Suchergebnisse

Background: In the European Union (EU), a medicinal product needs a marketing authorization (MA) to be placed on the market. The EU's medicinal products' legislative framework allows for a reduced application for medicines outside their data exclusivity. One such type of application is the well-established use (WEU) medicinal product application (i.e. bibliographic applications). Recently, these MA applications have been subject to arbitration procedures at the European Medicines Agency's Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) because of disagreements between member states during the authorisation process. This paper reflects on these cases and highlights their potential impact on future WEU applications. Methods: Decisions adopted by the European Commission on WEU applications between 2009 and 2012 were identified from the EU Community Register on medicinal products for human use. Subsequently, decisions were reviewed to understand the potential serious risk to public health (PSRPH) that EU regulators raised during MA application procedures. Results: Four decisions were adopted by the EU commission between 2009 and 2012. Three followed disagreements between member states on PSRPH grounds. One decision was the outcome of a centralised marketing authorisation application. Six key messages were identified from the four cases reviewed and presented. Conclusion: A guideline on WEU to implement the technical specifications to fulfil Annex I of Directive 2001/83/EC for MA applications is not available. Thus, reflections on recent decisions on WEU applications provide scientific direction to the industry as well as the medicinal product regulators on the documentation required to successfully file and obtain a WEU MA. ; peer-reviewed

The relevance of biological therapies for an increasing number of conditions is on the rise. Following the expiry of the initial period of market exclusivity, many of these successful therapies have seen the arrival of biosimilars on the market. The clear identification of the precise medicine responsible for an adverse drug reaction (ADR) report is an important element for pharmacovigilance, allowing timely detection of potential product-specific safety signals. We looked at the identifiability of biologicals up to the level of commercial product name in ADR reports received from European clinical practice between 2011 and December 2019. A good level of identification (91.5%) was observed overall, but at the same time a downward trend was observed in the last 5 years. This reduction in the level of identifiability of biological products (originators and biosimilars) at the commercial name level in general was driven by five widely used substances, whereas the identification of all other biologics stayed consistent over time (at over 90%). We observed that those five substances were used mostly within oncology. The introduction of the first biosimilar in the market did not appear to affect their identifiability. These results show that although the general level of identification at the commercial product name level in ADRs in Europe is robust and generally stable over time, decreasing trends can be down to a few commonly used substances, which need to be monitored to reverse the trend.

Osteoarthritis is a syndrome affecting a variety of patient profiles. A European Society for Clinical and Economic Aspects of Osteoporosis and Osteoarthritis and the European Union Geriatric Medicine Society working meeting explored the possibility of identifying different patient profiles in osteoarthritis. The risk factors for the development of osteoarthritis include systemic factors (e.g., age, sex, obesity, genetics, race, and bone density) and local biomechanical factors (e.g., obesity, sport, joint injury, and muscle weakness); most also predict disease progression, particularly joint injury, malalignment, and synovitis/effusion. The characterization of patient profiles should help to better orientate research, facilitate trial design, and define which patients are the most likely to benefit from treatment. There are a number of profile candidates. Generalized, polyarticular osteoarthritis and local, monoarticular osteoarthritis appear to be two different profiles; the former is a feature of osteoarthritis co-morbid with inflammation or the metabolic syndrome, while the latter is more typical of post-trauma osteoarthritis, especially in cases with severe malalignment. Other biomechanical factors may also define profiles, such as joint malalignment, loss of meniscal function, and ligament injury. Early- and late-stage osteoarthritis appear as separate profiles, notably in terms of treatment response. Finally, there is evidence that there are two separate profiles related to lesions in the subchondral bone, which may determine benefit from bone-active treatments. Decisions on appropriate therapy should be made considering clinical presentation, underlying pathophysiology, and stage of disease. Identification of patient profiles may lead to more personalized healthcare, with more targeted treatment for osteoarthritis.