28
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Leveraging existing opportunities for improved Orphan Drug approval in the EU

      abstract
      1 ,
      Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
      BioMed Central
      6th European Conference on Rare Diseases and Orphan Products
      23-25 May 2012

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          The EU regulatory framework provides opportunities for increased flexibility and speed for Orphan Medicinal Product (OMP) marketing authorisations. Nevertheless the yearly rate of OMP approvals is not increasing [1] and available tools and procedures are used infrequently. According to a review of approval timelines from 2001-2010 [2], FDA median total review time for OMPs (235 days) was almost 5 months faster than the median EMA review time (381 days). Furthermore, FDA approves OMPs 87 days faster than novel therapies overall, whereas EMA takes 15 days longer. One driver for this striking difference between FDA and EMA review time for OMPs seems to be FDAs granting of a Priority Review which was the case for 78% of orphan product applications between 2006 and 2010 [3]. An Accelerated Review at EMA was granted only for ~3% of approved OMPs since 2001 [4]. Conditional Marketing Authorisation (CMA) is another tool that could help shorten time to availability of new OMPs, unfortunately only ~5% of approved OMPs have benefited so far [4]. Early dialogue and agreement between the applicant and EMA scientific bodies on required data would allow more timely alignment and predictability, thus supporting increased use of Accelerated Review and CMA. Coupled with more flexibility on study design for OMPs, e.g., greater acceptance of surrogate endpoints, single well-controlled trials, and data packages supplemented with post-marketing and compassionate-use data, this would create a more favourable environment for OMP approvals in the EU. Other approaches for speedier OMP approval should be explored, including a 'rolling application' that would allow initiating review of parts of the dossier prior to validating the entire application. Additionally, increased collaboration between EMA's scientific bodies could help streamline the various regulatory procedures between orphan designation and approval, e.g. parallel discussions with the Paediatric Committee, the Committee for Advanced Therapies and the Scientific Advise Working Party. The success of such measures will require a close dialogue between the applicant and EMA. Applicants for any procedures regarding orphan drugs would benefit from a continuous support from EMA’s orphan drug sector as they have an in depth understanding of the special challenges OMP developers face. Taking an OMP through all regulatory hurdles until approval in a more timely manner requires increased regulatory flexibility and predictability. Although regulatory procedures in the EU are working well, improvement could be achieved by increasing the use of existing tools and more creative thinking on conditions for approval of OMPs in the EU.

          Related collections

          Most cited references2

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Regulatory review of novel therapeutics--comparison of three regulatory agencies.

          The upcoming reauthorization of the Prescription Drug User Fee Act focuses on improving the review process for new drug applications at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Using publicly available information from the FDA, the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and Health Canada, we compared the time for completion of the first review and the total review time for all applications involving novel therapeutic agents approved by the three regulatory agencies from 2001 through 2010 and determined the geographic area in which each novel therapeutic agent was first approved for use. There were 510 applications for novel therapeutic agents approved from 2001 through 2010--225 by the FDA, 186 by the EMA, and 99 by Health Canada; among the applications, there were 289 unique agents. The median length of time for completion of the first review was 303 days (interquartile range, 185 to 372) for applications approved by the FDA, 366 days (interquartile range, 310 to 445) for those approved by the EMA, and 352 days (interquartile range, 255 to 420) for those approved by Health Canada (P<0.001 for the comparison across the three agencies). The median total review time was also shorter at the FDA than at the EMA or Health Canada (P=0.002). Among the 289 unique novel therapeutic agents, 190 were approved in both the United States and Europe (either by the EMA or through the mutual recognition process), of which 121 (63.7%) were first approved in the United States; similarly, 154 were approved in both the United States and Canada, of which 132 (85.7%) were first approved in the United States. For novel therapeutic agents approved between 2001 and 2010, the FDA reviewed applications involving novel therapeutics more quickly, on average, than did the EMA or Health Canada, and the vast majority of these new therapeutic agents were first approved for use in the United States. (Funded by the Pew Charitable Trusts.).
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Characteristics of rare disease marketing applications associated with FDA product approvals 2006-2010.

            New drug and biologic product marketing applications submitted to FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) between 2006 and 2010 were analyzed to identify rare disease application characteristics associated with higher approval rates. The results show that approval rates were similar for rare and common disease applications. Larger company size, prior regulatory experience and priority review designation were associated with higher approval rates. The study findings show that rare disease product development is feasible, and increased interactions between product developers and FDA in early investigational phases can facilitate product development. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
              Bookmark

              Author and article information

              Conference
              Orphanet J Rare Dis
              Orphanet J Rare Dis
              Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
              BioMed Central
              1750-1172
              2012
              22 November 2012
              : 7
              : Suppl 2
              : A27
              Affiliations
              [1 ]Global Regulatory Affairs, Shire HGT, Eysins, 1262, Switzerland
              Article
              1750-1172-7-S2-A27
              10.1186/1750-1172-7-S2-A27
              3504596
              5d749ce4-d521-4341-ba7a-0363ccd765f5
              Copyright ©2012 Edfjäll; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

              This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

              6th European Conference on Rare Diseases and Orphan Products
              Brussels, Belgium
              23-25 May 2012
              History
              Categories
              Meeting Abstract

              Infectious disease & Microbiology
              Infectious disease & Microbiology

              Comments

              Comment on this article