Following the implementation of the new EudraVigilance system, reported in our previous post, and in an attempt to streamline the monitoring of safety signals in EudraVigilance, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has recently announced that the marketing authorisation holders (MAHs) of 300 specific active substances and combinations of active substances will be required continuously to monitor activities in relation to their substances in EudraVigilance. The scheme will begin on 22 February 2018 and will last one year. During the pilot period, the affected MAHs will be required to inform the EMA and national competent authorities of validated safety signals relating to their medicines. MAHs who are included in the pilot scheme should refer to the guidance contained in the Good Pharmacovigilance Practices (GVP) Module IX – Signal Management in relation to the monitoring and reporting of safety signals. MAHs who are not part of the pilot scheme will not be required to monitor EudraVigilance or to inform the regulatory authorities of validated signals while the scheme is in operation. However, they will have access to EudraVigilance data and will be able to incorporate any relevant new safety data into their own safety monitoring systems. The EMA will use the experience gained during the pilot period to improve the next phase of safety signal detection.
The awaited decision of the EU Member States on the new home for the European Medicines Agency (EMA) was published today. The final destination, Amsterdam, does not come as a complete surprise, despite the fact that the key institutions involved in the process, the Commission, the EMA and the Council, have consistently avoided naming preferred locations. As of today, the EMA has 17 months to conclude its move and take up its operations from Amsterdam by the end of March 2019.
The decision to relocate the EMA, although a consequence of the UK’s decision to leave the EU, does not form part of the Brexit negotiations. The procedure leading up to a decision on the relocation of the EMA was proposed by the Presidents of the Commission and the Council and was endorsed at the European Council meeting of 22 June 2017. Member States had up to the end of July 2017 to submit their offers to host the Agency. Nineteen Member States put in bids.
In July, we reported that the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) had announced a joint proposal to promote the use of innovative approaches to paediatric drug development. We noted that the EMA expected to publish a Reflection Paper setting out a systematic approach to extrapolation of paediatric data by the end of the year. This has now been published.
Legal clarity on the meaning of ‘commercially confidential information’ within sight
Demand for greater transparency and disclosure of pre-clinical and clinical data by industry continues to attract significant debate. Recent academic studies, published in Current Medical Research and Opinion and the British Medical Journal, have systematically assessed the disclosure policies of trial data arising from studies sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. In the EU, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) has adopted policies and guidance setting out its approach to data disclosure. Certain aspects of the adopted policies are currently being considered by European Courts, to address the nature of the balance to be struck between the public interest in transparency and the interest (both public and private) in protecting innovative research from unfair commercial use. In a broader context, the prevailing legal framework is based on a need for coherence and equilibrium between the general regulation governing public access or freedom of information and the sector-specific legislation regarding authorisation and supervision of medicines. In this blog post, we provide a summary of these cases, as heard in the European Courts to date.
In advance of the launch of the new EudraVigilance System, on 22 November 2017, the EMA has published (on 5 July 2017) a 29 page Q&A, which is a summary of the broad ranging pre-launch questions submitted by stakeholders and the EMA’s answers. Answers have been kept succinct, with URL links to any further relevant guidance. The document is split into separate topics, including: Eudravigilance organisation and user registration; Reporting to National Competent Authorities in the EEA; and Technical Questions, with an index and a useful glossary of terms at the beginning of the guide. The Q&A will be updated regularly. The EMA recommends that the Q&A be treated as a first reference point for queries, before users contact the Agency’s service desk.
On 20 July 2017, the EMA published the updated guideline on first-in-man (also known as phase I) clinical trials. First-in-man trials often carry the greatest risks, and have been the ones that generate the biggest headlines when they have gone wrong, for example the Phase I trial in France by Bial-Portela & CA SA in 2016. The new guideline, which applies not only to first-in-man trials, but also to all ‘early phase clinical trials’ that generate initial knowledge on tolerability, safety, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, aims to ensure such trials are conducted as safely as possible, and assists sponsors in the transition from non-clinical to early clinical development.
Under the new Clinical Trials Regulation 536/2014/EU, it is now a requirement for the sponsor of a clinical trial to report to the regulatory authorities a serious breach of the Regulation or to the clinical trial protocol (Article 52). A serious breach, in this context, is defined as “a breach likely to affect to a significant degree the safety and rights of a subject or the reliability and robustness of the data generated in the clinical trial“. This requirement is currently contained in the legislation of some Member States, such as in the UK (Regulation 29A Medicines for Human Use (Clinical Trials) Regulations 2004/1031), but was not previously included in Directive 2001/20/EC or in ICH GCP (although a sponsor should list all significant protocol non-compliances in the clinical study report). This is, therefore, the first time that there is such a requirement in all EU countries.
We have previously reported on the European Medicine Agency’s (EMA) increased focus on the area of personalised medicines. The original blog post can be found here.
The EMA and the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has now released for consultation a concept paper on predictive biomarker-based assay development in the context of drug development and lifecycle. The use of predictive biomarkers is an aspect of personalised medicine used to decide treatment or dose selection.
On 6 July 2017, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) announced a joint proposal to promote the use of innovative approaches to paediatric drug development. The proposal focuses on paediatric Gaucher disease, but the intention is for the principles underlying the so-called “strategic collaborative approach” to be extended to other areas of development for rare paediatric diseases.
The collaborative approach was considered necessary as, given the limited number of patients with Gaucher disease, identifying multiple candidate target products, and running multiple clinical trials, may actually hinder the development of an effective treatment. Continue Reading Innovative approaches to paediatric drug development
Traditional medicine applies the same treatment approach to all patients affected by a disease (‘one size fits all’). However, we are all unique. Our health is determined by our inherited genetic differences combined with our lifestyles and other environmental factors. Personalised medicines are medicines that are targeted to individual patients based on their genetic make-up.
Variants in our genetic code can also be used to predict the potential for adverse drug reactions. For example, the hyper-sensitivity experienced by certain patients to the HIV drug Abacavir has been found to be linked to a particular genetic variant, allele HLA-B5701. The requirement that patients take a test to ensure this allele is absent before being given Abacavir has greatly reduced the incidence of hyper-sensitivity.
Since 2011, personalised medicine has been on the agenda of the European Commission, which has committed two billion Euros of health research funding to the cause. Personalised medicine has been defined by the European Council as a “Medical model using characterisation of individuals’ phenotypes and genotypes or tailoring the right therapeutic strategy for the right person at the right time, and to determine the predisposition to disease and/or deliver timely and targeted prevention, and it relates to the broader concept of patient-centred care, which takes into account that, in general, healthcare systems need to better respond to patient needs.”