Ethnicity-Specific Drug Safety Data in European Medicines Agency Registration Dossiers, European Public Assessment Reports, and European and Singapore Drug Labels: Lost in Translation?

Quantifying Diversity and Representation in Pivotal Trials Leading to Marketing Authorization in Europe

BACKGROUND

Following up on a study from 2019, Tufts CSDD collected and analyzed data on demographic disparities and representation in pivotal trials supporting the marketing authorization of novel drugs and biologics approved in Europe between 2007 and 2019.

METHODS

Data were collected from products' EPAR, the EUDRACT database, and other publicly available sources, and compared to indication-specific demographic data or a census estimate. In total, data were collected on 446 drugs and 943 pivotal trials.

RESULTS

Results indicated that gender demographic data were only reported for 80.7% of pivotal trials, and that racial and ethnicity demographic data were reported less often (64.1% and 29.9% of pivotal trials, respectively). Results also indicated that non-white racial identities were under-represented by more than 20% in nearly half or more of pivotal trials.

CONCLUSIONS

Guidelines encouraging the reporting of patient demographic data are insufficient and availability of the data is problematic. The available data suggest that under-representation in pivotal trials is widespread.

Evaluation of Companion Diagnostics in Scientific Advice and Drug Marketing Authorization Applications by the European Medicines Agency

With the implementation of the new EU regulation on in vitro diagnostics (IVDR) in May 2022, notified bodies will be required to assess Companion Diagnostics (CDx). The EMA and national medicines agencies will be consulted on the performance and safety of CDx. In this paper, we report on our systematic review on how the EMA has dealt with CDx in dossiers for marketing authorization procedures, in 2017–2019, and in scientific advice procedures in 2016–2020, prior to the implementation of the new IVDR. Out of 167 medicines approved or refused by the EMA, CDx played a role for 20 medicines during assessment. Both European public assessment reports (EPARs) and the internal day 80 and day 120 assessment reports (ARs) of the EMA centralized marketing authorization procedures for these 20 medicines were analyzed in detail to determine how CDx were assessed. Likewise, in 46 of 159 cases in which scientific advice was provided, CDx were mentioned in the question-and-answer section of the scientific advice, and these were analyzed in an analogous manner. Our analysis indicates that clinical performance and analytical performance of the CDx were the most-discussed topics, being discussed 11 and seven times in the 20 EPARs and 59 and 29 times in the ARs, respectively. For scientific advice, clinical and analytical performance was discussed 65 and 22 times in the 46 retrieved mentions of scientific advice. Other aspects in relation to CDx were discussed as well, although at a lower frequency, in assessment reports and scientific advice. Overall, our analysis demonstrates that, despite the absence of an obligation from a legal point of view, EMA has gained experience on the assessment of CDx, most notably regarding its analytical and clinical performance. This experience may be useful in situations in which the EMA and national agencies of EU member states will formally be consulted by notified bodies regarding the performance and safety of CDx. In addition, the issues raised in the EPARs, ARs and scientific advice reports provide insight for applicants on aspects of CDx that need careful consideration.

Is there evidence for the racialization of pharmaceutical regulation? Systematic comparison of new drugs approved over five years in the USA and the EU

Recent decades have seen much interest in racial and ethnic differences in drug response. The most emblematic example is the heart drug BiDil, approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2005 for "self-identified blacks." Previous social science research has explored this "racialization of pharmaceutical regulation" in the USA, and discussed its implications for the "pharmaceuticalization of race" in terms of reinforcing certain taxonomic schemes and conceptualizations. Yet, little is known about the racialization of pharmaceutical regulation in the USA after BiDil, and how it compares with the situation in the EU, where political and regulatory commitment to race and ethnicity in pharmaceutical medicine is weak. We have addressed these gaps by investigating 397 product labels of all novel drugs approved in the USA (n = 213) and the EU (n = 184) between 2014 and 2018. Our analysis considered statements in labeling and the racial/ethnic categories used. Overall, it revealed that many labels report race/ethnicity demographics and subgroup analyses, but that there are important differences between the USA and the EU. Significantly more US labels specified race/ethnicity demographics, as expected given the USA's greater commitment to race and ethnicity in pharmaceutical medicine. Moreover, we found evidence that reporting of race/ethnicity demographics in EU labels was driven, in part, by statements in US labels, suggesting the spillover of US regulatory standards to the EU. Unexpectedly, significantly more EU labels reported differences in drug response, although no drug was restricted to a racial/ethnic population in a manner similar to BiDil. Our analysis also noted variability and inconsistency in the racial/ethnic taxonomy used in labels. We discuss implications for the racialization of pharmaceutical regulation and the pharmaceuticalization of race in the USA and EU.