The European Union's Pediatric Regulation has strengthened the development of medicines for children in Europe through its system of obligations and rewards. However, opportunities remain to further optimize pediatric medicine developments, notably in relation to the implementation of the regulatory framework. This paper therefore describes bottlenecks identified by industry that occur during the medicinal development process, including those relating to the scientific advice process, pediatric investigation plan (PIP) development, compliance checks, and study submissions, and offers some considerations and insights to address these. Considerations, which are workable within the current legislative framework, focus on an integrated scientific discussion, optimization of PIP procedures and compliance checks, and an alignment of study‐reporting requirements.
Background: Mobility is defined as the ability to independently move around the environment and is a key contributor to quality of life, especially in older age. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of mobility as a decisive outcome for the marketing authorisation of drugs by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Methods: Fifteen therapeutic areas which commonly lead to relevant mobility impairments and alter the quantity and/or the quality of walking were selected: two systemic neurological diseases, four conditions primarily affecting exercise capacity, seven musculoskeletal diseases and two conditions representing sensory impairments. European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) published by the EMA until September 2020 were examined for mobility endpoints included in their 'main studies'. Clinical study registries and primary scientific publications for these studies were also reviewed. Results: Four hundred and eighty-four EPARs yielded 186 relevant documents with 402 'main studies'. The EPARs reported 153 primary and 584 secondary endpoints which considered mobility; 70 different assessment tools (38 patient-reported outcomes, 13 clinician-reported outcomes, 8 performance outcomes and 13 composite endpoints) were used. Only 15.7% of those tools distinctly informed on patients' mobility status. Out of 402, 105 (26.1%) of the 'main studies' did not have any mobility assessment. Furthermore, none of these studies included a digital mobility outcome. Conclusions: For conditions with a high impact on mobility, mobility assessment was given little consideration in the marketing authorisation of drugs by the EMA. Where mobility impairment was considered to be a relevant outcome, questionnaires or composite scores susceptible to reporting biases were predominantly used. ; S.J., M.W., and R.T. are partly supported by the Robert Bosch Stiftung Stuttgart. M.W. reports grants from HORIZON2020 IMI No. 820820, during the conduct of the study. D.S. reports grants from HORIZON2020 IMI No. 820820, during the conduct of the study. M.C. reports personal fees from Takeda Pharmaceuticals, during the conduct of the study; personal fees from Takeda Pharmaceuticals, outside the submitted work. J.K. reports grants from HORIZON2020 IMI No. 820820, during the conduct of the study. J.G.A. reports grants from HORIZON2020 IMI No. 820820, and from AstraZeneca, Chiesi, Esteve, outside the submitted work. W.M. receives or received funding from the European Union, the German Federal Ministry of Education of Research, Michael J. Fox Foundation, Robert Bosch Foundation, Neuroalliance, Lundbeck and Janssen. He received speaker honoraria from Abbvie, Bayer, GlaxoSmithKline, Licher MT, Rölke Pharma and UCB, was invited to Advisory Boards of Abbvie, Biogen, Lundbeck and Market Access & Pricing Strategy GmbH, and is an advisory board member of the Critical Path for Parkinson's Consortium. He serves as the co-chair of the MDS Technology Task Force. M.P. reports grants from HORIZON2020 IMI No. 820820, outside the submitted work. M.S. is supported by the Robert Bosch Stiftung Stuttgart and reports grants from HORIZON2020 IMI 2 Mobilise D, during the conduct of the study, and grants and non-financial support from Green Cross WellBeing Co. Ltd., Gilead Sciences Inc., Robert Bosch GmbH, and CORAT Therapeutics GmbH, as well as other from Agena Bioscience GmbH, outside the submitted work. C.B. disclosed consultation from E. Lilly and speaker fees from Amgen, Nutricia and Pfizer reports grants from HORIZON2020 IMI No. 820820, during the conduct of the study.
The understanding of the benefit risk profile, and relative effectiveness of a new medicinal product, are initially established in a circumscribed patient population through clinical trials. There may be uncertainties associated with the new medicinal product that cannot be, or do not need to be resolved before launch. Postlicensing or postlaunch evidence generation (PLEG) is a term for evidence generated after the licensure or launch of a medicinal product to address these remaining uncertainties. PLEG is thus part of the continuum of evidence development for a medicinal product, complementing earlier evidence, facilitating further elucidation of a product's benefit/risk profile, value proposition, and/or exploring broader aspects of disease management and provision of healthcare. PLEG plays a role in regulatory decision making, not only in the European Union but also in other jurisdictions including the USA and Japan. PLEG is also relevant for downstream decision‐making by health technology assessment bodies and payers. PLEG comprises studies of different designs, based on data collected in observational or experimental settings. Experience to date in the European Union has indicated a need for improvements in PLEG. Improvements in design and research efficiency of PLEG could be addressed through more systematic pursuance of Scientific Advice on PLEG with single or multiple decision makers. To date, limited information has been available on the rationale, process or timing for seeking PLEG advice from regulators or health technology assessment bodies. This article sets out to address these issues and to encourage further uptake of PLEG advice.
