Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 1.031
Filtrar
1.
Lancet ; 395(10228): 986-997, 2020 03 21.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32199486

RESUMO

Fewer than half of new drugs have data on their comparative benefits and harms against existing treatment options at the time of regulatory approval in Europe and the USA. Even when active-comparator trials exist, they might not produce meaningful data to inform decisions in clinical practice and health policy. The uncertainty associated with the paucity of well designed active-comparator trials has been compounded by legal and regulatory changes in Europe and the USA that have created a complex mix of expedited programmes aimed at facilitating faster access to new drugs. Comparative evidence generation is even sparser for medical devices. Some have argued that the current process for regulatory approval needs to generate more evidence that is useful for patients, clinicians, and payers in health-care systems. We propose a set of five key principles relevant to the European Medicines Agency, European medical device regulatory agencies, US Food and Drug Administration, as well as payers, that we believe will provide the necessary incentives for pharmaceutical and device companies to generate comparative data on drugs and devices and assure timely availability of evidence that is useful for decision making. First, labelling should routinely inform patients and clinicians whether comparative data exist on new products. Second, regulators should be more selective in their use of programmes that facilitate drug and device approvals on the basis of incomplete benefit and harm data. Third, regulators should encourage the conduct of randomised trials with active comparators. Fourth, regulators should use prospectively designed network meta-analyses based on existing and future randomised trials. Last, payers should use their policy levers and negotiating power to incentivise the generation of comparative evidence on new and existing drugs and devices, for example, by explicitly considering proven added benefit in pricing and payment decisions.


Assuntos
Aprovação de Equipamentos/normas , Aprovação de Drogas/métodos , Segurança de Equipamentos , Segurança , Biomarcadores Farmacológicos/análise , Tolerância a Medicamentos , Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Humanos , Estados Unidos , United States Food and Drug Administration
2.
Lancet ; 395(10228): 998-1010, 2020 03 21.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32199487

RESUMO

Certain limitations of evidence available on drugs and devices at the time of market approval often persist in the post-marketing period. Often, post-marketing research landscape is fragmented. When regulatory agencies require pharmaceutical and device manufacturers to conduct studies in the post-marketing period, these studies might remain incomplete many years after approval. Even when completed, many post-marketing studies lack meaningful active comparators, have observational designs, and might not collect patient-relevant outcomes. Regulators, in collaboration with the industry and patients, ought to ensure that the key questions unanswered at the time of drug and device approval are resolved in a timely fashion during the post-marketing phase. We propose a set of seven key guiding principles that we believe will provide the necessary incentives for pharmaceutical and device manufacturers to generate comparative data in the post-marketing period. First, regulators (for drugs and devices), notified bodies (for devices in Europe), health technology assessment organisations, and payers should develop customised evidence generation plans, ensuring that future post-approval studies address any limitations of the data available at the time of market entry impacting the benefit-risk profiles of drugs and devices. Second, post-marketing studies should be designed hierarchically: priority should be given to efforts aimed at evaluating a product's net clinical benefit in randomised trials compared with current known effective therapy, whenever possible, to address common decisional dilemmas. Third, post-marketing studies should incorporate active comparators as appropriate. Fourth, use of non-randomised studies for the evaluation of clinical benefit in the post-marketing period should be limited to instances when the magnitude of effect is deemed to be large or when it is possible to reasonably infer the comparative benefits or risks in settings, in which doing a randomised trial is not feasible. Fifth, efficiency of randomised trials should be improved by streamlining patient recruitment and data collection through innovative design elements. Sixth, governments should directly support and facilitate the production of comparative post-marketing data by investing in the development of collaborative research networks and data systems that reduce the complexity, cost, and waste of rigorous post-marketing research efforts. Last, financial incentives and penalties should be developed or more actively reinforced.


Assuntos
Aprovação de Equipamentos , Aprovação de Drogas/métodos , Segurança de Equipamentos , Vigilância de Produtos Comercializados/métodos , Tolerância a Medicamentos , Medicina Baseada em Evidências , Humanos , Estados Unidos , United States Food and Drug Administration
3.
Gut ; 69(1): 32-41, 2020 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-30979718

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: The optimal trial design for assessing novel therapies in paediatric IBD (PIBD) is a subject of intense ongoing global discussions and debate among the different stakeholders. However, there is a consensus that the current situation in which most medications used in children with IBD are prescribed as off-label without sufficient paediatric data is unacceptable. Shortening the time lag between adult and paediatric approval of drugs is of the upmost importance. In this position paper we aimed to provide guidance from the global clinical research network (Pediatric Inflammatory Bowel Disease Network, PIBDnet) for designing clinical trials in PIBD in order to facilitate drug approval for children. METHODS: A writing group has been established by PIBDnet and topics were assigned to different members. After an iterative process of revisions among the writing group and one face-to-face meeting, all statements have reached consensus of >80% as defined a priori. Next, all core members of PIBDnet voted on the statements, reaching consensus of >80% on all statements. Comments from the members were incorporated in the text. RESULTS: The commentary includes 18 statements for guiding data extrapolation from adults, eligibility criteria to PIBD trials, use of placebo, dosing, endpoints and recommendations for feasible trials. Controversial issues have been highlighted in the text. CONCLUSION: The viewpoints expressed in this paper could assist planning clinical trials in PIBD which are both of high quality and ethical, while remaining pragmatic.


Assuntos
Ensaios Clínicos como Assunto/métodos , Fármacos Gastrointestinais/uso terapêutico , Doenças Inflamatórias Intestinais/tratamento farmacológico , Fatores Etários , Produtos Biológicos/administração & dosagem , Produtos Biológicos/uso terapêutico , Criança , Ensaios Clínicos como Assunto/normas , Relação Dose-Resposta a Droga , Aprovação de Drogas/métodos , Fármacos Gastrointestinais/administração & dosagem , Humanos , Seleção de Pacientes , Projetos de Pesquisa , Índice de Gravidade de Doença , Resultado do Tratamento
5.
BioDrugs ; 33(6): 683-691, 2019 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31595484

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this analysis was to evaluate whether the current unsystematic assessment leads to sufficient reporting of immunogenicity-related information in the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPCs) of biological products approved in the European market. METHODS: Immunogenicity-related information was identified and extracted from a group of 72 biological drugs that complied with drug-selection criteria. Afterwards, 12 dichotomous questions were proposed to evaluate whether any issues are being commonly neglected. RESULTS: Most SmPCs (92%) do not have any recommendations on how to report immunogenicity-related adverse drug reactions by patients or healthcare professionals. Furthermore, 80% of SmPCs do not identify the assay used to assess the reported immunogenicity rates, while 81% do not address the possible impact of immunogenicity on their drug's pharmacokinetics. It was also identified that a group factor (i.e. older drugs' SmPCs) could be influencing how/which issues were being addressed by newer drugs' SmPCs. To transform SmPCs into useful tools when an immunogenic response occurs, a proposal on how to report immunogenicity-related information in the SmPCs of biological products is advanced. This decision tree should contribute towards increasing the quality and transparency of the immunogenicity-related information being reported in the SmPCs, thus leading to better informed medical decisions. CONCLUSIONS: Based on these results, an unsystematic assessment does not yield enough reporting across products and thus immunogenicity-related information should be reported in a systematic way. Further guidance about reporting immunogenicity-related information is required, otherwise SmPCs will not be the basis of information for healthcare professionals on how to use a biological product safely and effectively.


Assuntos
Produtos Biológicos/efeitos adversos , Produtos Biológicos/imunologia , Efeitos Colaterais e Reações Adversas Relacionados a Medicamentos/imunologia , Aprovação de Drogas/métodos , Rotulagem de Medicamentos/métodos , Europa (Continente) , Humanos
7.
BioDrugs ; 33(6): 599-602, 2019 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31606870

RESUMO

Fifteen years of experience with biosimilar evaluation in Europe and advancement in the science behind biological medicines, provides a timely moment to open up debate as to whether the requirements for biosimilar approval could be further tailored. Further optimizing of data requirements to truly decisional information will allow to continuously deliver on the promise of biosimilars, providing benefits for patients and society.


Assuntos
Medicamentos Biossimilares/administração & dosagem , Aprovação de Drogas/métodos , Sistemas de Liberação de Medicamentos/métodos , Europa (Continente) , Humanos
9.
BMJ ; 366: l5221, 2019 09 18.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31533922

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: To examine the design characteristics, risk of bias, and reporting adequacy of pivotal randomised controlled trials of cancer drugs approved by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). DESIGN: Cross sectional analysis. SETTING: European regulatory documents, clinical trial registry records, protocols, journal publications, and supplementary appendices. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Pivotal randomised controlled trials of new cancer drugs approved by the EMA between 2014 and 2016. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Study design characteristics (randomisation, comparators, and endpoints); risk of bias using the revised Cochrane tool (bias arising from the randomisation process, deviations from intended interventions, missing outcome data, measurement of the outcome, and selection of the reported result); and reporting adequacy (completeness and consistency of information in trial protocols, publications, supplementary appendices, clinical trial registry records, and regulatory documents). RESULTS: Between 2014 and 2016, the EMA approved 32 new cancer drugs on the basis of 54 pivotal studies. Of these, 41 (76%) were randomised controlled trials and 13 (24%) were either non-randomised studies or single arm studies. 39/41 randomised controlled trials had available publications and were included in our study. Only 10 randomised controlled trials (26%) measured overall survival as either a primary or coprimary endpoint, with the remaining trials evaluating surrogate measures such as progression free survival and response rates. Overall, 19 randomised controlled trials (49%) were judged to be at high risk of bias for their primary outcome. Concerns about missing outcome data (n=10) and measurement of the outcome (n=7) were the most common domains leading to high risk of bias judgments. Fewer randomised controlled trials that evaluated overall survival as the primary endpoint were at high risk of bias than those that evaluated surrogate efficacy endpoints (2/10 (20%) v 16/29 (55%), respectively). When information available in regulatory documents and the scientific literature was considered separately, overall risk of bias judgments differed for eight randomised controlled trials (21%), which reflects reporting inadequacies in both sources of information. Regulators identified additional deficits beyond the domains captured in risk of bias assessments for 10 drugs (31%). These deficits included magnitude of clinical benefit, inappropriate comparators, and non-preferred study endpoints, which were not disclosed as limitations in scientific publications. CONCLUSIONS: Most pivotal studies forming the basis of EMA approval of new cancer drugs between 2014 and 2016 were randomised controlled trials. However, almost half of these were judged to be at high risk of bias based on their design, conduct, or analysis, some of which might be unavoidable because of the complexity of cancer trials. Regulatory documents and the scientific literature had gaps in their reporting. Journal publications did not acknowledge the key limitations of the available evidence identified in regulatory documents.


Assuntos
Antineoplásicos/uso terapêutico , Aprovação de Drogas/métodos , Neoplasias/tratamento farmacológico , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/métodos , Viés , Estudos Transversais , Controle de Medicamentos e Entorpecentes , Humanos , Projetos de Pesquisa , Relatório de Pesquisa
10.
BioDrugs ; 33(6): 621-634, 2019 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31541400

RESUMO

The approval of biosimilars in the EU follows a comprehensive scientific assessment based on stringent regulatory standards. While the initial approach to biosimilars was understandably cautious and conservative in that uncharted territory to protect patients' safety, the analytical and scientific progress and accumulated experience with biosimilars continues to reshape regulatory requirements, generally leading to a reduced burden of clinical trials. This trend is expected to continue, for example, by increasingly employing pharmacodynamic endpoints and biomarkers, but much work remains to make this happen, especially for complex molecules with several or unknown mechanisms of action. We reviewed the available guidance and European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) of biosimilars approved in the EU via the centralised procedure. This review focuses on the nature and extent of clinical confirmation of biosimilarity considered necessary in addition to analytical and functional data. Cases with conflicting results from different parts of the comparability exercise are discussed, with the aim of identifying whether certain elements of the comparability exercise are more important than others in determining biosimilarity. Taken together, analytical and functional comparison is the foundation of any biosimilar development. In addition, pharmacokinetic similarity is an indispensable prerequisite for any biosimilar approval, so careful planning on behalf of the applicant is mandated to avoid potential failure of such studies, for example, because of large interindividual variability, underpowered trial designs or other methodological causes. Comparative pharmacokinetic studies are a basic requirement for biosimilar development and are usually more sensitive than clinical efficacy trials when detecting potential product-related differences. This may explain why a demonstration of equivalent efficacy could not overrule a finding of dissimilar pharmacokinetic profiles in two cases of biosimilar pegfilgrastim. However, the outcome of efficacy trials depends not only on drug exposure but also on proper pharmacological action of the biological substance in vivo. Therefore, the objectives of both types of studies differ. Efficacy trials should usually be designed as equivalence trials to ensure that the efficacy of the biosimilar is neither decreased nor increased compared with the reference product. However, some remaining uncertainty regarding potentially increased efficacy of the biosimilar may be acceptable in exceptional cases, provided that the data from other parts of the comparability exercise clearly support a conclusion of biosimilarity and safety is assured. In contrast, uncertainties regarding potentially inferior efficacy of the biosimilar may not be acceptable at all. We conclude that the EU biosimilar regulatory framework is robust and able to adapt to advancing knowledge and experience and to strike a balance between regulatory standards, patient safety and feasibility of biosimilar development.


Assuntos
Medicamentos Biossimilares/uso terapêutico , Aprovação de Drogas/métodos , Europa (Continente) , Filgrastim/uso terapêutico , Humanos , Polietilenoglicóis/uso terapêutico , Equivalência Terapêutica
12.
PLoS Med ; 16(9): e1002873, 2019 09.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31504034

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: In situations of unmet medical need or in the interests of public health, expedited approval pathways, including conditional marketing authorisation (CMA) and accelerated assessment (AA), speed up European Medicines Agency (EMA) marketing authorisation recommendations for medicinal products. CMAs are based on incomplete benefit-risk assessment data and authorisation remains conditional until regulator-imposed confirmatory postmarketing measures are fulfilled. For products undergoing AA, complete safety and efficacy data should be available, and postauthorisation measures may include only standard requirements of risk management and pharmacovigilance plans. In the pivotal trials supporting products assessed by expedited pathways, surrogate endpoints reduce drug development time compared with waiting for the intended clinical outcomes. Whether surrogate endpoints supporting products authorised through CMA and AA pathways reliably predict clinical benefits of therapy has not been studied systematically. Our objectives were to determine the extent to which surrogate endpoints are used and to assess whether their validity had been confirmed according to published hierarchies. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We used European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) to identify the primary endpoints in the pivotal trials supporting products authorised through CMA or AA pathways during January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2018. We excluded products that were vaccines, topical, reversal, or bleeding prophylactic agents or withdrawn within the study time frame. Where pivotal trials reported surrogate endpoints, we conducted PubMed searches for evidence of validity for predicting clinical outcomes. We used 2 published hierarchies to assess validity level. Surrogates with randomised controlled trials supporting the surrogate-clinical outcome relationship were rated as 'validated'. Fifty-one products met the inclusion criteria; 26 underwent CMAs, and 25 underwent AAs. Overall, 26 products were for oncology indications, 10 for infections, 8 for genetic disorders, and 7 for other systems disorders. Five products (10%), all AAs, were authorised based on pivotal trials reporting clinical outcomes, and 46 (90%) were authorised based on surrogate endpoints. No studies were identified that validated the surrogate endpoints. Among a total of 49 products with surrogate endpoints reported, most were rated according to the published hierarchies as being 'reasonably likely' (n = 30; 61%) or of having 'biological plausibility' (n = 46; 94%) to predict clinical outcomes. EPARs did not consistently explain the nature of the pivotal trial endpoints supporting authorisations, whether surrogate endpoints were validated or not, or describe the endpoints to be reported in the confirmatory postmarketing studies. Our study has limitations: we may have overlooked relevant validation studies; the findings apply to 2 expedited pathways and may not be generalisable to products authorised through the standard assessment pathway. CONCLUSIONS: The pivotal trial evidence supporting marketing authorisations for products granted CMA or AA was based dominantly on nonvalidated surrogate endpoints. EPARs and summary product characteristic documents, including patient information leaflets, need to state consistently the nature and limitations of endpoints in pivotal trials supporting expedited authorisations so that prescribers and patients appreciate shortcomings in the evidence about actual clinical benefit. For products supported by nonvalidated surrogate endpoints, postauthorisation measures to confirm clinical benefit need to be imposed by the regulator on the marketing authorisation holders.


Assuntos
Ensaios Clínicos como Assunto/métodos , Aprovação de Drogas/métodos , Determinação de Ponto Final , Projetos de Pesquisa , Estudos Transversais , Europa (Continente) , Humanos , Segurança do Paciente , Reprodutibilidade dos Testes , Medição de Risco , Fatores de Tempo , Resultado do Tratamento , Fluxo de Trabalho
13.
BioDrugs ; 33(6): 603-611, 2019 Dec.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31388969

RESUMO

The current development paradigm for biosimilars required by regulators in highly regulated jurisdictions is derived from the development of novel drugs and is unnecessarily burdensome and inefficient. It requires the accumulation of data from analytical, nonclinical (including in vivo studies in some jurisdictions), and clinical studies (including powered efficacy studies in most cases); this paradigm is known as 'totality of evidence' (ToE) and does not admit a conclusion of biosimilarity from analytical data alone. The record of biosimilar approvals in these jurisdictions shows that no biosimilar candidate that has been found highly similar to its reference in analytical and pharmacokinetic studies has failed to be approved. We propose a new paradigm ('confirmation of sufficient likeness', CSL) that emphasizes the demonstration of analytical resemblance between the biosimilar candidate and its reference, and permits the conclusion of biosimilarity upon this basis. CSL does not entail bridging studies between reference products, in vivo nonclinical studies, or powered efficacy studies and is, therefore, substantially more efficient than ToE while maintaining equivalent scientific rigor. Such efficiency will contribute to the attractiveness as well as the sustainability of biosimilars as a therapeutic modality.


Assuntos
Medicamentos Biossimilares/uso terapêutico , Aprovação de Drogas/métodos , Humanos
15.
Chin Clin Oncol ; 8(3): 24, 2019 Jun.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31311278

RESUMO

Cancer drug development is proceeding at a rapid pace, with drug approvals in oncology outpacing the other disease indications. With high population growth and economic development of Asian countries, access to cancer drugs becomes a paramount necessity. Approval of these drugs is dependent on establishing their safety and efficacy in populations living in these countries. Ethnic and racial differences in drug pharmacokinetics, or drug receptor sensitivities may lead to differences in drug responses between populations. These differences may be due to intrinsic or extrinsic factors, and understanding of the magnitude of these differences and their etiologies is important. One key pharmacogenetic reason for ethnic variability of drug response arises from the different allelic frequencies of polymorphic drug-metabolising enzyme genes, resulting in altered drug disposition. Using race or ethnicity as a "biomarker" for pharmacotherapeutics is fraught with issues as they are difficult to define scientifically, and are considered more social constructs. Nonetheless, studying the genetics of ethno-geographical variability of drug response will allow genetic biomarkers to be uncovered, which would greatly facilitate precision medicine, and should justify broadening the involvement and accrual of patients from global diverse populations during the early phases of drug development for an oncology drug.


Assuntos
Aprovação de Drogas/métodos , Desenvolvimento de Medicamentos/métodos , Farmacogenética/métodos , Grupos Étnicos , Humanos
17.
BMC Med ; 17(1): 117, 2019 06 17.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-31203816

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Postmarketing commitments are clinical studies that pharmaceutical companies agree to conduct at the time of FDA approval, but which are not required by statute or regulation. As FDA increasingly adopts a lifecycle evaluation process, greater emphasis will be placed on postmarket evidence as a component of therapeutic evaluation. Therefore, the objectives of this study were to determine how often postmarketing commitments agreed upon by pharmaceutical companies at first FDA approval lead to new clinical trials and to establish the characteristics and rates of completion and dissemination of postmarketing commitments. METHODS: For new drugs and biologics approved in 2009-2012, we used public FDA documents, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Scopus, to determine postmarketing commitments and their characteristics known at the time of FDA approval; number subject to reporting requirements, for which FDA is required to make study status information available to the public ("506B studies"), and their statuses; and rates of registration and results reporting on ClinicalTrials.gov and publication in peer-reviewed journals for all clinical trials. RESULTS: Among 110 novel drugs and biologics approved by the FDA between 2009 and 2012, 61 (55.5%) had at least one postmarketing commitment at the time of first approval. Of 331 total postmarketing commitments, 33 (10.0%) were for new clinical trials; 27 of these were 506B studies subject to public reporting requirements, of which 12 (44.4%) did not have a recent (i.e., up-to-date) or closed (i.e., fulfilled or released) status provided publicly by the FDA. Although two postmarketing commitments were insufficiently described in FDA records to perform searches on ClinicalTrials.gov, nearly all (28, 90.3%) of the 31 remaining postmarketing commitments for new clinical trials were registered on ClinicalTrials.gov. Among the registered trials, 23 (23 of 28, 82.1%) were classified as completed or terminated, of which 22 (95.7%) had reported results. When considering all 29 completed or terminated clinical trials, registered or unregistered on ClinicalTrials.gov, only half (14, 48.3%) were published in peer-reviewed journals. CONCLUSIONS: While only 15% of postmarketing commitments agreed to by pharmaceutical companies at the time of FDA approval were for new clinical trials, these trials were nearly always registered with reported results on ClinicalTrials.gov. However, only half were published, and despite FDA public reporting requirements, recent status information was often unavailable for 506B studies.


Assuntos
Aprovação de Drogas/métodos , United States Food and Drug Administration/normas , Estudos Transversais , Humanos , Estados Unidos
18.
Sanid. mil ; 75(2): 94-97, abr.-jun. 2019.
Artigo em Espanhol | IBECS | ID: ibc-183711

RESUMO

Se reseñan los medicamentos evaluados y con dictamen positivo por comisión de expertos de la Agencia Española de Medicamentos y Productos Sanitarios o de la Agencia Europea del Medicamento hechos públicos en diciembre de 2018, enero y febrero de 2019, y considerados de mayor interés para el profesional sanitario. Se trata de opiniones técnicas positivas que son previas a la autorización y puesta en el mercado del medicamento


The drugs assessed by the Spanish Agency for Medicines and Health Products or European Medicines Agency made public in December 2018, January and February of 2019 , and considered of interest to the healthcare professional, are reviewed. These are positive technical reports prior to the authorization and placing on the market of the product


Assuntos
Humanos , Avaliação de Medicamentos/métodos , Aprovação de Drogas/métodos , Avaliação de Medicamentos/instrumentação , Analgésicos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA