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.

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.

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.