Alphastrahler Radium-223-Dichlorid

Trials and tribulations of antibiotic development

What’s the Latest on Acrylamide?

The EMA Framework of Collaboration With Academic Stakeholders.

IntroductionThe efficacy of pharmaceuticals is most often demonstrated by randomised controlled trials (RCTs); however, in some cases, regulatory applications lack RCT evidence.ObjectiveTo investigate the number and type of these approvals...

To clarify the rationales of delay or difference in the review of new drug applications among regulatory authorities for new drugs, those first approved in the world being in Japan. Among 80 new drugs first approved in Japan from 2008 to 2019, we identified those subsequently approved in the USA or Europe. Significant delays in approval time (boxplot outliers) and the rationales for the delays were assessed among the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA), the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Of the 80 Japan-first approvals, 25 and 24 were approved in the USA and Europe, respectively, and their median approval times in Japan, the USA and Europe were 285, 334 and 477 days, respectively. Significant delays were identified for pirfenidone (1806 days, FDA), alogliptin benzoate (1856 days, FDA), insulin degludec (1457 days, FDA) and romosozumab (750 days, PMDA; 994 days, FDA; 748 days, EMA). Due to concerns about cardiovascular risk, alogliptin benzoate and insulin degludec were requested for additional clinical trials by the FDA, and romosozumab required a much longer review period than the standard approval time in all three regions. Among the new drugs significantly delayed in approval time in Japan, the USA or Europe, there were some differences in the requirements, the participating regions and the assessment of clinical trials. The regulatory views on the cardiovascular risk also differed among the three regions. These divergences may be associated with the differences in approval histories.

There is talk of regulatory collaboration worldwide to protect public health and allow patients timely access to medicines. Here, we present the reality of the collaboration between the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). This takes the form of near daily interactions, which may be less known outside of regulatory agencies. We present a review of what we call clusters, which involve the EMA, the FDA, and many other agencies under the umbrella of confidentiality arrangements. Through a survey of participants, we identified about 30 clusters of variable composition; these allow for the exchange of information and discussion among experts of applying regulatory science to common challenges in global drug development at every phase of its lifecycle and facilitate global medicines development.

The Reply

Overcoming resistance.

Improving oncology biosimilar launches in the EU, the USA, and Japan: an updated Policy Review from the Southern Network on Adverse Reactions.

Differences in the on-label cancer indications of medicinal products between Europe and the USA.

Use of Real-world Data for New Drug Applications and Line Extensions

The diagnosis of idiopathic short stature (ISS) refers to children who are considerably shorter than average without any identified medical reason. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorised marketing of recombinant human growth hormone (hGH) for ISS in 2003, while the European Medicines Agency (EMA) refused it in 2007. This paper examines the arguments for these decisions as detailed in selected FDA and EMA documents. It combines argumentative analysis with an approach to policy analysis called ‘What’s the problem represented to be’. It argues that the FDA presents its approval as an argument for equity of access to the treatment (given that hGH was already authorised for other indications), describing short stature as a potential disadvantage, and assuming that height normalisation is a clinically meaningful result. The EMA, instead, refuses marketing authorisation with an argument that there is an imbalance of risks and benefits, describing ISS as a healthy condition, and arguing that hGH should provide some psychosocial and/or quality of life benefits to children with ISS other than height gain. This paper then discusses how these arguments could be read through different models of disability, particularly through the medical model of disability and the relational, experiential, and cultural understandings of disability.

The pharmaceutical industry is vital for healthcare advancement through innovative medications, improving lives. A substantial challenge is "Drug lag," hindering patient access and increasing disease adjusted life years burdens. We aim to examine drug lag for Iran Food and Drug Administration (IFDA) approved drugs versus US Food & Drug Administration (FDA), European Medicines Agency (EMA), and Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA) over 2001 to 2021. We reviewed new molecular entities within this period, using descriptive statistics in Excel 2019. Drug lag is assessed from relative and absolute perspectives, considering approval gaps and annual rates. Among 710 FDA-approved drugs, 410 received EMA approval, 344 from PMDA, and 148 from IFDA. For 148 IFDA and FDA-approved drugs, the maximum drug lag was 237 months. The mean relative drug lag was 65.18 ± 61.56 months. Compared to EMA (112 drugs), the maximum lag was 257 months, with a mean relative lag of 70.29 ± 53.67 months. With PMDA (127 drugs), the maximum lag was 253 months, with a mean relative lag of 38.23 ± 60.57 months. Iran faces significant drug lag compared to developed countries' regulatory bodies, limiting patient access to innovative treatments. Addressing this issue is crucial for timely drug access, reducing disease burdens. Further research and policy interventions are needed to mitigate drug lag's impact on Iran healthcare landscape.

The expiry of patent of biologic medicines emerged the development and manufacturing of biosimilar products worldwide. A number of biologic medicines have successfully been developed and approved over the last one and half decades, enlightening the lives of patients globally. According to the European Medicines Agency (EMA), biosimilar product can be defined as a biological medicine that is highly similar to another biological medicine that has already been authorized for use. Biological medicines contain active substances from a biological source, for example, living cells or organisms (human, animals and microorganisms: bacteria or yeast) and are often manufactured by cutting-edge technology. Most of the biological medicines in current clinical use comprise of active substances made of proteins. Biopharmaceuticals contain a wide-range of products such as vaccines, immunoglobulins, monoclonal antibodies, cell and gene therapy products. The EMA led the way (well ahead of the Food and Drug Administration in the US) in evolving the biosimilar idea, and the type of science-based regulatory framework required to ensure high-quality, safe, and effective biosimilar medicines; the provisions for approval of biosimilars have been in place in Europe since the year 2005. Under these provisions, Omnitrope® (Somatropin-Sandoz-Novartis) was approved by the EMA in the year 2006 as the world’s first biosimilar medicine; the US Food and Drug Administration (US-FDA) approved Zarxio^TM (Filgrastim-Sandoz) for all indications included in the reference product’s label in March 2015. Zarxio^TM (Sandoz-Novartis) is the first biosimilar product approved by US-FDA.

IntroductionThe treatment landscape for metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) continues to evolve. Sipuleucel-T was the first immunotherapy approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat asymptomatic or minimally symptomatic mCRPC. The androgen receptor-targeting agents (ARTAs) abiraterone acetate and enzalutamide were initially approved to treat mCRPC. Looking at chemotherapy-naïve men with mCRPC, we compared survival outcomes between the sipuleucel-T + ARTA cohort (men who received either sipuleucel-T or an ARTA in the first line, and then the other in the second line within 6 months) and the ARTA monotherapy cohort (men who only received ARTA monotherapy).MethodsThis retrospective cohort analysis used longitudinal, adjudicated claims data from the US Medicare Fee-for-Service 100% research identifiable dataset that includes both urologic and oncologic practice settings. Eligible men started their first mCRPC treatment with either sipuleucel-T or ARTA in either 2014 or 2015 and had continuous Medicare Parts A, B, and D eligibility for the subsequent 3 years. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression model was used to analyze overall survival (OS), both overall and by index year, and to control for differences.ResultsThe sipuleucel-T + ARTA and ARTA monotherapy cohorts comprised 773 and 4642 men, respectively, with different characteristics at treatment start. The most commonly used ARTAs were enzalutamide in the former and abiraterone in the latter cohort. Median OS was 30.4 and 14.3 months in the sipuleucel-T + ARTA and ARTA monotherapy cohorts, respectively, with the sipuleucel-T + ARTA cohort having a 28.3% lower risk of death than the ARTA monotherapy cohort (hazard ratio 0.717; 95% CI 0.648, 0.793; p < 0.01).ConclusionsThis real-world study of mCRPC treatment indicates that men receiving sipuleucel-T and ARTAs had a longer median OS than patients receiving treatment with an ARTA alone, suggesting that leveraging mechanisms of action can be beneficial in treating patients with mCRPC.Supplementary InformationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s12325-022-02085-6.