Quantitative analysis of antibiotic usage in British sheep flocks

The aim of this study was to examine the variation in antibiotic usage between 207 commercial sheep flocks using their veterinary practice prescribing records. Mean and median prescribed mass per population corrected unit (mg/PCU) was 11.38 and 5.95, respectively and closely correlated with animal defined daily dose (ADDD) 1.47 (mean), 0.74 (median) (R2=0.84, P<0.001). This is low in comparison with the suggested target (an average across all the UK livestock sectors) of 50 mg/PCU. In total, 80 per cent of all antibiotic usage occurred in the 39 per cent of flocks where per animal usage was greater than 9.0 mg/PCU. Parenteral antibiotics, principally oxytetracycline, represented 82 per cent of the total prescribed mass, 65.5 per cent of antibiotics (mg/PCU) were prescribed for the treatment of lameness. Oral antibiotics were prescribed to 49 per cent of flocks, 64 per cent of predicted lamb crop/farm. Lowland flocks were prescribed significantly more antibiotics than hill flocks. Variance partitioning apportioned 79 per cent of variation in total antibiotic usage (mg/PCU) to the farm level and 21 per cent to the veterinary practice indicating that veterinary practices have a substantial impact on overall antimicrobial usage. Reducing antibiotic usage in the sheep sector should be possible with better understanding of the drivers of high usage in individual flocks and of veterinary prescribing practices

Approval of cancer drugs with uncertain therapeutic value: a comparison of regulatory decisions in Europe and the United States

Policy Points Regulatory agencies may have limited evidence on the clinical benefits and harms of new drugs when deciding whether new therapeutic agents are allowed to enter the market and under which conditions, including whether approval is granted under special regulatory pathways and obligations to address knowledge gaps through postmarketing studies are imposed. In a matched comparison of marketing applications for cancer drugs of uncertain therapeutic value reviewed by both the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA), we found frequent discordance between the two agencies on regulatory outcomes and the use of special regulatory pathways. Both agencies often granted regular approval, even when the other agency judged there to be substantial uncertainty about drug benefits and risks that needed to be resolved through additional studies in the postmarketing period. Postmarketing studies imposed by regulators under special approval pathways to address remaining questions of efficacy and safety may not be suited to deliver timely, confirmatory evidence due to shortcomings in study design and delays, raising questions over the suitability of the FDA's Accelerated Approval and the EMA's Conditional Marketing Authorization as tools for allowing early market access for cancer drugs while maintaining rigorous regulatory standards. Context: Regulatory agencies are increasingly required to make market approval decisions for new drugs on the basis of limited clinical evidence, a situation commonly encountered in cancer. We aimed to investigate how regulators manage uncertainty in the benefit-risk profiles of new cancer drugs by comparing decisions for the world's two largest regulatory bodies—the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA)—over a 5-year period. Methods: We systematically identified a set of cancer drug-indication pairs for which data on efficacy and safety was less complete than that required for regular approval at time of market entry from 2009 to 2013, as determined by the FDA's use of Accelerated Approval (AA) or the EMA's use of Conditional Marketing Authorization (CMA) pathways, and matched these across the two agencies. Using publicly available information, we compared regulatory pathways and outcomes, final approved indications, and postmarketing obligations imposed by the agencies. Findings: We identified 21 cancer drug-indication pairs that received FDA AA, EMA CMA, or both. Although most applications relied on identical pivotal trials across the FDA and the EMA, regulatory pathways often differed; 57% of indications received either FDA AA or EMA CMA, and regular approval by the other agency. After approval, the EMA more often accepted single-arm studies to confirm clinical benefit compared to the FDA (75% vs. 29% of indications), and the FDA more commonly requested randomized controlled trials (85% vs. 50%). Forty-one percent of confirmatory trials after FDA AA were conducted in different populations than the approved indication, compared to 13% after EMA CMA. Both agencies relied primarily on surrogate measures of patient benefit for postmarketing obligations. After a median follow-up of 7.25 years, 40% of FDA and 61% of EMA postmarketing obligations after AA and CMA, respectively, were delayed. Conclusions: US and European regulators often deemed early and less complete evidence on benefit-risk profiles of cancer drugs sufficient to grant regular approval, raising questions over regulatory standards for the approval of new medicines. Even when imposing confirmatory studies in the postmarketing period through special approval pathways, meaningful evidence may not materialize due to shortcomings in study design and delays in conducting required studies with due diligence

Evaluating Quality of Decision-Making Processes in Medicines' Development, Regulatory Review, and Health Technology Assessment : A Systematic Review of the Literature.

Introduction: Although pharmaceutical companies, regulatory authorities, and health technology assessment (HTA) agencies have been increasingly using decision-making frameworks, it is not certain whether these enable better quality decision making. This could be addressed by formally evaluating the quality of decision-making process within those organizations. The aim of this literature review was to identify current techniques (tools, questionnaires, surveys, and studies) for measuring the quality of the decision-making process across the three stakeholders. Methods: Using MEDLINE, Web of Knowledge, and other Internet-based search engines, a literature review was performed to systematically identify techniques for assessing quality of decision making in medicines development, regulatory review, and HTA. A structured search was applied using key words and a secondary review was carried out. In addition, the measurement properties of each technique were assessed and compared. Ten Quality Decision-Making Practices (QDMPs) developed previously were then used as a framework for the evaluation of techniques identified in the review. Due to the variation in studies identified, meta-analysis was inappropriate. Results: This review identified 13 techniques, where 7 were developed specifically to assess decision making in medicines' development, regulatory review, or HTA; 2 examined corporate decision making, and 4 general decision making. Regarding how closely each technique conformed to the 10 QDMPs, the 13 techniques assessed a median of 6 QDMPs, with a mode of 3 QDMPs. Only 2 techniques evaluated all 10 QDMPs, namely the Organizational IQ and the Quality of Decision Making Orientation Scheme (QoDoS), of which only one technique, QoDoS could be applied to assess decision making of both individuals and organizations, and it possessed generalizability to capture issues relevant to companies as well as regulatory authorities. Conclusion: This review confirmed a general paucity of research in this area, particularly regarding the development and systematic application of techniques for evaluating quality decision making, with no consensus around a gold standard. This review has identified QoDoS as the most promising available technique for assessing decision making in the lifecycle of medicines and the next steps would be to further test its validity, sensitivity, and reliability.Peer reviewedFinal Published versio

Investigating reports of complex regional pain syndrome: An analysis of HPV-16/18-adjuvanted vaccine post-licensure data

© 2015. Complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) is a chronic pain disorder that typically follows trauma or surgery. Suspected CRPS reported after vaccination with human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines led to temporary suspension of proactive recommendation of HPV vaccination in Japan. We investigated the potential CRPS signal in relation to HPV-16/18-adjuvanted vaccine (Cervarix®) by database review of CRPS cases with independent expert confirmation; a disproportionality analysis and analyses of temporality; an observed versus expected analysis using published background incidence rates; systematic reviews of aggregate safety data, and a literature review.The analysis included 17 case reports of CRPS: 10 from Japan (0.14/100,000 doses distributed) and seven from the United Kingdom (0.08/100,000). Five cases were considered by independent experts to be confirmed CRPS. Quantitative analyses did not suggest an association between CRPS and HPV-16/18-adjuvanted vaccine. Observed CRPS incidence after HPV-16/18 vaccination was statistically significantly below expected rates. Systematic database reviews using search terms varying in specificity and sensitivity did not identify new cases. No CRPS was reported during clinical development and no unexpected results found in the literature.There is not sufficient evidence to suggest an increased risk of developing CRPS following vaccination with HPV-16/18-adjuvanted vaccine. Post-licensure safety surveillance confirms the acceptable benefit-risk of HPV-16/18 vaccination

World Association for the Advancement of Veterinary Parasitology (W.A.A.V.P.) guidelines for studies evaluating the efficacy of parasiticides in reducing the risk of vector-borne pathogen transmission in dogs and cats

These guidelines are intended to provide an in-depth review of current knowledge and assist the planning and implementation of studies for evaluating the efficacy of parasiticides in reducing transmission of vector-borne pathogens (VBPs) to dogs and cats. At present, the prevention of VBP transmission in companion animals is generally achieved through the administration of products that can repel or rapidly kill arthropods, thus preventing or interrupting feeding before transmission occurs. The present guidelines complement existing guidelines, which focus on efficacy assessment of parasiticides for the treatment, prevention and control of flea and tick infestations, but also give guidance for studies focused on other vectors (i.e. mosquitoes and phlebotomine sand flies). The efficacy of parasiticides in reducing VBP transmission can be evaluated through laboratory or field studies. As such, the present guidelines provide recommendations for these studies, representing a tool for researchers, pharmaceutical companies and authorities involved in the research, development and registration of products with claims for reducing VBP transmission in dogs and cats, respecting the overall principles of the 3Rs (replacement, reduction and refinement). Gaps in our current understanding of VBP transmission times are herein highlighted and the need for further basic research on related topics is briefly discussed

Influence of Diagnostic Method on Outcomes in Phase 3 Clinical Trials of Bezlotoxumab for the Prevention of Recurrent Clostridioides difficile Infection: A Post Hoc Analysis of MODIFY I/II

Background: The optimum diagnostic test method for Clostridioides difficile infection (CDI) remains controversial due to variation in accuracy in identifying true CDI. This post hoc analysis examined the impact of CDI diagnostic testing methodology on efficacy outcomes in phase 3 MODIFY I/II trials. Methods: In MODIFY I/II (NCT01241552/NCT01513239), participants received bezlotoxumab (10 mg/kg) or placebo during anti-CDI treatment for primary/recurrent CDI (rCDI). Using MODIFY I/II pooled data, initial clinical cure (ICC) and rCDI were assessed in participants diagnosed at baseline using direct detection methods (enzyme immunoassay [EIA]/cell cytotoxicity assay [CCA]) or indirect methods to determine toxin-producing ability (toxin gene polymerase chain reaction [tgPCR]/toxigenic culture). Results: Of 1554 participants who received bezlotoxumab or placebo in MODIFY I/II, 781 (50.3%) and 773 (49.7%) were diagnosed by tgPCR/toxigenic culture and toxin EIA/CCA, respectively. Participants diagnosed by toxin EIA/CCA were more likely to be inpatients, older, and have severe CDI. In bezlotoxumab recipients, ICC rates were slightly higher in the toxin EIA/CCA subgroup (81.7%) vs tgPCR/toxigenic culture (78.4%). Bezlotoxumab significantly reduced the rCDI rate vs placebo in both subgroups; however, the magnitude of reduction was substantially larger in participants diagnosed by toxin EIA/CCA (relative difference, –46.6%) vs tgPCR/toxigenic culture (–29.1%). In bezlotoxumab recipients, the rCDI rate was lower in the toxin EIA/CCA subgroup (17.6%) vs tgPCR/toxigenic culture (23.6%; absolute difference, –6.0%; 95% confidence interval, –12.4 to 0.3; relative difference, –25.4%). Conclusions: Diagnostic tests that detect fecal C. difficile toxins are of fundamental importance to accurately diagnosing CDI, including in clinical trial design, ensuring that therapeutic efficacy is not underestimated