EU decision-making for marketing authorization of advanced therapy medicinal products: a case study.

A comparative analysis of assessment procedures for authorization of all European Union (EU) applications for advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) shows that negative opinions were associated with a lack of clinical efficacy and identified severe safety risks. Unmet medical need was often considered in positive opinions and outweighed scientific uncertainties. Numerous quality issues illustrate the difficulties in this domain for ATMP development. Altogether, it suggests that setting appropriate standards for ATMP authorization in Europe, similar to elsewhere, is a learning experience. The experimental characteristics of authorized ATMPs urge regulators, industry, and clinical practice to pay accurate attention to post-marketing risk management to limit patient risk. Methodologies for ATMP development and regulatory evaluations need to be continuously evaluated for the field to flourish.

The possibility of obtaining marketing authorization of orphan pharmaceutical compounding preparations: 3,4-DAP for Lambert-Eaton Myasthenic Syndrome.

BACKGROUND: Pharmaceutical compounding preparations, produced by (hospital) pharmacies, usually do not have marketing authorization. As a consequence, some of these pharmaceutical compounding preparations can be picked-up by a pharmaceutical company to obtain marketing authorization, often leading to price increases. An example is the 3,4-diaminopyridine slow release (3,4-DAP SR) tablets for Lambert-Eaton Myasthenic Syndrome (LEMS). In 2009 marketing authorization was given for the commercial immediate release phosphate salt of the drug, including a fifty-fold price increase compared to the pharmaceutical compounding preparation. Obtaining marketing authorization for 3,4-DAP SR by academia might have been a solution to prevent this price increase. To determine whether the available data of a pharmaceutical compounding preparation with long-term experience in regular care are adequate to obtain marketing authorization, 3,4-DAP SR is used as a case study. METHODS: A retrospective qualitative case-study was performed. Initially, document analysis was executed by collecting the required data for marketing authorization in general and whether data of Firdapse® and 3,4-DAP SR met these requirements. Secondly, the (non-) available data of the two formulations were compared with each other to determine the differences in availability. RESULTS: At the time of approval, almost all data were available for both Firdapse® and 3,4-DAP SR. Conversely, much of the data used for the approval of Firdapse® originated from the 3,4-DAP immediate release (3,4-DAP IR) formulation. Only two bioequivalence studies and one pharmacology safety study was performed with Firdapse® before marketing authorization application. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, at time Firdapse® obtained approval, the data available did not differ substantially from 3,4-DAP SR, indicating that approval with 3,4-DAP SR would have been possible. We make a plea for approval of orphan medicinal products developed and manufactured by academic institutions as to keep utilization of these products affordable.