1
|
Cai Y, Sui L, Wang J, Qian W, Peng Y, Gong L, Wu W, Gao Y. Post-marketing surveillance framework of cell and gene therapy products in the European Union, the United States, Japan, South Korea and China: a comparative study. BMC Med 2024; 22:421. [PMID: 39334246 PMCID: PMC11438358 DOI: 10.1186/s12916-024-03637-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/24/2023] [Accepted: 09/13/2024] [Indexed: 09/30/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Cell and gene therapy products (CGTPs) often receive accelerated approvals, lacking comprehensive long-term safety and efficacy data, which can raise significant safety concerns. This research aims to study the post-marketing surveillance (PMS) of CGTPs in the European Union (EU), the United States (US), Japan, South Korea, and China, to offer insights for the development of a secure and standardized post-marketing regulatory framework for CGTPs. METHODS Related regulations and the implementation effect of PMS for approved CGTPs were studied searching PubMed, CNKI, and the official websites of the European Medicines Agency, the US Food and Drug Administration, Japan's Pharmaceuticals and Medical Device Agency, South Korea's Ministry of Food and Drug Safety, and the National Medical Products Administration of China. RESULTS Compared to those in China, the guidelines of PMS for CGTPs in the EU, the US, Japan, and South Korea was more comprehensive. Notably, the EU had dedicated regulations and supporting guidelines of PMS. Of the 26 CGTPs approved in the EU, 88% were under additional monitoring, 38% received conditional marketing authorization, and 12% were authorized under exceptional circumstances, with 77% designated as orphan drugs. The US had released 34 guidelines specifically for CGTPs which, forming the foundation of post-marketing risk management. Among the 27 CGTPs approved in the US, 22% were required to perform risk evaluation and mitigation strategies, 37% added black box warnings in the package inserts, 63% mandated to post-marketing requirements, and 15% subject to post-marketing commitments. In Japan, stringent supervision measures encompassing all-case surveillance (79%) and re-examination (53%) were applied to the 19 approved CGTPs, with 21% approved through conditional and time-limited approval. The PMS for CGTPs in South Korea, mainly included PSUR, re-examination, and re-evaluation. China had introduced several relevant regulations, which consisted of general statements and lacked detailed guidance. CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrates that the regulatory policies of PMS for CGTPs in the EU, the US, Japan, and South Korea were comprehensive. The implementation of PMS for CGTPs in the EU, the US, and Japan was well developed. This knowledge holds valuable insights for China's future learning and development in this field.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yuxin Cai
- Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Regulatory Science, School of Pharmacy, Fudan University, Shanghai, 201206, China
| | - Lijuan Sui
- Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Regulatory Science, School of Pharmacy, Fudan University, Shanghai, 201206, China
| | - Jingjing Wang
- Department of Rheumatology, Renji Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine, Shanghai, 200001, China
| | - Weilin Qian
- Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Regulatory Science, School of Pharmacy, Fudan University, Shanghai, 201206, China
| | - Yeheng Peng
- Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Regulatory Science, School of Pharmacy, Fudan University, Shanghai, 201206, China
| | - Luyao Gong
- Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Regulatory Science, School of Pharmacy, Fudan University, Shanghai, 201206, China
| | - Weijia Wu
- Center for Health Policy Studies, Zhejiang University School of Public Health, Hangzhou, 310058, China
| | - Yuan Gao
- Department of Clinical Pharmacy and Regulatory Science, School of Pharmacy, Fudan University, Shanghai, 201206, China.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Stević I, Janković SM, Georgiev AM, Marinković V, Lakić D. Factors associated with hematological adverse reactions of drugs authorized via the centralized procedure. Sci Rep 2024; 14:9074. [PMID: 38643204 PMCID: PMC11032331 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-59710-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/22/2023] [Accepted: 04/15/2024] [Indexed: 04/22/2024] Open
Abstract
Serious hematological adverse drug reactions (HADRs) may lead to or prolong hospitalization and even cause death. The aim of this study was to determine the regulatory factors associated with HADRs caused by drugs that were authorized up to July 2023 by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and to evaluate the frequency of HADRs. Using a cross-sectional approach, the type and frequency of HADRs were collected from the Summaries of Product Characteristics of Drugs Authorized by the EMA and analyzed within proprietary, nonproprietary, and biosimilar/biological frameworks. Multivariate statistical analysis was used to investigate the associations of generic status, biosimilar status, conditional approval, exceptional circumstances, accelerated assessment, orphan drug status, years on the market, administration route, and inclusion on the Essential Medicines List (EML) with HADRs. In total, 54.78% of proprietary drugs were associated with HADRs at any frequency, while anemia, leucopenia, and thrombocytopenia were observed in approximately 36% of the patients. The predictors of any HADR, anemia, and thrombocytopenia of any frequency are generic status, biosimilar status, and inclusion on the EML, while the only protective factor is the administration route. Biosimilars and their originator biologicals have similar frequencies of HADRs; the only exception is somatropin. Knowledge of the regulatory factors associated with HADRs could help clinicians address monitoring issues when new drugs are introduced for the treatment of patients.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ivana Stević
- Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia.
| | | | | | | | - Dragana Lakić
- Faculty of Pharmacy, University of Belgrade, Belgrade, Serbia
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Grupstra RJ, Goedecke T, Scheffers J, Strassmann V, Gardarsdottir H. Review of Studies Evaluating Effectiveness of Risk Minimization Measures Assessed by the European Medicines Agency Between 2016 and 2021. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2023; 114:1285-1292. [PMID: 37634124 DOI: 10.1002/cpt.3034] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/12/2023] [Accepted: 08/16/2023] [Indexed: 08/28/2023]
Abstract
The European Medicines Agency (EMA) supervises medicines' safe and effective use throughout the product's life cycle by, for example, monitoring the implementation of risk minimization measures (RMMs). Limited information is available on factors associated with effectiveness of RMMs. This study reviews post-authorization safety studies (PASS) evaluating the effectiveness of RMMs assessed by the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) between 2016 and 2021. PASS assessment reports finalized by PRAC between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2021, were compiled from non-public EMA databases and PASS characteristics were extracted. Of the 93 PASS included, 62.4% aimed to measure healthcare professionals' awareness, knowledge, and behavior regarding RMMs. There were 67.7% of the 93 PASS that used primary data, 24.7% used secondary data sources, and 7.5% used both. A cross-sectional study design was most frequently applied (77.4%), followed by a cohort study design (29.0%). Nearly 40% of the included PASS did not render a conclusion on RMM effectiveness. Of the 60% that did render a conclusion, 82.1% were deemed effective. Only minor differences in characteristics were found when stratified by outcome (i.e., effective RMM, ineffective RMM, and no conclusion on RMM effectiveness). To conclude, 4 out of 10 PASS assessing impact of RMMs did not render a conclusion on RMM effectiveness. No clear differences in PASS characteristics were found in relation to their outcomes, indicating that additional research is needed to understand better the underlying reasons for PASS being inconclusive.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Renske J Grupstra
- Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Science, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | | | - Jet Scheffers
- Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Science, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | | | - Helga Gardarsdottir
- Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Science, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
- Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
- Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Essink SCM, Zomerdijk IM, Straus SMJM, Gardarsdottir H, De Bruin ML. Duration of Effectiveness Evaluation of Additional Risk Minimisation Measures for Centrally Authorised Medicinal Products in the EU Between 2012 and 2021. Drug Saf 2023; 46:1007-1020. [PMID: 37658281 PMCID: PMC10584707 DOI: 10.1007/s40264-023-01341-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 07/26/2023] [Indexed: 09/03/2023]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION In studies evaluating the effectiveness of additional risk minimisation measures (aRMMs), the need for speed must be properly balanced with the quality of the study. We assessed the duration of aRMM effectiveness evaluations, using additional pharmacovigilance activities, for centrally authorised medicinal products in the European Union. METHODS We established a cohort of medicinal products with aRMMs at marketing authorisation (MA) that were centrally authorised from July 2012-December 2021 using the European Public Assessment Reports. Evaluation studies were identified from the Risk Management Plans at the time of MA. Subsequently, we retrieved protocols, final study reports, Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) assessment reports, and PRAC minutes. We calculated the probability of completing an effectiveness evaluation within 60 months after MA using time-to-event analyses. Besides, we compared the planned final report with the actual final report date. RESULTS We identified 134 medicinal products authorised with aRMMs, of which almost half (n = 63, 47.0%) had an effectiveness evaluation study. The probability of an evaluation for a medicinal product being completed within 60 months after MA was 20.7% (95% CI 6.8-32.6). Regarding study design, the probability of completing a study was higher for cross-sectional studies when compared to cohort studies (p = 0.002). Moreover, 81.0% of studies were delayed when compared to their planned final report date. CONCLUSION The probability of completing an aRMM effectiveness evaluation at time for renewal of the MA was only one in five. Furthermore, estimates of the duration of studies around MA are too optimistic, with the majority being delayed.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sharon C M Essink
- Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
- Department of Pharmacovigilance, Medicines Evaluation Board, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Inge M Zomerdijk
- Department of Pharmacovigilance, Medicines Evaluation Board, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Sabine M J M Straus
- Department of Pharmacovigilance, Medicines Evaluation Board, Utrecht, The Netherlands
- Department of Medical Informatics, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Helga Gardarsdottir
- Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands
- Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
- Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland
| | - Marie L De Bruin
- Division of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Dharmani C, Wang E, Salas M, McCabe C, Diggs A, Choi Y, Jiang J, Keedy VL. Turalio risk evaluation and mitigation strategy for treatment of tenosynovial giant cell tumor: framework and experience. Future Oncol 2022; 18:1595-1607. [PMID: 35105158 DOI: 10.2217/fon-2021-1475] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/20/2023] Open
Abstract
For drugs with enhanced serious safety risks, Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) may be required. Pexidartinib is approved for treatment of adult symptomatic tenosynovial giant cell tumor (TGCT) associated with severe morbidity or functional limitations and not amenable to improvement with surgery. Its approval was conditional on its prescription via a mandatory REMS due to serious and potentially fatal liver injury seen in clinical trials. Turalio® REMS aims to mitigate this risk by ensuring provider education on pexidartinib use and required REMS components, prescriber adherence to baseline and periodic monitoring, and enrolling patients in a registry to further assess safe use and acute, chronic and irreversible hepatotoxicity. Through Turalio REMS, benefits of treating patients with pexidartinib may be preserved.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Charles Dharmani
- Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. 211, Mt. Airy Rd., Basking Ridge, NJ 07920, USA
| | - Eric Wang
- Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. 211, Mt. Airy Rd., Basking Ridge, NJ 07920, USA
| | - Maribel Salas
- Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. 211, Mt. Airy Rd., Basking Ridge, NJ 07920, USA
| | - Colleen McCabe
- Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center 2220 Pierce Avenue, 777 Preston Research Building, Nashville, TN 37232, USA
| | - Alvileen Diggs
- Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. 211, Mt. Airy Rd., Basking Ridge, NJ 07920, USA
| | - Youngsook Choi
- Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. 211, Mt. Airy Rd., Basking Ridge, NJ 07920, USA
| | - Jason Jiang
- Daiichi Sankyo, Inc. 211, Mt. Airy Rd., Basking Ridge, NJ 07920, USA
| | - Vicki L Keedy
- Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center 2220 Pierce Avenue, 777 Preston Research Building, Nashville, TN 37232, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Comment on: "Proposals for Engaging Patients and Healthcare Professionals in Risk Minimisation from an Analysis of Stakeholder Input to the EU Valproate Assessment Using the Novel Analysing Stakeholder Safety Engagement Tool (ASSET)". Drug Saf 2021; 44:1007-1009. [PMID: 34324173 DOI: 10.1007/s40264-021-01101-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 07/04/2021] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
|
7
|
Authors' Reply to Braillon and Martin's Comment on "Proposals for Engaging Patients and Healthcare Professionals in Risk Minimisation from an Analysis of Stakeholder Input to the EU Valproate Assessment using the Novel Analysing Stakeholder Safety Engagement Tool (ASSET)". Drug Saf 2021; 44:1011-1013. [PMID: 34324172 DOI: 10.1007/s40264-021-01096-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 07/04/2021] [Indexed: 10/20/2022]
|