The evolving value assessment of cancer therapies: Results from a modified Delphi study.

The move toward early detection and treatment of cancer presents challenges for value assessment using traditional endpoints. Current cancer management rarely considers the full economic and societal benefits of therapies. Our study used a modified Delphi process to develop principles for defining and assessing value of cancer therapies that aligns with the current trajectory of oncology research and reflects broader notions of value. 24 experts participated in consensus-building activities across 5 months (16 took part in structured interactions, including a survey, plenary sessions, interviews, and off-line discussions, while 8 participated in interviews). Discussion focused on: 1) which oncology-relevant endpoints should be used for assessing treatments for early-stage cancer and access decisions for early-stage treatments, and 2) the importance of additional value components and how these can be integrated in value assessments. The expert group reached consensus on 4 principles in relation to the first area (consider oncology-relevant endpoints other than overall survival; build evidence for endpoints that provide earlier indication of efficacy; develop evidence for the next generation of predictive measures; use managed entry agreements supported by ongoing evidence collection to address decision-maker evidence needs) and 3 principles in relation to the second (routinely use patient reported outcomes in value assessments; assess broad economic impact of new medicines; consider other value aspects of relevance to patients and society).

Administering selected subscales of patient-reported outcome questionnaires to reduce patient burden and increase relevance: a position statement on a modular approach.

Patient-reported outcome (PRO) questionnaires considered in this paper contain multiple subscales, although not all subscales are equally relevant for administration in all target patient populations. A group of measurement experts, developers, license holders, and other scientific-, regulatory-, payer-, and patient-focused stakeholders participated in a panel to discuss the benefits and challenges of a modular approach, defined here as administering a subset of subscales out of a multi-scaled PRO measure. This paper supports the position that it is acceptable, and sometimes preferable, to take a modular approach when administering PRO questionnaires, provided that certain conditions have been met and a rigorous selection process performed. Based on the experiences and perspectives of all stakeholders, using a modular approach can reduce patient burden and increase the relevancy of the items administered, and thereby improve measurement precision and eliminate wasted data without sacrificing the scientific validity and utility of the instrument. The panelists agreed that implementing a modular approach is not expected to have a meaningful impact on item responses, subscale scores, variability, reliability, validity, and effect size estimates; however, collecting additional evidence for the impact of context may be desirable. It is also important to recognize that adequate rationale and evidence (e.g., of fit-for-purpose status and relevance to patients) and a robust consensus process that includes patient perspectives are required to inform selection of subscales, as in any other measurement circumstance, is expected. We believe that the considerations discussed within (content validity, administration context, and psychometric factors) are relevant across multiple therapeutic areas.

Shaping a research agenda to ensure a successful European health technology assessment: insights generated during the inaugural convention of the European access academy.

OBJECTIVES: Key challenges for a joint European Health Technology Assessment (HTA) include consolidated approaches towards the choice of adequate comparator(s), selection of endpoints that are relevant to patients with a given disease, dealing with remaining uncertainties as well as transparent and consistent management of related processes. We aimed to further crystallize related core domains within these four areas that warrant further research and scrutiny. METHODS: Building on the outcomes of a previously conducted questionnaire survey, four key areas, processes, uncertainty, comparator choice and endpoint selection, were identified. At the inaugural convention of the European Access Academy dedicated working groups were established defining and prioritizing core domains for each of the four areas. The working groups consisted of ~ 10 participants each, representing all relevant stakeholder groups (patients/ clinicians/ regulators/ HTA & payers/ academia/ industry). Story books identifying the work assignments were shared in advance. Two leads and one note taker per working group facilitated the process. All rankings were conducted on an ordinal Likert Response Scale scoring from 1 (low priority) to 7 (high priority). RESULTS: Identified key domains include for processes: i) address (resource-) challenge of multiple PICOs (Patient/ Intervention/ Comparator/ Outcomes), ii) time and capacity challenges, iii) integrating all involved stakeholders, iv) conflicts and aligning between different multi-national stakeholders, v) interaction with health technology developer; for uncertainty: i) early and inclusive collaboration, ii) agreement on feasibility of RCT and acceptance of uncertainty, iii) alignment on closing evidence gaps, iv) capacity gaps; for comparator choice: i) criteria for the choice of comparator in an increasingly fragmented treatment landscape, ii) reasonable number of comparators in PICOs, iii) shape Early Advice so that comparator fulfils both regulatory and HTA needs, iv) acceptability of Indirect Treatment Comparisons (ITC), v) ensure broad stakeholder involvement in comparator selection; for endpoint selection: i) approaching new endpoints; ii) patient preferences on endpoints; iii) position of HTA and other stakeholders; iv) long-term generation and secondary use of data; v) endpoint challenges in RCTs. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of a joint European HTA assessment is a unique opportunity for a stronger European Health Union. We identified 19 domains related to the four key areas, processes, uncertainty, comparator choice and endpoint selection that urgently need to be addressed for this regulation to become a success.

How can a joint European health technology assessment provide an 'additional benefit' over the current standard of national assessments? : Insights generated from a multi-stakeholder survey in hematology/oncology.

OBJECTIVES: We conducted a multi-stakeholder survey to determine key areas where a joint European health technology assessment (HTA) could provide 'additional benefit' compared to the status quo of many parallel independent national and subnational assessments. METHODS: Leveraging three iterative Delphi cycles, a semiquantitative questionnaire was developed covering evidence challenges and heterogeneity of value drivers within HTAs across Europe with a focus on hematology/oncology. The questionnaire consisted of five sections: i) background information; ii) value drivers in HTA assessments today; iii) evolving evidence challenges; iv) heterogeneity of value drivers across Europe; v) impact of Europe's Beating Cancer Plan (EBCP). The questionnaire was circulated across n = 189 stakeholder institutions comprising HTA and regulatory bodies, clinical oncology associations, patient representatives, and industry associations. RESULTS: N = 30 responses were received (HTA bodies: 9; regulators: 10; patients' and physicians' associations: 3 each; industry: 5). Overall, 17 countries and EU level institutions were represented in the responses. Consistency across countries and stakeholder groups was high. Most relevant value drivers in HTAs today (scale 1, low to 5, high) were clinical trial design (mean 4.45), right endpoints (mean 4.40), and size of comparative effect (mean 4.33). Small patient numbers (mean 4.28) and innovative study designs (mean 4.1) were considered the most relevant evolving evidence challenges. Heterogeneity between regulatory and HTA evidence requirements and heterogeneity of the various national treatment standards and national HTA evidence requirements was high. All clinical and patient participants stated to have been with EBCP initiatives. CONCLUSIONS: For a European HTA to provide an 'additional benefit' over the multitude of existing national assessments key methodological and process challenges need to be addressed. These include approaches to address uncertainty in clinical development; comparator choice; consistency in approaching patient-relevant endpoints; and a transparent and consistent management of both HTA and regulatory procedures as well as their interface, including all involved stakeholder groups.

Improving access to quality medicines in East Africa: An independent perspective on the East African Community Medicines Regulatory Harmonization initiative.

Alexander Giaquinto and co-authors discuss the East African Community's Medicines Regulatory Harmonization initiative.

EMA Review of Axicabtagene Ciloleucel (Yescarta) for the Treatment of Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma.

On June 28, 2018, the Committee for Advanced Therapies and the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use adopted a positive opinion, recommending the granting of a marketing authorization for the medicinal product Yescarta for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and primary mediastinal large B-cell lymphoma, after two or more lines of systemic therapy. Yescarta, which was designated as an orphan medicinal product and included in the European Medicines Agency's Priority Medicines scheme, was granted an accelerated review timetable. The active substance of Yescarta is axicabtagene ciloleucel, an engineered autologous T-cell immunotherapy product whereby a patient's own T cells are harvested and genetically modified ex vivo by retroviral transduction using a retroviral vector to express a chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) comprising an anti-CD19 single chain variable fragment linked to CD28 costimulatory domain and CD3-zeta signaling domain. The transduced anti-CD19 CAR T cells are expanded ex vivo and infused back into the patient, where they can recognize and eliminate CD19-expressing cells. The benefits of Yescarta as studied in ZUMA-1 phase II (NCT02348216) were an overall response rate per central review of 66% (95% confidence interval, 56%-75%) at a median follow-up of 15.1 months in the intention to treat population and a complete response rate of 47% with a significant duration. The most common adverse events were cytokine release syndrome, neurological adverse events, infections, pyrexia, diarrhea, nausea, hypotension, and fatigue. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Yescarta (axicabtagene ciloleucel) was the first chimeric antigen receptor T-cell therapy to be submitted for evaluation to the European Medicines Agency and admitted into the "priority medicine" scheme; it was granted accelerated assessment on the basis of anticipated clinical benefit in relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma, a condition of unmet medical need. Indeed, Yescarta showed an overall response rate of 66% and a complete response rate of 47% with a significant duration and a manageable toxicity that compared very favorably with historical controls. Here the analysis of benefits and risks is presented, and specific challenges with this important novel product are highlighted, providing further insights and reflections for future medical research.

The European Medicines Agency Review of Kymriah (Tisagenlecleucel) for the Treatment of Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia and Diffuse Large B-Cell Lymphoma.

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-engineered T-cell therapy is becoming one of the most promising approaches in the treatment of cancer. On June 28, 2018, the Committee for Advanced Therapies (CAT) and the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) of the European Medicines Agency adopted a positive opinion, recommending the granting of a marketing authorization for the medicinal product Kymriah for pediatric and young adult patients up to 25 years of age with B-cell acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) that is refractory, in relapse after transplant, or in second or later relapse and for adult patients with relapsed or refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) after two or more lines of systemic therapy. Kymriah became one of the first European Union-approved CAR T therapies. The active substance of Kymriah is tisagenlecleucel, an autologous, immunocellular cancer therapy that involves reprogramming the patient's own T cells to identify and eliminate CD19-expressing cells. This is achieved by addition of a transgene encoding a CAR. The benefit of Kymriah was its ability to achieve remission with a significant duration in patients with ALL and an objective response with a significant duration in patients with DLBCL. The most common hematological toxicity was cytopenia in both patients with ALL and those with DLBCL. Nonhematological side effects in patients with ALL were cytokine release syndrome (CRS), infections, secondary hypogammaglobulinemia due to B-cell aplasia, pyrexia, and decreased appetite. The most common nonhematological side effects in patients with DLBCL were CRS, infections, pyrexia, diarrhea, nausea, hypotension, and fatigue. Kymriah also received an orphan designation on April 29, 2014, following a positive recommendation by the Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products (COMP). Maintenance of the orphan designation was recommended at the time of marketing authorization as the COMP considered the product was of significant benefit for patients with both conditions. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR)-engineered T-cell therapy is becoming the most promising approach in cancer treatment, involving reprogramming the patient's own T cells with a CAR-encoding transgene to identify and eliminate cancer-specific surface antigen-expressing cells. On June 28, 2018, Kymriah became one of the first EMA approved CAR T therapies. CAR T technology seems highly promising for diseases with single genetic/protein alterations; however, for more complex diseases there will be challenges to target clonal variability within the tumor type or clonal evolution during disease progression. Products with a lesser toxicity profile or more risk-minimization tools are also anticipated.

European Medicines Agency review of ixazomib (Ninlaro) for the treatment of adult patients with multiple myeloma who have received at least one prior therapy.

On 21 November 2016, the European Commission issued a marketing authorisation valid throughout the European Union for ixazomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone for the treatment of adult patients with multiple myeloma who have received at least one prior therapy. Ixazomib was evaluated in one, randomised, double-blind, phase III study comparing ixazomib plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (n=360; ixazomib arm) versus placebo plus lenalidomide and dexamethasone (n=362; placebo arm) in adult patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma who had received at least one prior therapy. The median progression-free survival (PFS) in the intent-to-treat population was 20.6 months in patients treated with ixazomib compared with 14.7 months for patients in the placebo arm (stratified HR=0.742, 95% CI 0.587 to 0.939, stratified p-value=0.012). The most frequently reported adverse reactions (≥20%) within the ixazomib and placebo arms were diarrhoea (42% vs 36%), constipation (34% vs 25%), thrombocytopaenia (28% vs 14%), peripheral neuropathy (28% vs 21%), nausea (26% vs 21%), peripheral oedema (25% vs 18%), vomiting (22% vs 11%) and back pain (21% vs 16%). The scientific review concluded that the gain in PFS of 5.9 months observed with ixazomib was considered clinically meaningful. Concerning the possible uncertainty about the magnitude of the effect, this uncertainty was acceptable given the favourable toxicity profile, and considering that ixazomib is the first agent to allow oral triple combination therapy in this patient population which represents a therapeutic innovation in terms of convenience for patients. Therefore, the benefit-risk for ixazomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone was considered positive, although the efficacy evidence was not as comprehensive as normally required.

Pragmatic clinical trials in the context of regulation of medicines.

The pragmatic clinical trial addresses scientific questions in a setting close to routine clinical practice and sometimes using routinely collected data. From a regulatory perspective, when evaluating a new medicine before approving marketing authorization, there will never be enough patients studied in all subgroups that may potentially be at higher risk for adverse outcomes, or sufficient patients to detect rare adverse events, or sufficient follow-up time to detect late adverse events that require long exposure times to develop. It may therefore be relevant that post-marketing trials sometimes have more pragmatic characteristics, if there is a need for further efficacy and safety information. A pragmatic study design may reflect a situation close to clinical practice, but may also have greater potential methodological concerns, e.g. regarding the validity and completeness of data when using routinely collected information from registries and health records, the handling of intercurrent events, and misclassification of outcomes. In a regulatory evaluation it is important to be able to isolate the effect of a specific product or substance, and to have a defined population that the results can be referred to. A study feature such as having a wide and permissive inclusion of patients might therefore actually hamper the utility of the results for regulatory purposes. Randomization in a registry-based setting addresses confounding that could otherwise complicate a corresponding non-interventional design, but not any other methodological issues. Attention to methodological basics can help generate reliable study results, and is more important than labelling studies as 'pragmatic'.

European Medicines Agency review of midostaurin (Rydapt) for the treatment of adult patients with acute myeloid leukaemia and systemic mastocytosis.

On 18 September 2017, a marketing authorisation valid through the European Union (EU) was issued for midostaurin in combination with standard daunorubicin and cytarabine induction and high-dose cytarabine consolidation chemotherapy and for patients in complete response followed by midostaurin single agent maintenance therapy, for adult patients with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) who are Fms-like tyrosine kinase 3 mutation positive and as monotherapy for the treatment of adult patients with aggressive systemic mastocytosis (ASM), systemic mastocytosis with associated haematological neoplasm (SM-AHN) or mast cell leukaemia (MCL). The recommended dose of midostaurin is 50 mg orally twice daily for AML and 100 mg orally twice daily for ASM, SM-AHN and MCL. Midostaurin was evaluated in two pivotal studies. Study A2301 (RATIFY) included 717 patients with AML. Overall survival (OS) was statistically significantly different between the two groups, and the median OS was 74.7 months in the midostaurin+daunorubicin+cytarabine group and 25.6 months in the placebo+daunorubicin+cytarabine group (HR 0.774; 95% CI 0.629 to 0.953; p=0.0078). Study D2201 included 116 patients with ASM, SM-AHN or MCL. An overall response rate, by IWG-MRT/ECNM (international working group - myelofibrosis research and treatment/European competence network on mastocytosis) criteria of 28.3% was observed in all patients and 60.0%, 20.8% and 33.3% in patients with ASM, SM-AHN and MCL respectively. The most common adverse drug reactions (ADRs) with midostaurin treatment in AML were febrile neutropenia, nausea, exfoliative dermatitis, vomiting, headache, petechiae and fever. In ASM, SM-AHN, MCL the most common ADRs were nausea, vomiting, diarrhoea, peripheral oedema and fatigue. The objective of this paper is to summarise the scientific review of the application leading to regulatory approval in the EU.

Overview of the European Medicines Agency's Development of Product-Specific Bioequivalence Guidelines.

The European Medicines Agency's (EMA) product-specific bioequivalence guidelines outline harmonized regulatory requirements for studies to demonstrate bioequivalence for products that may have particular needs due to their pharmacokinetics, in addition to those outlined in general guidance. As such they are potentially very useful to the pharmaceutical industry in the development of generic medicinal products and to regulatory authorities for harmonized decision-making. Since their introduction in 2013, EMA product-specific bioequivalence guidelines continue to increase in number, and as of June 2017, encompass a number of different pharmacotherapeutic groups and pharmaceutical forms. This article further elucidates the processes involved for stakeholders and reviews the Agency's experience with the development of these guidelines, including the scientific issues witnessed with their advancement. A comparison with the United States Food and Drug Administration approach to similar guidelines is also provided.

EMA Review of Daratumumab for the Treatment of Adult Patients with Multiple Myeloma.

On May 20, 2016, a conditional marketing authorization valid through the European Union (EU) was issued for daratumumab as monotherapy for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma, whose prior therapy included a proteasome inhibitor (PI) and an immunomodulatory drug (IMiD) and who had demonstrated disease progression on the last therapy. The review of daratumumab was conducted under the EMA's accelerated assessment program for drugs that are of major interest for public health, especially from the point of view of therapeutic innovation.Daratumumab monotherapy achieved an overall response rate of 29.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] 20.8 to 38.9) in patients with multiple myeloma who had received at least three prior lines of therapy (including a PI and IMiD) or were double refractory to a PI and an IMiD (Study MMY2002). In patients with multiple myeloma relapsed from or refractory to two or more different prior therapies, including IMiDs (e.g., thalidomide, lenalidomide) and PI, an overall response was observed in 15 patients (35.7%, 95% CI: 21.6 to 52.0) (Study GEN501).On April 28, 2017, the therapeutic indication was extended to include the use of daratumumab in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone, or bortezomib and dexamethasone, for the treatment of adult patients with multiple myeloma who have received at least one prior therapy. This was based on two subsequent phase III studies of daratumumab in combination with lenalidomide/low-dose dexamethasone (MMY3003) and bortezomib/low dose dexamethasone (MMY3004).The most common side effects (grade 3-4) associated with daratumumab included neutropenia (37%), thrombocytopenia (23%), anemia (16%), pneumonia (10%), lymphopenia (8%), infusion-related reactions (6%), upper respiratory tract infection (5%), and fatigue (5%).The objective of this study was to summarize the scientific review done by the CHMP of the application leading to regulatory approval in the EU. The full scientific assessment report and product information, including the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC), are available on the EMA website (www.ema.europa.eu). IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: A conditional Marketing authorization was issued in the European Union for daratumamb as monotherapy for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma, based on the response rate data from two single-agent studies. Darzalex, a novel monoclonal antibody targeted against CD38, demonstrated a durable response rate in a heavily pre-treated population with limited treatment options based on the response rate data from two single-agent studies. The addition of daratumumab to lenalidomide and dexamethasone (study MMY3003), or bortezomib and dexamethasone (MMY3004), demonstrated a positive effect on progression-free survival in patients with multiple myeloma who had received at least one prior therapy. Following submission of the controlled data of the MMY3003 and MMY3004 studies, the efficacy and safety of daratumumab was confirmed and the approval of daratumumab was converted to standard approval.

EMA Review of Panobinostat (Farydak) for the Treatment of Adult Patients with Relapsed and/or Refractory Multiple Myeloma.

On August 28, 2015, a marketing authorization valid through the European Union was issued for panobinostat, in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone, for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma who have received at least two prior regimens including bortezomib and an immunomodulatory agent (IMiD).Panobinostat is an orally available histone deacetylase (HDAC) inhibitor that inhibits the enzymatic activity of HDAC proteins at nanomolar concentrations. HDAC proteins catalyze the removal of acetyl groups from the lysine residues of histones and some nonhistone proteins. Inhibition of HDAC activity results in increased acetylation of histone proteins, an epigenetic alteration that results in a relaxing of chromatin, leading to transcriptional activation. The recommended starting dose of panobinostat is 20 mg, taken orally in a cyclical manner for up to 48 weeks.The use of panobinostat in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone was studied in a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter phase III study (PANORAMA I) in 768 patients with relapsed or relapsed and refractory multiple myeloma who had received one to three prior lines of therapies. In the subgroup of patients who have received at least two prior regimens including bortezomib and an IMiD, there was a difference of 7.8 months in the progression-free survival in favor of the experimental arm (12.5 months for panobinostat + bortezomib + dexamethasone vs. 4.7 months for placebo + bortezomib + dexamethasone; hazard ratio = 0.47, 95% confidence interal 0.31-0.72; log-rank p value = .0003). The incidence of grade 3-4 adverse events suspected to be related to study drug was 76.9% vs. 51.2%, for the panobinostat and the placebo group, respectively. The most common side effects (grade 3-4) associated with panobinostat included diarrhea (18.9%), fatigue (14.7%), nausea (4.5%), vomiting (5.5%), thrombocytopenia (43.6%), anemia (7.9%), neutropenia (16.5%) and lymphopenia (8.1%).This article summarizes the scientific review of the application leading to regulatory approval in the European Union. The full scientific assessment report and product information, including the Summary of Product Characteristics, are available on the European Medicines Agency website (http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/includes/medicines/medicines_landing_page.jsp&mid=). IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Farydak was approved in the European Union in combination with bortezomib and dexamethasone, for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed and/or refractory multiple myeloma who have received at least two prior regimens including bortezomib and an immunomodulatory agent (IMiD). The addition of panobinostat to bortezomib and dexamethasone resulted in a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement of progression-free survival compared with bortezomib and dexamethasone, and an additional therapeutic option with a new mechanism of action was considered valuable. Although the toxicity associated with panobinostat combination was significant, at the time of the marketing authorization of panobinostat, it was considered that it was acceptable and that it should be left to the clinician and the patient to decide whether the panobinostat combination is the preferred treatment option or not.

Quality Issues Identified During the Evaluation of Biosimilars by the European Medicines Agency's Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use.

The aim of this study was to identify trends in deficiencies raised during the EU evaluation of the quality part of dossiers for marketing authorisation applications of biosimilar medicinal products. All adopted day 120 list of questions on the quality module of 22 marketing authorisation applications for biosimilars submitted to the European Medicines Agency and concluded by the end of October 2015 was analysed. Frequencies of common deficiencies identified were calculated and summarised descriptions included. Frequencies and trends on quality deficiencies were recorded and presented for 22 biosimilar applications. Thirty-two 'major objections' for 9 products were identified from 14 marketing authorisation applications with 15 raised for drug substance and 17 for drug product. In addition, 547 'other concerns' for drug substance and 495 for drug product were also adopted. The frequencies and trends of the identified deficiencies together with their impact were discussed from a regulatory perspective and how these impact key manufacturing processes and key materials used in the production of biosimilars. This study provides an insight to the regulatory challenges prospective companies need to consider when developing biosimilars; it also helps elucidate common pitfalls in the development and production of biosimilars and in the submission of dossiers for their marketing authorisations. The results are expected to be of interest to pharmaceutical companies but also to regulators to obtain consistent information on medicinal products based on transparent rules safeguarding the necessary pharmaceutical quality of medicinal products.

The European Medicines Agency Review of Carfilzomib for the Treatment of Adult Patients with Multiple Myeloma Who Have Received at Least One Prior Therapy.

On November 19, 2015, a marketing authorization valid through the European Union was issued for carfilzomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone for the treatment of adult patients with multiple myeloma (MM) who have received at least one prior therapy.In a phase III trial in patients with relapsed MM, median progression-free survival (PFS) for patients treated with carfilzomib in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone (CRd) was 26.3 months versus 17.6 months for those receiving lenalidomide and dexamethasone alone (hazard ratio = 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-0.83; one-sided log-rank p value < .0001). The most frequently observed toxicity (grade ≥3, treatment arm vs. control arm) in the phase III trial included neutropenia (29.6% vs. 26.5%), anemia (17.9% vs. 17.7%), thrombocytopenia (16.8% vs. 12.3%), pneumonia (12.5% vs. 10.5%), fatigue (7.7% vs. 6.4%), hypertension (4.6% vs. 2.1%), diarrhea (3.8% vs. 4.1%), and respiratory tract infection (4.1% vs. 2.1%).The objective of this article is to summarize the scientific review of the application leading to regulatory approval in the European Union. The scientific review concluded that the gain in PFS of 8.7 months observed with the combination of CRd was considered clinically meaningful and was supported by a clear trend in overall survival benefit, although the data were not mature. The delay in disease progression appeared superior to available alternatives in the setting of relapsed MM at the time of the marketing authorization of carfilzomib. Therefore, given the overall accepted safety profile, which was considered manageable in the current context, the benefit risk for CRd was considered positive. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: Carfilzomib (Kyprolis) was approved in the European Union in combination with lenalidomide and dexamethasone for the treatment of adult patients with multiple myeloma who have received at least one prior therapy. The addition of carfilzomib to lenalidomide and dexamethasone resulted in a clinically meaningful and statistically significant improvement of progression-free survival compared with lenalidomide and dexamethasone, which was supported by a clear trend in overall survival benefit, although the data were not mature. At the time of the marketing authorization of carfilzomib, the delay in disease progression appeared superior to available alternatives in the setting of relapsed multiple myeloma. In terms of safety, the overall accepted safety profile was considered manageable.

European Medicines Agency approval summary: Zaltrap for the treatment of patients with oxaliplatin-resistant metastatic colorectal cancer.

On 1 February 2013, a marketing authorisation valid throughout the European Union was issued for aflibercept (Zaltrap) in combination with irinotecan/5-fluorouracil/folinic acid chemotherapy for the treatment of adults with metastatic colorectal cancer resistant to or progressive after an oxaliplatin-containing regimen. Aflibercept is a recombinant fusion protein which blocks the activation of vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) receptors and the proliferation of endothelial cells, acting as a soluble decoy receptor that binds to VEGF-A with higher affinity than its native receptors, as well as placental growth factor and VEGF-B. The use of aflibercept was studied in a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled phase III study, in patients with metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) who had previously been treated with an oxaliplatin-based treatment with or without prior bevacizumab. Aflibercept (n=612) was compared with placebo (n=614), both in combination with FOLFIRI (infusional fluorouracil, leucovorin and irinotecan). The primary endpoint of the study was overall survival (OS). The median OS in the intent-to-treat population was 13.5 months in subjects treated with aflibercept compared with 12.1 months for subjects in the control arm (stratified HR=0.817, 95% CI 0.714 to 0.935, stratified pvalue=0.0032). The frequency of adverse events was higher in the aflibercept arm compared with the placebo arm, reflecting the toxicity profile of anti-VEGF agents in combination with chemotherapy. This paper is based on the scientific review of the application leading to approval of aflibercept in the EU. The detailed scientific assessment report and product information for this product are available on the European Medicines Agency website (http://www.ema.europa.eu). Trial registration number NCT00561470, Results.

Extrapolation in the development of paediatric medicines: examples from approvals for biological treatments for paediatric chronic immune-mediated inflammatory diseases.

The European Union (EU) Paediatric Regulation requires that all new medicinal products applying for a marketing authorisation (MA) in the EU provide a paediatric investigation plan (PIP) covering a clinical and non-clinical trial programme relating to the use in the paediatric population, unless a waiver applies. Conducting trials in children is challenging on many levels, including ethical and practical issues, which may affect the availability of the clinical evidence. In scientifically justified cases, extrapolation of data from other populations can be an option to gather evidence supporting the benefit-risk assessment of the medicinal product for paediatric use. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) is working on providing a framework for extrapolation that is scientifically valid, reliable and adequate to support MA of medicines for children. It is expected that the extrapolation framework together with therapeutic area guidelines and individual case studies will support future PIPs. Extrapolation has already been employed in several paediatric development programmes including biological treatment for immune-mediated diseases. This article reviews extrapolation strategies from MA applications for products for the treatment of juvenile idiopathic arthritis, paediatric psoriasis and paediatric inflammatory bowel disease. It also provides a summary of extrapolation advice expressed in relevant EMA guidelines and initiatives supporting the use of alternative approaches in paediatric medicine development.

The European Medicines Agency review of pitolisant for treatment of narcolepsy: summary of the scientific assessment by the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use.

On 31 March 2016, the European Commission issued a decision for a marketing authorisation valid throughout the European Union (EU) for pitolisant (Wakix) for the treatment of narcolepsy with or without cataplexy in adults. Pitolisant is an antagonist/inverse agonist of the human histamine H3 receptor. The dose should be selected using an up-titration scheme depending on individual patient response and tolerance and should not exceed 36 mg/day. The main evidence of efficacy of pitolisant was based on two Phase III clinical trials. The improvement on excessive daytime sleepiness was shown against placebo in the Harmony I study (-3.33 points; 95% confidence interval (CI) [-5.83; -0.83]; p = 0.024) and in Harmony CTP (-3.41 points; 95% CI [-4.95; -1.87]; p < 0.0001). The daily cataplexy rate in Harmony I improved against placebo with a rate ratio (rR) of 0.38 whilst in the Harmony CTP the ratio of improvement on weekly cataplexy rate against placebo was 0.512. The most commonly reported adverse reactions were headache, insomnia and nausea. This article summarizes the scientific review leading to approval of pitolisant in the EU. The assessment report and product information are available on the European Medicines Agency website (http://www.ema.europa.eu).