Decision-making at Swissmedic, the Swiss regulatory agency, with a focus on (neo)adjuvant cancer treatments.

INTRODUCTION: Additional considerations are required for the benefit-risk assessment of new drugs or indications in the setting of (neo)adjuvant cancer treatment as compared to the metastatic/advanced setting, possibly leading to different decision patterns for the (neo)adjuvant versus the metastatic and advanced setting within a health authority but also among different health authorities. METHODS: We analyzed regulatory decisions at the Swiss Agency for Therapeutic Products Swissmedic (SMC) for all oncology indications (mostly metastatic indications) and indications in the (neo)adjuvant setting and compared these to decisions taken by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA). RESULTS: Comparing the positive and negative decisions within the Swiss Agency for Therapeutic Products Swissmedic (SMC) between July 2017 and Dec 2021 the approval rates were with 66.7% lower for (neo)adjuvant indications versus 88.4% in the metastatic and advanced indications. While the approval rates for metastatic and advanced New Active Substances (NAS) applications were similar at SMC as compared to the EMA and the FDA, they were lower for (neo)adjuvant applications at SMC as compared to the EMA and the FDA. The underlying reason in all cases with divergent decisions at SMC as compared to EMA and FDA was that no overall survival (OS) benefit as compared to control arm has been observed in the submitted data package. CONCLUSION: Approval and consensus decision rates at SMC in comparison to EMA and FDA were lower for (neo)adjuvant indications but not for advanced and metastastic NAS oncology indications.

A decade comparison of regulatory decision patterns for oncology products to all other non-oncology products among Swissmedic, European Medicines Agency, and US Food and Drug Administration.

Consensus of regulatory decisions on the same Marketing Authorization Application (MAA) are critical for stakeholders. In this context, regulatory decision patterns from the Swissmedic (SMC), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) were analyzed for hemato-oncology products (OP) and non-oncology products (NOP). We compared 336 SMC regulatory decisions between 2009 and 2018 on new active substances with the EMA and the FDA for OP (n = 77) and NOP (n = 259) regarding approval rates, consensus, and divergent decisions. For OP MAA, we analyzed the underlying reasons for divergent decisions; for consensus decisions, the similarity and strictness of labeling. For OP, the approval rate for the SMC was 88.4%, the EMA 91.3%, and the FDA 95.7%. For NOP, the SMC had an approval rate of 86.2%, the EMA of 93.8%, and the FDA of 88.8%. The consensus decision rate among agencies was 88.4% for OP and 84.4% for NOP. The main clinical driver for divergent decisions for OP was nonrandomized trial design and low patient numbers. Comparing the approved indication wordings, the highest similarity was between the SMC and the EMA, and lowest for the FDA and the EMA. Investigating label strictness, the FDA numerically had the highest but not-statistically significant number of strict labels. The approval rate stratified by disease area (OP and NOP) differed among the SMC, the EMA, and the FDA. High concordance in regulatory decisions was observed between agencies for OP as well as NOP. Reasons for divergent decisions regarding OP were mainly due to scientific uncertainties. Comparing strictness of indications, numerical but no statistically significant differences were observed between agencies.

Evaluation of the effects of different culture media on the myogenic differentiation potential of adipose tissue- or bone marrow-derived human mesenchymal stem cells.

The creation of functional muscles/muscle tissue from human stem cells is a major goal of skeletal muscle tissue engineering. Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) from fat/adipose tissue (AT-MSCs), as well as bone marrow (BM-MSCs) have been shown to bear myogenic potential, which makes them candidate stem cells for skeletal muscle tissue engineering applications. The aim of this study was to analyse the myogenic differentiation potential of human AT-MSCs and BM-MSCs cultured in six different cell culture media containing different mixtures of growth factors. The following cell culture media were used in our experiments: mesenchymal stem cell growth medium (MSCGM)™ as growth medium, MSCGM + 5-azacytidine (5-Aza), skeletal muscle myoblast cell growth medium (SkGM)-2 BulletKit™, and 5, 30 and 50% conditioned cell culture media, i.e., supernatant of human satellite cell cultures after three days in cell culture mixed with MSCGM. Following the incubation of human AT-MSCs or BM-MSCs for 0, 4, 8, 11, 16 or 21 days with each of the cell culture media, cell proliferation was measured using the alamarBlue® assay. Myogenic differentiation was evaluated by quantitative gene expression analyses, using quantitative RT-PCR (qRT-PCR) and immunocytochemical staining (ICC), using well-defined skeletal markers, such as desmin (DES), myogenic factor 5 (MYF5), myosin, heavy chain 8, skeletal muscle, perinatal (MYH8), myosin, heavy chain 1, skeletal muscle, adult (MYH1) and skeletal muscle actin-α1 (ACTA1). The highest proliferation rates were observed in the AT-MSCs and BM-MSCs cultured with SkGM-2 BulletKit medium. The average proliferation rate was higher in the AT-MSCs than in the BM-MSCs, taking all six culture media into account. qRT-PCR revealed the expression levels of the myogenic markers, ACTA1, MYH1 and MYH8, in the AT-MSC cell cultures, but not in the BM-MSC cultures. The muscle-specific intermediate filament, DES, was only detected (by ICC) in the AT-MSCs, but not in the BM-MSCs. The strongest DES expression was observed using the 30% conditioned cell culture medium. The detection of myogenic markers using different cell culture media as stimuli was only achieved in the AT-MSCs, but not in the BM-MSCs. The strongest myogenic differentiation, in terms of the markers examined, was induced by the 30% conditioned cell culture medium.