Suchergebnisse

Aims: To provide insights into the clinical development pathway for fixed-dose combinations (FDCs), to consider strategies, and to elucidate the path to approval by assessing the body of evidence, as summarized in the European Public Assessment Reports. Methods: The main resource was the European Public Assessment Reports for 36 FDCs, which included 239 clinical trials with 157 514 patients. The analyses focused on how prior knowledge of the active substances or combination, use of pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic modelling, and clinical trial design choice impact the size and strategy of the clinical development programme. Results: FDC products primarily comprised 2 previously approved components (21/36, 71%) and had only 1 approved combination (21/36, 71%). Utilizing previously approved active substances resulted in fewer clinical trials, arms and patients, but FDC doses studied in the clinical development programme. Furthermore, dose-finding trials were performed for less than half of FDCs consisting of 2 previously approved active substances. The standard approach to demonstrate contribution of active substances was through a factorial or single combination study. Finally, the use of pharmacokinetic modelling showed a significant decrease in the number of FDC doses studied. Conclusions: The field of FDCs seems to be on the rise, utilizing new molecular entities, prior knowledge and re-profiling drugs. However, a way to move FDC development forward might be through new regulatory and scientific paradigms, in which it is encouraged to utilize model-based approaches to develop FDCs with multiple dose levels and dose ratios for exposure-based treatment that will enable personalization.

Healthcare systems have reached a critical point regarding the question of whether biosimilar substitution should become common practice. To move the discussion forward, the study objective was to investigate the views of experts from medicines agencies and the pharmaceutical industry on the science underpinning interchangeability of biosimilars. We conducted an empirical qualitative study using semi-structured interviews informed by a cross-disciplinary approach encompassing regulatory science, law, and pharmaceutical policy. In total 25 individuals with experience within biologics participated during September 2018-August 2019. Eight participants were EU national medicines authority regulators, and 17 had pharmaceutical industry background: five from two originator-only companies, four from two companies with both biosimilar and originator products, and eight from seven biosimilar-only companies. Two analysts independently conducted inductive content analysis, resulting in data-driven themes capturing the meaning of the data. The participants reported that interchangeability was more than a scientific question of likeness between biosimilar and reference products: it also pertained to regulatory practices and trust. Participants were overall confident in the science behind exchanging biosimilar products for the reference products via switching, i.e., with physician involvement. However, their opinions differed regarding the scientific risk associated with biosimilar substitution, i.e., without physician involvement. Almost all participants saw no need for additional scientific data to support substitution. Moreover, the participants did not believe that switching studies, as required in the US, were appropriate for obtaining scientific certainty due to their small size. It is unclear why biosimilar switching is viewed as scientifically safer than substitution; therefore, we expect greater policy debate on biosimilar substitution in the near future. We urge European and UK policymakers and regulators to clarify ...

Healthcare systems have reached a critical point regarding the question of whether biosimilar substitution should become common practice. To move the discussion forward, the study objective was to investigate the views of experts from medicines agencies and the pharmaceutical industry on the science underpinning interchangeability of biosimilars. We conducted an empirical qualitative study using semi-structured interviews informed by a cross-disciplinary approach encompassing regulatory science, law, and pharmaceutical policy. In total 25 individuals with experience within biologics participated during September 2018-August 2019. Eight participants were EU national medicines authority regulators, and 17 had pharmaceutical industry background: five from two originator-only companies, four from two companies with both biosimilar and originator products, and eight from seven biosimilar-only companies. Two analysts independently conducted inductive content analysis, resulting in data-driven themes capturing the meaning of the data. The participants reported that interchangeability was more than a scientific question of likeness between biosimilar and reference products: it also pertained to regulatory practices and trust. Participants were overall confident in the science behind exchanging biosimilar products for the reference products via switching, i.e., with physician involvement. However, their opinions differed regarding the scientific risk associated with biosimilar substitution, i.e., without physician involvement. Almost all participants saw no need for additional scientific data to support substitution. Moreover, the participants did not believe that switching studies, as required in the US, were appropriate for obtaining scientific certainty due to their small size. It is unclear why biosimilar switching is viewed as scientifically safer than substitution; therefore, we expect greater policy debate on biosimilar substitution in the near future. We urge European and UK policymakers and regulators to clarify ...

Healthcare systems have reached a critical point regarding the question of whether biosimilar substitution should become common practice. To move the discussion forward, the study objective was to investigate the views of experts from medicines agencies and the pharmaceutical industry on the science underpinning interchangeability of biosimilars. We conducted an empirical qualitative study using semi-structured interviews informed by a cross-disciplinary approach encompassing regulatory science, law, and pharmaceutical policy. In total 25 individuals with experience within biologics participated during September 2018-August 2019. Eight participants were EU national medicines authority regulators, and 17 had pharmaceutical industry background: five from two originator-only companies, four from two companies with both biosimilar and originator products, and eight from seven biosimilar-only companies. Two analysts independently conducted inductive content analysis, resulting in data-driven themes capturing the meaning of the data. The participants reported that interchangeability was more than a scientific question of likeness between biosimilar and reference products: it also pertained to regulatory practices and trust. Participants were overall confident in the science behind exchanging biosimilar products for the reference products via switching, i.e., with physician involvement. However, their opinions differed regarding the scientific risk associated with biosimilar substitution, i.e., without physician involvement. Almost all participants saw no need for additional scientific data to support substitution. Moreover, the participants did not believe that switching studies, as required in the US, were appropriate for obtaining scientific certainty due to their small size. It is unclear why biosimilar switching is viewed as scientifically safer than substitution; therefore, we expect greater policy debate on biosimilar substitution in the near future. We urge European and UK policymakers and regulators to clarify ...

Healthcare systems have reached a critical point regarding the question of whether biosimilar substitution should become common practice. To move the discussion forward, the study objective was to investigate the views of experts from medicines agencies and the pharmaceutical industry on the science underpinning interchangeability of biosimilars. We conducted an empirical qualitative study using semi-structured interviews informed by a cross-disciplinary approach encompassing regulatory science, law, and pharmaceutical policy. In total 25 individuals with experience within biologics participated during September 2018–August 2019. Eight participants were EU national medicines authority regulators, and had pharmaceutical industry background: five from two originator-only companies, four from two companies with both biosimilar and originator products, and eight from seven biosimilar-only companies. Two analysts independently conducted inductive content analysis, resulting in data-driven themes capturing the meaning of the data. The participants reported that interchangeability was more than a scientific question of likeness between biosimilar and reference products: it also pertained to regulatory practices and trust. Participants were overall confident in the science behind exchanging biosimilar products for the reference products via switching, i.e., with physician involvement. However, their opinions differed regarding the scientific risk associated with biosimilar substitution, i.e., without physician involvement. Almost all participants saw no need for additional scientific data to support substitution. Moreover, the participants did not believe that switching studies, as required in the US, were appropriate for obtaining scientific certainty due to their small size. It is unclear why biosimilar switching is viewed as scientifically safer than substitution; therefore, we expect greater policy debate on biosimilar substitution in the near future. We urge European and UK policymakers and regulators to clarify their visions for biosimilar substitution; the positions of these two frontrunners are likely to influence other jurisdictions on the future of biosimilar use.

Publisher's version (útgefin grein). ; Aims: To estimate the incidence of direct oral anticoagulant drug (DOAC) use in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation and to describe user and treatment characteristics in 8 European healthcare databases representing 6 European countries. Methods: Longitudinal drug utilization study from January 2008 to December 2015. A common protocol approach was applied. Annual period incidences and direct standardisation by age and sex were performed. Dose adjustment related to change in age and by renal function as well as concomitant use of potentially interacting drugs were assessed. Results: A total of 186 405 new DOAC users (age ≥18 years) were identified. Standardized incidences varied from 1.93–2.60 and 0.11–8.71 users/10 000 (2011–2015) for dabigatran and rivaroxaban, respectively, and from 0.01–8.12 users/10 000 (2012–2015) for apixaban. In 2015, the DOAC incidence ranged from 9 to 28/10 000 inhabitants in SIDIAP (Spain) and DNR (Denmark) respectively. There were differences in population coverage among the databases. Only 1 database includes the total reference population (DNR) while others are considered a population representative sample (CPRD, BIFAP, SIDIAP, EGB, Mondriaan). They also varied in the type of drug data source (administrative, clinical). Dose adjustment ranged from 4.6% in BIFAP (Spain) to 15.6% in EGB (France). Concomitant use of interacting drugs varied between 16.4% (SIDIAP) and 70.5% (EGB). Cardiovascular comorbidities ranged from 25.4% in Mondriaan (The Netherlands) to 82.9% in AOK Nordwest (Germany). Conclusion: Overall, apixaban and rivaroxaban increased its use during the study period while dabigatran decreased. There was variability in patient characteristics such as comorbidities, potentially interacting drugs and dose adjustment. (EMA/2015/27/PH). ; The research leading to these results was conducted as part of the activities of the PE‐PV Consortium (Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance Consortium), which is a public academic partnership coordinated by the University of Utrecht. The project has received support from the European Medicines Agency under the Framework service contract (nr EMA/2015/27/PH) with regard to the reopening of competition no3. K. Janhsen (Witten/Herdecke University, Alfred‐Herrhausen‐ Straße 50, 58448 Witten, Germany (UW/H)) and B. Grave (AOK NORDWEST, Kopenhagener Straße 1, 44269 Dortmund, Germany). R. Gerlach and M. Tauscher (National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians of Bavaria, Elsenheimerstr. 39, D‐80687 Munich, Germany). The authors of the BIFAP database would like to acknowledge the excellent collaboration of the primary care general practitioners and pediatricians, and also the support of the regional governments to the database. This study is based in part on data from the BIFAP fully financed by the Spanish Agency on Medicines and Medical Devices (AEMPS). The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of the EMA (European Medicines Agency) or one of its committees or working parties, or AEMPS (Agencia Española de Medicamentos y Productos Sanitarios). ; Peer Reviewed