Number of Patients Studied Prior to Approval of New Medicines: A Database Analysis

English version České info

Background:
At the time of approval of a new medicine, there are few long-term data on the medicine's benefit–risk balance. Clinical trials are designed to demonstrate efficacy, but have major limitations with regard to safety in terms of patient exposure and length of follow-up. This study of the number of patients who had been administered medicines at the time of medicine approval by the European Medicines Agency aimed to determine the total number of patients studied, as well as the number of patients studied long term for chronic medication use, compared with the International Conference on Harmonisation's E1 guideline recommendations.

Methods and Findings:
All medicines containing new molecular entities approved between 2000 and 2010 were included in the study, including orphan medicines as a separate category. The total number of patients studied before approval was extracted (main outcome). In addition, the number of patients with long-term use (6 or 12 mo) was determined for chronic medication. 200 unique new medicines were identified: 161 standard and 39 orphan medicines. The median total number of patients studied before approval was 1,708 (interquartile range [IQR] 968–3,195) for standard medicines and 438 (IQR 132–915) for orphan medicines. On average, chronic medication was studied in a larger number of patients (median 2,338, IQR 1,462–4,135) than medication for intermediate (878, IQR 513–1,559) or short-term use (1,315, IQR 609–2,420). Safety and efficacy of chronic use was studied in fewer than 1,000 patients for at least 6 and 12 mo in 46.4% and 58.3% of new medicines, respectively. Among the 84 medicines intended for chronic use, 68 (82.1%) met the guideline recommendations for 6-mo use (at least 300 participants studied for 6 mo and at least 1,000 participants studied for any length of time), whereas 67 (79.8%) of the medicines met the criteria for 12-mo patient exposure (at least 100 participants studied for 12 mo).

Conclusions:
For medicines intended for chronic use, the number of patients studied before marketing is insufficient to evaluate safety and long-term efficacy. Both safety and efficacy require continued study after approval. New epidemiologic tools and legislative actions necessitate a review of the requirements for the number of patients studied prior to approval, particularly for chronic use, and adequate use of post-marketing studies.

Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary

Vyšlo v časopise: Number of Patients Studied Prior to Approval of New Medicines: A Database Analysis. PLoS Med 10(3): e32767. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001407
Kategorie: Research Article
prolekare.web.journal.doi_sk: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001407

Souhrn

Zdroje

1. StrickerBH, PsatyBM (2004) Detection, verification, and quantification of adverse drug reactions. BMJ 329: 44–47.

2. BarbourV, ClarkJ, JonesS, NortonM, SimpsonP, et al. (2011) Why drug safety should not take a back seat to efficacy. PLoS Med 8: e1001097 doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001097

3. VandenbrouckeJP, PsatyBM (2008) Benefits and risks of drug treatments: how to combine the best evidence on benefits with the best data about adverse effects. JAMA 300: 2417–2419.

4. Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (1994) ICH topic E 1—population exposure: the extent of population exposure to assess clinical safety. CPMP/ICH/375/95. Available: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500002747.pdf. Accessed 8 February 2013.

5. International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (1994) ICH harmonised tripartite guideline: the extent of population exposure to assess clinical safety for drugs intended for long-term treatment of non-life-threatening conditions—E1. Available: http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Efficacy/E1/Step4/E1_Guideline.pdf. Accessed 8 February 2013.

6. European Commission Directorate-General Health and Consumers (2013) Community register of medicinal products. Available: http://ec.europa.eu/health/documents/community-register/html/index_en.htm. Accessed 4 February 2013.

7. European Medicines Agency (2013) European public assessment reports. Available: http://www.ema.europa.eu/ema/index.jsp?curl=pages/medicines/landing/epar_search.jsp&mid=WC0b01ac058001d125. Accessed 4 February 2013.

8. RawlinsMD, JefferysDB (1991) Study of United Kingdom product licence applications containing new active substances, 1987–9. BMJ 302: 223–225.

9. NissenSE, WolskiK (2007) Effect of rosiglitazone on the risk of myocardial infarction and death from cardiovascular causes. N Engl J Med 356: 2457–2471.

10. WoodcockJ, SharfsteinJM, HamburgM (2010) Regulatory action on rosiglitazone by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. N Engl J Med 363: 1489–1491.

11. EichlerHG, PignattiF, FlamionB, LeufkensH, BreckenridgeA (2008) Balancing early market access to new drugs with the need for benefit/risk data: a mounting dilemma. Nat Rev Drug Discov 7: 818–826.

12. EichlerHG, AbadieE, RaineJM, SalmonsonT (2009) Safe drugs and the cost of good intentions. N Engl J Med 360: 1378–1380.

13. BreckenridgeA, WalleyT (2008) Early access to new medicines. Clin Pharmacol Ther 84: 23–25.

14. BreckenridgeA, WoodsK, RaineJ (2005) Monitoring the safety of licensed medicines. Nat Rev Drug Discov 4: 541–543.

15. RaineJ, WiseL, BlackburnS, EichlerHG, BreckenridgeA (2011) European perspective on risk management and drug safety. Clin Pharmacol Ther 89: 650–654.

16. AvornJ (2006) Evaluating drug effects in the post-Vioxx world: there must be a better way. Circulation 113: 2173–2176.

17. BrewerT, ColditzGA, BrewerT (1999) Postmarketing surveillance and adverse drug reactions: current perspectives and future needs. JAMA 281: 824–829.

18. HaubenM, AronsonJK (2007) Gold standards in pharmacovigilance—the use of definitive anecdotal reports of adverse drug reactions as pure gold and high-grade ore. Drug Saf 30: 645–655.

19. WallerPC, EvansSJ (2003) A model for the future conduct of pharmacovigilance. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 12: 17–29.

20. Mini-Sentinel Coordinating Center (2011) Welcome to Mini-Sentinel. Available: http://www.mini-sentinel.org/. Accessed 4 February 2013.

21. US Food and Drug Administration (2013) FDA's Sentinel Initiative. Available: http://www.fda.gov/Safety/FDAsSentinelInitiative/default.htm. Accessed 4 February 2013.

22. EU-ADR (2013) Welcome to the EU-ADR website. Available: http://www.alert-project.org/. Accessed 4 February 2013.

23. AvornJ, SchneeweissS (2009) Managing drug-risk information—what to do with all those new numbers. N Engl J Med 361: 647–649.

24. BehrmanRE, BennerJS, BrownJS, McClellanM, WoodcockJ, et al. (2011) Developing the Sentinel System—a national resource for evidence development. N Engl J Med 364: 498–499.

25. ColomaPM, SchuemieMJ, TrifiròG, GiniR, HeringsR, et al. (2010) Combining electronic healthcare databases in Europe to allow for large-scale drug safety monitoring: the EU-ADR Project. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 20: 1–11.

26. (2004) Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency. Available: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:136:0001:0033:EN:PDF. Accessed 8 February 2013.

27. (2001) Directive 2001/83/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 November 2001 on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use. Available: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2001:311:0067:0128:EN:PDF. Accessed 8 February 2013.

28. International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (2002) ICH harmonised tripartite guideline: Pharmacovigilance Planning—E2E. Available: http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Efficacy/E2E/Step4/E2E_Guideline.pdf. Accessed 8 February 2013.

29. (2004) Directive 2004/27/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004 amending Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use. Available: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2004:136:0034:0057:EN:PDF. Accessed 8 February 2013.

30. Heads of Medicines Agencies, European Medicines Agency (2012) Guideline on good pharmacovigilance practices (GVP): module V—risk management systems. EMA/838713/2011. Available: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2012/06/WC500129134.pdf. Accessed 11 February 2013.

31. (2007) US Food and Drug Administration Amendments Act of 2007. Available: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-110publ85/pdf/PLAW-110publ85.pdf. Accessed 11 February 2013.

32. US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (2011) Guidance for industry: postmarketing studies and clinical trials—implementation of Section 505(o)(3) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Available: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM172001.pdf. Accessed 11 February 2013.

33. (2010) Regulation (EU) No 1235/2010 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2010. Amending, as regards pharmacovigilance of medicinal products for human use, Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 laying down Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Medicines Agency, and Regulation (EC) No 1394/2007 on advanced therapy medicinal products. Available: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:348:0001:0016:EN:PDF. Accessed 11 February 2013.

34. (2010) Directive 2010/84/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 December 2010 amending, as regards pharmacovigilance, Directive 2001/83/EC on the Community code relating to medicinal products for human use. Available: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:348:0074:0099:EN:PDF. Accessed 11 February 2013.

35. BlakeKV, PrillaS, AccadebledS, GuimierM, BiscaroM, et al. (2011) European Medicines Agency review of post-authorisation studies with implications for the European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 20: 1021–1029.

36. WallerP (2011) Getting to grips with the new European Union pharmacovigilance legislation. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 20: 544–549.

37. EichlerHG, OyeK, BairdLG, AbadieE, BrownJ, et al. (2012) Adaptive licensing: taking the next step in the evolution of drug approval. Clin Pharmacol Ther 91: 426–437.

38. WoodcockJ (2012) Evidence vs. access: can twenty-first-century drug regulation refine the tradeoffs? Clin Pharmacol Ther 91: 378–380.

39. EichlerHG, AbadieE, BreckenridgeA, FlamionB, GustafssonLL, et al. (2011) Bridging the efficacy-effectiveness gap: a regulator's perspective on addressing variability of drug response. Nat Rev Drug Discov 10: 495–506.

40. StaaTP, GoldacreB, GullifordM, CassellJ, PirmohamedM, et al. (2012) Pragmatic randomised trials using routine electronic health records: putting them to the test. BMJ 344: e55.