Search results

BACKGROUND: Finding new therapeutic uses for existing medicines could lead to safe, affordable and timely new treatment options for patients with high medical needs. However, due to a lack of economic incentives, pharmaceutical developers are rarely interested to invest in research with approved medicines, especially when they are out of basic patent or regulatory protection. Consequently, potential new uses for these medicines are mainly studied in independent clinical trials initiated and led by researchers from academia, research institutes, or collaborative groups. Yet, additional financial support is needed to conduct expensive phase III clinical trials to confirm the results from exploratory research. METHODS: In this study, scientific and grey literature was searched to identify and evaluate new mechanisms for funding clinical trials with repurposed medicines. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 16 European stakeholders with expertise in clinical research, funding mechanisms and/or drug repurposing between November 2018 and February 2019 to consider the future perspectives of applying new funding mechanisms. RESULTS: Traditional grant funding awarded by government and philanthropic organisations or companies is well known and widely implemented in all research fields. In contrast, only little research has focused on the application potential of newer mechanisms to fund independent clinical research, such as social impact bonds, crowdfunding or public-private partnerships. Interviewees stated that there is a substantial need for additional financial support in health research, especially in areas where there is limited commercial interest. However, the implementation of new funding mechanisms is facing several practical and financial challenges, such as a lack of expertise and guidelines, high transaction costs and difficulties to measure health outcomes. Furthermore, interviewees highlighted the need for increased collaboration and centralisation at a European and international level to make ...

Repurposing of medicines has gained a lot of interest from the research community in recent years as it could offer safe, timely, and affordable new treatment options for cancer patients with high unmet needs. Increasingly, questions arise on how new uses will be translated into clinical practice, especially in case of marketed medicinal products that are out of basic patent or regulatory protection. The aim of this study was to portray the regulatory framework relevant for making repurposed medicines available to cancer patients in Europe and propose specific policy recommendations to address the current regulatory and financial barriers. We outlined two routes relevant to the clinical adoption of a repurposed medicine. First, a new indication can be approved, and thus brought on-label, via the marketing authorization procedures established in European and national legislation. Such procedures initiate a detailed and independent assessment of the quality and the benefit-risk balance of a medicinal product in a specific indication, benefiting both prescribers and patients as it reassures them that the scientific evidence is robust. However, the process of marketing authorization for new therapeutic indications entails a high administrative burden and significant costs while the return-on-investment for the pharmaceutical industry is expected to be low or absent for medicines that are out of basic patent and regulatory protection. Moreover, most of the repurposing research is conducted by independent or academic researchers who do not have the expertise or resources to get involved in regulatory procedures. A second option is to prescribe a medicine off-label for the new indication, which is managed at the national level in Europe. While off-label use could provide timely access to treatments for patients with urgent medical needs, it also entails important safety, liability and financial risks for patients, physicians, and society at large. In view of that, we recommend finding solutions to facilitate bringing ...

International audience ; A workshop addressing key issues in phage therapy was organized by the non-profit organization P.H.A.G.E. during the Viruses of Microbes II meeting, held in July 2012 in the Royal Military Academy, Brussels, Belgium. This report summarizes the major points that were addressed by the panel of experts from the academic, public, private and legal domains.

International audience ; A workshop addressing key issues in phage therapy was organized by the non-profit organization P.H.A.G.E. during the Viruses of Microbes II meeting, held in July 2012 in the Royal Military Academy, Brussels, Belgium. This report summarizes the major points that were addressed by the panel of experts from the academic, public, private and legal domains.

BACKGROUND: Rapid technological advancements are reshaping the conduct of clinical research. Electronic informed consent (eIC) is one of these novel advancements, allowing to interactively convey research-related information to participants and obtain their consent. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the importance of establishing a digital, long-distance relationship between research participants and researchers. However, the regulatory landscape in the European Union (EU) is diverse, posing a legal challenge to implement eIC in clinical research. Therefore, this study takes the necessary steps forward by providing an overview of the current regulatory framework in the EU, relevant to eIC. METHODS: We reviewed and analyzed the key EU regulations, such as the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Clinical Trials Regulation (CTR). We investigated the legality of eIC in several EU Member States, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. To this end, we contacted the medicines agencies of various countries to clarify the national requirements related to the implementation and use of eIC in clinical research. Our research was complemented by comparing the legal acceptance of eIC between the EU and the United States. RESULTS: In the EU, a distinction must be made between eIC for participation in clinical research and eIC for processing the participants' personal data, complying respectively with requirements laid down by the CTR and the GDPR. On a national level, countries were classified into three groups: (1) countries accepting and regulating the use of eIC, (2) countries accepting the use of eIC without explicitly regulating it, and (3) countries not accepting the use of eIC. As a result, the regulation of eIC through laws and guidelines shows a large variety among EU Member States, while in the United States, it is harmonized through the Code of Federal Regulations. CONCLUSION: Various requirements must be considered when implementing eIC in clinical research. Nevertheless, requirements across the EU ...

Background: Drug shortages are currently on the rise. In-depth investigation of the problem is necessary, however, a variety of definitions for 'drug shortages' are formulated in legislations, by different organizations, authorities, and other initiatives. For international comparison, the underlying definition for drug shortages is important to allow appropriate interpretation of national databases and the results of scientific studies. The objective is to identify the different elements which should be considered in a uniform definition for drug shortages in the European Union (EU) and to detect the different conditions for reporting drug shortages.

Funding This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement ID: GA 721421 H2020-MSCA-ITN-2016. Declaration of competing interest MJ is founder of, has shares in, and consultant to GyreOx Ltd, a company that uses marine genetic resources from areas within national jurisdiction to develop potential drug molecules. Acknowledgements Many thanks to Arianna Broggiato and Abbe Brown for helpful discussions and comments on the manuscript. Thanks also to the Marie Curie H2020 fund for supporting this research. ; Peer reviewed ; Publisher PDF

Background: In 2014, six of the top ten blockbuster medicines were monoclonal antibodies. This multibillion-dollar market with expiring patents is the main driver for the development of biosimilar mAbs. With the ever-increasing cost of healthcare and the economic pressure to reduce or sustain healthcare expenses, biosimilars could be instrumental in reducing costs for medication and increasing patient access to treatment.

The worldwide emergence of antibiotic resistances and the drying up of the antibiotic pipeline have spurred a search for alternative or complementary antibacterial therapies. Bacteriophages are bacterial viruses that have been used for almost a century to combat bacterial infections, particularly in Poland and the former Soviet Union. The antibiotic crisis has triggered a renewed clinical and agricultural interest in bacteriophages. This, combined with new scientific insights, has pushed bacteriophages to the forefront of the search for new approaches to fighting bacterial infections. But before bacteriophage therapy can be introduced into clinical practice in the European Union, several challenges must be overcome. One of these is the conceptualization and classification of bacteriophage therapy itself and the extent to which it constitutes a human medicinal product regulated under the European Human Code for Medicines (Directive 2001/83/EC). Can therapeutic products containing natural bacteriophages be categorized under the current European regulatory framework, or should this framework be adapted? Various actors in the field have discussed the need for an adapted (or entirely new) regulatory framework for the reintroduction of bacteriophage therapy in Europe. This led to the identification of several characteristics specific to natural bacteriophages that should be taken into consideration by regulators when evaluating bacteriophage therapy. One important consideration is whether bacteriophage therapy development occurs on an industrial scale or a hospital-based, patient-specific scale. More suitable regulatory standards may create opportunities to improve insights into this promising therapeutic approach. In light of this, we argue for the creation of a new, dedicated European regulatory framework for bacteriophage therapy.

The excessive and improper use of antibiotics has led to an increasing incidence of bacterial resistance. In Europe the yearly number of infections caused by multidrug resistant bacteria is more than 400.000, each year resulting in 25.000 attributable deaths. Few new antibiotics are in the pipeline of the pharmaceutical industry. Early in the 20th century, bacteriophages were described as entities that can control bacterial populations. Although bacteriophage therapy was developed and practiced in Europe and the former Soviet republics, the use of bacteriophages in clinical setting was neglected in Western Europe since the introduction of traditional antibiotics. Given the worldwide antibiotic crisis there is now a growing interest in making bacteriophage therapy available for use in modern western medicine. Despite the growing interest, access to bacteriophage therapy remains highly problematic. In this paper, we argue that the current state of affairs is morally unacceptable and that all stakeholders ( pharmaceutical industry, competent authorities, lawmakers, regulators, and politicians) have the moral duty and the shared responsibility towards making bacteriophage therapy urgently available for all patients in need.

Background: Across European countries, differences exist in biosimilar policies, leading to variations in uptake of biosimilars and divergences in savings all over Europe. Objectives: The aim of this article is to provide an overview of different initiatives and policies that may influence the uptake of biosimilars in different European countries. Recommendations will be formulated on how to create sustainable uptake. Methods: An overview of policies on biosimilars was obtained via a questionnaire, supplemented with relevant articles. Topics were organized in five themes: availability, pricing, reimbursement, demand-side policies, and recommendations to enhance uptake. Results: In all countries studied, biological medicines are available. Restrictions are mainly dependent on local organization of the healthcare system. Countries are willing to include biosimilars for reimbursement, but for commercial reasons they are not always marketed. In two thirds of countries, originator and biosimilar products may be subjected to internal reference pricing systems. Few countries have implemented specific incentives targeting physicians. Several countries are implementing pharmacist substitution; however, the scope and rules governing such substitution tend to vary between these countries. Reported educational policies tend to target primarily physicians, whereas fewer initiatives were reported for patients. Recommendations as proposed by the different country experts ranged from the need for information and communication on biosimilars to competitive pricing, more support for switching and guidance on substitution. Conclusions: Most countries have put in place specific supply-side policies for promoting access to biosimilars. To supplement these measures, we propose that investments should be made to clearly communicate on biosimilars and educate stakeholders. Especially physicians need to be informed on the entry and use of biosimilars in order to create trust. When physicians are well-informed on the treatment options, further incentives should be offered to prescribe biosimilars. Gainsharing can be used as an incentive to prescribe, dispense or use biosimilars. This approach, in combination with binding quota, may support a sustainable biosimilar market. ; peer-reviewed

Introduction: While medicine shortages are complex, their mitigation is more of a challenge. Prospective risk assessment as a means to mitigate possible shortages, has yet to be applied equally across healthcare settings. The aims of this study have been to: 1) gain insight into risk-prevention against possible medicine shortages among healthcare experts; 2) review existing strategies for minimizing patient-health risks through applied risk assessment; and 3) learn from experiences related to application in practice. Methodology: A semi-structured questionnaire focusing on medicine shortages was distributed electronically to members of the European Cooperation in Science and Technology (COST) Action 15105 (28 member countries) and to hospital pharmacists of the European Association of Hospital Pharmacists (EAHP) (including associated healthcare professionals). Their answers were subjected to both qualitative and quantitative analysis (Microsoft Office Excel 2010 and IBM SPSS Statistics®) with descriptive statistics based on the distribution of responses. Their proportional difference was tested by the chi-square test and Fisher's exact test for independence. Differences in the observed ordinal variables were tested by the Mann-Whitney or Kruskal-Wallis test. The qualitative data were tabulated and recombined with the quantitative data to observe, uncover and interpret meanings and patterns. Results: The participants (61.7%) are aware of the use of risk assessment procedures as a coping strategy for medicine shortages, and named the particular risk assessment procedure they are familiar with failure mode and effect analysis (FMEA) (26.4%), root cause analysis (RCA) (23.5%), the healthcare FMEA (HFMEA) (14.7%), and the hazard analysis and critical control point (HACCP) (14.7%). Only 29.4% report risk assessment as integrated into mitigation strategy protocols. Risk assessment is typically conducted within multidisciplinary teams (35.3%). Whereas 14.7% participants were aware of legislation stipulating risk assessment implementation in shortages, 88.2% claimed not to have reported their findings to their respective official institutions. 85.3% consider risk assessment a useful mitigation strategy. Conclusion: The study indicates a lack of systematically organized tools used to prospectively analyze clinical as well as operationalized risk stemming from medicine shortages in healthcare. There is also a lack of legal instruments and sufficient data confirming the necessity and usefulness of risk assessment in mitigating medicine shortages in Europe. © Copyright © 2020 Miljković, Godman, Kovačević, Polidori, Tzimis, Hoppe-Tichy, Saar, Antofie, Horvath, De Rijdt, Vida, Kkolou, Preece, Tubić, Peppard, Martinez, Yubero, Haddad, Rajinac, Zelić, Jenzer, Tartar, Gitler, Jeske, Davidescu, Beraud, Kuruc-Poje, Haag, Fischer, Sviestina, Ljubojević, Markestad, Vujić-Aleksić, Nežić, Crkvenčić, Linnolahti, Ašanin, Duborija-Kovačević, Bochenek, Huys and Miljković.