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review meta-analysis.

Objectives: To determine possible differences in serious adverse effects among the 10 currently approved biological and targeted synthetic DMARDs (b/ts-DMARDs) for RA. Methods: Systematic review in bibliographic databases, trial registries and websites of regulatory agencies identified randomized trials of approved b/ts-DMARDs for RA. Network meta-analyses using mixed-effects Poisson regression models were conducted to calculate rate ratios for serious adverse events (SAEs) and deaths between each of the 10 drugs and control (i.e. no b/ts-DMARD treatment), based on subjects experiencing an event in relation to person-years. Confidence in the estimates was assessed by applying the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach (GRADE). Results: A total of 117 trials (47 615 patients) were included. SAEs were more common with certolizumab compared with abatacept (rate ratio = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.18, 2.14), adalimumab (1.36, 95% CI: 1.02, 1.81), etanercept (1.60, 95% CI: 1.18, 2.17), golimumab (1.45, 95% CI: 1.00, 2.08), rituximab (1.63, 95% CI: 1.16, 2.30), tofacitinib (1.44, 95% CI: 1.03, 2.02) and control (1.45, 95% CI: 1.13, 1.87); and tocilizumab compared with abatacept (1.30, 95% CI: 1.03, 1.65), etanercept (1.31, 95% CI: 1.04, 1.67) and rituximab (1.34, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.78). No other comparisons were statistically significant. Accounting for study duration confirmed our findings for up to 6 months' treatment but not for longer-term treatment (6-24 months). No differences in mortality between b/ts-DMARDs and control were found. Based on the GRADE approach, confidence in the estimates was low due to lack of head-to-head comparison trials and imprecision in indirect estimates. Conclusion: Despite low confidence in the estimates, our analysis found potential differences in rates of SAEs. Our data suggest caution should be taken when deciding among available drugs. Systematic review registration number: PROSPERO CRD42014014842.

Generic switching of warfarin and risk of excessive anticoagulation: a Danish nationwide cohort study.

PURPOSE: Generic switching of warfarin was recently repealed in Denmark, as adverse drug reaction (ADR) reports suggested risk of excessive anticoagulation following switches from branded to generic warfarin. We investigated this putative association in a formalized pharmacoepidemiological analysis. METHODS: We conducted a nationwide cohort study based on Danish healthcare registries, including data from the introduction of generic warfarin until the repeal (January 2011-April 2015). We followed Danish warfarin users over time and compared the rate of incident hospitalizations due to excessive anticoagulation (i.e. increased INR or any bleeding requiring hospitalization) in periods following a recent switch to generic warfarin to the rate in periods without a recent switch. RESULTS: We included 105,751 warfarin users, filling a total of 1,539,640 prescriptions for warfarin (2.5% for generic warfarin). This constituted 89.0% of all warfarin prescriptions in Denmark during the study period. We observed 19,362 switches to generic warfarin during the study period. The adjusted hazard ratio for excessive anticoagulation following a recent switch from branded to generic warfarin was 1.1 (95%CI, 0.8-1.4). The result was robust within subgroups and several sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSION: Switching from branded to generic warfarin is not associated with an increased risk of hospitalization with excessive anticoagulation. However, a minor excess risk of transient INR increase cannot be excluded. Pharmacoepidemiological studies provide an effective method for swift evaluation of hypotheses generated by ADR-reports.

Challenges and opportunities in developing respiratory syncytial virus therapeutics.

Two meetings, one sponsored by the Wellcome Trust in 2012 and the other by the Global Virology Foundation in 2013, assembled academic, public health and pharmaceutical industry experts to assess the challenges and opportunities for developing antivirals for the treatment of respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) infections. The practicalities of clinical trials and establishing reliable outcome measures in different target groups were discussed in the context of the regulatory pathways that could accelerate the translation of promising compounds into licensed agents. RSV drug development is hampered by the perceptions of a relatively small and fragmented market that may discourage major pharmaceutical company investment. Conversely, the public health need is far too large for RSV to be designated an orphan or neglected disease. Recent advances in understanding RSV epidemiology, improved point-of-care diagnostics, and identification of candidate antiviral drugs argue that the major obstacles to drug development can and will be overcome. Further progress will depend on studies of disease pathogenesis and knowledge provided from controlled clinical trials of these new therapeutic agents. The use of combinations of inhibitors that have different mechanisms of action may be necessary to increase antiviral potency and reduce the risk of resistance emergence.

The Role of the European Medicines Agency in the Safety Monitoring of COVID-19 Vaccines and Future Directions in Enhancing Vaccine Safety Globally.

The European Union (EU) regulatory network was at the forefront of the safety monitoring of COVID-19 vaccines during the pandemic. An unprecedented number of case reports of suspected adverse reactions after vaccination called for huge efforts for the assessment of this safety information, to ensure that any possible risks were detected and managed as early as possible, while ruling out coincidental but temporally related adverse health outcomes. We describe the role of the European Medicines Agency alongside the EU regulatory network in the safety monitoring of the COVID-19 vaccines, and provide an insight into challenges, particularities and outcomes of the scientific assessment and regulatory decisions in the complex, dynamic international environment of the pandemic. We discuss the flexible procedural tools that were used to ensure an expedited scientific assessment of safety issues, and subsequent updates of the product information (i.e., labelling) when available evidence (e.g., spontaneous reports, findings from observational studies and/or scientific literature) suggested that causal association is at least a reasonable possibility. The safety monitoring was accompanied by enhanced transparency measures, proactive communication, and easy access to information, which played a key role in public reassurance. The pandemic has been a powerful booster for worldwide collaboration, exchange of information and work-sharing. The safety monitoring of COVID-19 vaccines continues, and the lessons learned will be applied in future safety reviews, as well as future health emergencies.

The role of early-phase trials and real-world evidence in drug development.

Phase 3 randomized controlled trials (RCTs), while the gold standard for treatment efficacy and safety, are not always feasible, are expensive, can be prolonged and can be limited in generalizability. Other under-recognized sources of evidence can also help advance drug development. Basic science, proof-of-concept studies and early-phase RCTs can provide evidence regarding the potential for clinical benefit. Real-world evidence generated from registries or observational datasets can provide insights into the treatment of rare diseases that often pose a challenge for trial recruitment. Pragmatic trials embedded in healthcare systems can assess the treatment effects in clinical settings among patient populations sometimes excluded from trials. This Perspective discusses potential sources of evidence that may be used to complement explanatory phase 3 RCTs and to speed the development of new cardiovascular medications. Content is derived from the 19th Global Cardiovascular Clinical Trialists meeting (December 2022), involving clinical trialists, patients, clinicians, regulators, funders and industry representatives.

Report of the European Medicines Agency Conference on RNA-Based Medicines.

RNA-based medicines have potential to treat a large variety of diseases, and research in the field is very dynamic. Proactively, The European Medicines Agency (EMA) organized a virtual conference on February 2, 2023 to promote the development of RNA-based medicines. The initiative addresses the goal of the EMA Regulatory Science Strategy to 2025 to "catalyse the integration of science and technology in medicines development." The conference focused on RNA technologies (excluding RNA vaccines) and involved different stakeholders, including representatives from academia, industry, regulatory authorities, and patient organizations. The conference comprised presentations and discussion sessions conducted by panels of subject matter experts. In this meeting report, we summarize the presentations and recap the main themes of the panel discussions.

Danish physicians' preferences for prescribing escitalopram over citalopram and sertraline to treatment-naïve patients: a national, register-based study.

PURPOSE: To investigate whether general practitioners, hospital physicians and specialized practitioners in psychiatry have similar preferences for initiating treatment with expensive serotonin-specific reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). METHODS: All first-time prescriptions for the SSRIs escitalopram, citalopram and sertraline reported to the Danish National Register of Medicinal Product Statistics from April 1, 2009 until March 31, 2010 were analysed with regard to treatment naivety and type of prescriber. A prescription was considered as first time if the patient had not received a prescription for the same drug within the last 2 years. Patients who had not received a prescription for an antidepressant within 6 months prior to the date of redemption were classified as treatment-naïve. RESULTS: We included 82,702 first-time prescriptions, 65,313 (79 %) of which were for treatment-naïve patients. Of the treatment-naïve patients, 19 % were initially prescribed escitalopram. Hospital physicians prescribed escitalopram to 34 % of their treatment-naïve patients, while practitioners specialized in psychiatry prescribed it to 25 %, and general practitioners prescribed it to 17 %. General practitioners, however, were responsible for initiating 87 % of all treatment-naïve patients. CONCLUSION: The most expensive SSRI, escitalopram, is prescribed as first choice to one in five patients receiving their first antidepressant of escitalopram, citalopram or sertraline. General practitioners made the bulk of all first-time SSRI prescriptions to treatment-naïve patients.

Prescribing patterns and safety monitoring of duloxetine using the Danish Register of Medicinal Product Statistics as a source.

BACKGROUND: The safety and pattern of use of a medicinal product cannot be fully studied prior to its marketing. In Denmark, the Danish Health and Medicines Authority (DHMA) monitors marketed drugs. An available source is the Register of Medicinal Product Statistics (RMPS), which can possibly be used for these purposes. OBJECTIVE: To investigate utilisation and potential safety issues of relatively new antidepressants containing the active ingredient duloxetine (Cymbalta(®) and Xeristar(®)) by using dispensing data available in the RMPS. METHODS: A retrospective study using dispensing data was designed to estimate the size and composition of the user population and patterns of use of the antidepressants Cymbalta(®) and Xeristar(®) (active ingredient: duloxetine) in the period from 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2010. Data were retrieved from Epikur, a register subset of the RMPS. RESULTS: Both women and men in different age groups used duloxetine for depression. Some users switched to another antidepressant. Prescription of the drug for persons below the age of 18 years revealed a potential safety issue. Concomitant treatment with Cymbalta(®) or Xeristar(®) and fluvoxamine, isocarboxazid, Yentreve(®), or ciprofloxacin also revealed potential safety issues. CONCLUSIONS: The present study indicated that the RMPS is applicable in monitoring the pattern of use and potential safety issues related to duloxetine when it is prescribed for depression. Switching to other antidepressants could reflect some potential safety issues. Use of duloxetine for persons below the age of 18 years and its concomitant use with contraindicated drugs also indicated potential safety issues.

Tuberculosis medicines for children in Europe: an unmet medical need.

The availability of first-line medicines for the treatment of drug-susceptible tuberculosis (TB) is inconsistent across European countries. This is particularly worrisome for child-friendly medicines. There are reported examples of physicians being forced to adapt and/or combine formulations intended for adults to treat children with TB. Reduced compliance, unknown effects on treatment outcomes and unpredictable toxicity are potential consequences of resorting to these suboptimal treatment options. Furthermore, the use of these alternatives may increase the risk of drug-resistant TB. This study analysed the availability and use of TB medicines in the European Union (EU)/European Economic Area, with a particular focus on child-friendly formulations. We sought to carry out a full review of the situation by means of a survey involving the EU regulatory network. Countries were asked to confirm marketing status of anti-drug-susceptible-TB medicines, ways used to overcome their absence in their territory and the general difficulties they face to treat children with TB. Results confirmed that rifampicin suspension is the only child-friendly formulation available in Europe, approved in just 10 member states. Overall, 24 countries out of 30 considered the lack of adequate drug-susceptible TB medicines an unmet medical need. To overcome this, countries confirmed that they resort to importation or use adapted formulations. The joint forces of European institutions and pharmaceutical industry are crucial for the development of paediatric formulations and contribute to better compliance and health outcomes.

Potency testing of cell and gene therapy products.

Potency is one of the critical quality attributes of biological medicinal products, defining their biological activity. Potency testing is expected to reflect the Mechanism of Action (MoA) of the medicinal product and ideally the results should correlate with the clinical response. Multiple assay formats may be used, both in vitro assays and in vivo models, however, for timely release of the products for clinical studies or for commercial use, quantitative, validated in vitro assays are necessary. Robust potency assays are fundamental also for comparability studies, process validation and for stability testing. Cell and Gene Therapy Products (CGTs, also called Advanced Therapy Medicinal Products, ATMPs) are part of biological medicines, having nucleic acids, viral vectors, viable cells and tissues as starting material. For such complex products potency testing is often challenging and may require a combination of methods to address multiple functional mechanisms of the product. For cells, viability and cell phenotype are important attributes but alone will not be sufficient to address potency. Furthermore, if the cells are transduced with a viral vector, potency probably is related to the expression of the transgene but will also be dependent on the target cells and transduction efficiency/copy number of the transgene in the cells. Genome Editing (GE) together with other cell manipulations can result into multiple changes in the characteristics and activity of the cells, which should be all somehow captured by the potency testing. Non-clinical studies/models may provide valuable support for potency testing, especially for comparability testing. However, sometimes lack of suitable potency data may lead to situations where bridging clinical efficacy data are required to solve the problems of the potency testing, for example where comparability of different clinical batches is unclear. In this article the challenges of potency testing are discussed together with examples of assays used for different CGTs/ATMPs and the available guidance addressing differences between the European Union and the United States.

Relative effectiveness assessment of pharmaceuticals: similarities and differences in 29 jurisdictions.

OBJECTIVE: Assessment of the effectiveness compared with alternative treatment(s) plays an important role in many jurisdictions in determining the reimbursement status of pharmaceuticals. This type of assessment is often referred to as a relative effectiveness assessment (REA) and is carried out by many jurisdictions. Increased sharing of information across jurisdictions may save costs and reduce duplication. The objective of this study was to explore the main similarities and differences in the major methodological aspects of REA in multiple jurisdictions. METHODS: Data were gathered with a standardized data extraction form by searching publicly available information and by eliciting information from representatives at relevant organizations. RESULTS: Of the initially included 35 jurisdictions, data were gathered for 29 jurisdictions. There seem to be substantial similarities on the choice of the comparator, the role of indirect comparisons, and preferred end points in REAs (except for the use of health state utilities). Jurisdictions, however, differ in whether effectiveness (usual circumstances of health care practice) is estimated in case no (comparative) effectiveness data are available and how this is done. CONCLUSION: Some important methodological aspects for REA are approached in a similar way in many jurisdictions, indicating that collaboration on assessments may be feasible. Enhanced collaboration in the development of methods and best practices for REA between jurisdictions will be a necessary first step. Important topics for developing best practice are indirect comparisons and how to handle the gap between efficacy and effectiveness data in case good quality comparative effectiveness data are not yet available at the time of reimbursement decisions.

Status of Planned and Ongoing Paediatric Trials Investigating COVID-19 Vaccines: A Cross-Sectional Study of Paediatric Clinical Trials Planned in Agreed PIPs and/or Registered in Clinical Trial Databases.

BACKGROUND: The immune system matures throughout childhood; therefore, evidence about the safety and efficacy of vaccines for the prevention of COVID-19 in the paediatric population is important. Efficacy and safety have not been established for COVID-19 vaccines in a large part of the paediatric population at the time of the initial approval for use in adults. This study aims to provide an overview of planned and ongoing paediatric clinical trials investigating the safety and/or efficacy of COVID-19. METHODS: We identified all paediatric clinical trials investigating the safety and/or efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines in clinicaltrials.gov and clinicaltrialregister.eu, as well as all clinical trials planned in agreed PIPs (Paediatric Investigational Plans) as of 11 June 2021. Information about the study design, the paediatric age groups that they included, and the primary and secondary safety and efficacy outcomes were collected, together with expected timelines for the studies. RESULTS: 21 clinical trials were identified through the clinical trial registries and 19 clinical trials were specified in 6 agreed PIPs, 5 of these trials were also in the trial registers. All PIPs stipulated development of the COVID-19 vaccines for the full paediatric population, with a deferral. The earliest expected completion date of a PIPs is March 2024. The majority (14/21) of registered trials are randomised double-blinded studies. All investigated safety, 20 have a surrogate efficacy outcome (immunogenicity), of these 7 also measure clinical efficacy (COVID-19 infections). 18 studies were initiated, of these, all but one is still ongoing and one in adolescents has been finalised. CONCLUSION: Even though several trials have been planned in agreed PIPs, the registered paediatric clinical trials identified are most often not part of a PIP.

Opening the white boxes: the licensing documentation of efficacy and safety of psychotropic medicines for children.

PURPOSE: The objective of the present study was to explore the available evidence in a regulatory agency on the safety and efficacy of two types of psychotropic medicine frequently prescribed to children and adolescents. METHODS: We analysed the documentation in registration files, renewal registration files, summaries of product characteristics and scientific assessment reports in the Danish Medicines Agency for two psychotropic medications prescribed for children: methylphenidate and citalopram to discover what data pertaining to the pediatric population are available to the regulatory agency. RESULTS: The licensing of methylphenidate for treating attention-deficit hyperactivity disorders (ADHD) in children from the age of six was based on a single-dose crossover study and, a 2-week double blind, parallel group clinical trial in 100 patients from ages 6 to 12 and published literature. Citalopram is not licensed for pediatric use in Denmark. Citalopram was being investigated in three ongoing clinical trials lasting 8-24 weeks in 423 patients aged 7-18 years. The registration files contained no data on the long-term efficacy and safety of citalopram in pediatric use. Registration material also contained information on planned clinical trials with methylphenidate and citalopram among children/adolescents. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence on the efficacy and safety of methylphenidate and citalopram for pediatric use in the Danish Medicine Agency is limited and supports the need for further clinical trials. Medicine prescription for the pediatric population should be monitored in order to identify risks that were not identified at the time of licensing. The results of clinical trials already conducted should be made publicly available.

[The communication with patients about analogue substitution is complex]. / Kommunikation med patienter om analog medicinsubstitution er kompleks.

Information about "effect" was considered more important than "price" on analogue substitution by a group of patients using the original medicine, esomeprazol, and having mixed experiences with generics. The word "cheap" implied negative associations to the expected effect and was associated with perception of more side effects. Patients adapted individually to substitution, e.g. by self-payment and -dosing.Furthermore they expressed themselves in methaphors, which was a figure lacking in written information to them. This qualitative study supports the need for, as well as more knowledge on, patient-oriented information and -dialogue on analogue substitution of medicines.

General practitioners' and hospital physicians' preference for morphine or oxycodone as first-time choice for a strong opioid: a National Register-based study.

The aim of this study was to characterize first-time oxycodone and morphine prescriptions in outpatients by type of prescriber and naivety in regard to strong opioids. All prescriptions for morphine and oxycodone in Denmark reported to the National Register of Medicinal Product Statistics in 2010 were analysed. If a patient had not had a prescription filled for the same drug within the last 2 years, the prescription was defined as a first-time prescription. Patients who had not received a prescription for strong opioids for 6 months prior to the date of redemption were classified as strong opioid naive. The odds ratio (OR) was calculated to investigate whether general practitioners (GPs) and hospital physicians had similar preferences for oxycodone over morphine for strong opioid-naive patients. We included 69,110 first-time prescriptions, of which 59,316 (86%) were for strong opioid-naive patients. Opioid-naive patients received 79% of the first-time prescriptions for morphine and 91% of the prescriptions for oxycodone. Hospital physicians had a greater preference for oxycodone over morphine than GPs (OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.29-1.39). However, GPs were responsible for approximately 61% of all first-time prescriptions for both oxycodone and morphine for strong opioid-naive patients. In conclusion, oxycodone is to a great extent prescribed as the first-choice strong opioid, and both GPs and hospital physicians seem to contribute to this prescribing pattern of strong opioids to outpatients.

Data-driven assessment of the association of polymorphisms in 5-Fluorouracil metabolism genes with outcome in adjuvant treatment of colorectal cancer.

A major challenge in the assessment of medicines, treatment options, etc., is to establish a framework for the comparison of risks and benefits of many different types and magnitudes, a framework that at the same time allows a clear distinction between the roles played by the statistical analyses of data and by judgements based on personal experience and expertise. The purpose of this study was to demonstrate how clinical data can be weighted, scored and presented by the use of an eight-step data-driven benefit-risk assessment method, where two genetic profiles are compared. Our aim was to present a comprehensive approach that is simple to apply, allows direct comparison of different types of risks and benefits, quantifies the clinical relevance of data and is tailored for the comparison of different options. We analysed a cohort of 302 patients with colorectal cancer treated with 5-Fluorouracil (5-FU). Endpoints were cure rate, survival rate, time-to-death (TTD), time-to-relapse (TTR) and main adverse drug reactions. Multifactor dimensionality reduction (MDR) was used to identify genetic interaction profiles associated with outcome. We have been able to demonstrate that a specific MDR-derived combination (the MDR-1 group) of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase and thymidylate synthase polymorphisms is associated with increased and clinically significant difference for cure and survival rates, TTD and probably also for TTR, which are seen as the most important endpoints. An inferior profile was observed for severe myocardial ischaemia. A probably inferior profile was seen for severe arthralgia/myalgia and severe infections. A clear superior profile was seen for severe mucositis/stomatitis. The proposed approach offers comprehensive, data-driven assessment that can facilitate decision processes, for example, in a clinical setting. It employs descriptive statistical methods to highlight the clinically relevant differences between options.

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.