Mandatory requirements for pediatric drug development in the EU and the US for novel drugs-A comparative study

Mandatory pediatric legislation has been implemented in the European Union (EU) and the United States (US) to increase research and the availability of drugs for the pediatric population. Differences in the legislative framework can cause different pediatric requirements for similar indications granted for similar drugs across jurisdictions. This cross-sectional study compares the pediatric requirements for therapeutic indications granted at the time of initial approval for novel drugs approved in the two regions from 2010 to 2018. We collected the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) decisions to grant a waiver and/or to agree on a pediatric development plan and deferrals hereof at marketing authorization (MA) from publicly available documents. An agreed pediatric development plan was required for 66% ( N = 188/285) and 63% ( N = 134/212) of the indications granted in the EU and the US at the time of approval, respectively. Almost all (EU; 98%, US; 89%) were deferred until after MA. Based on the broad scope of the EU Pediatric Regulation, an additional 36 PIPs originated from the indications granted at MA. In the subset of indications granted for drugs approved in both the EU and the US ( N = 232), significantly more indications resulted in an agreed pediatric development plan for one or more subsets of the pediatric population in the EU ( N = 185) as compared to the US ( N = 82). This was based on the exemption of orphan designated drugs in the US and the broader scope of the EU Pediatric Regulation. However, indications subject to the mandatory pediatric legislation in both regions ( N = 131) most often had similar regulatory requirements for the inclusion of the pediatric population from the EMA and the US FDA (83%, N = 109). In conclusion, when comparing mandatory pediatric requirements, more pediatric development plans were agreed upon in the EU than in the US, in line with the broader mandates of the EU Pediatric Regulation. However, authorities most often had similar regulatory requirements when an indication was subject to pediatric legislation in both regions

Guidance for pediatric use in prescription information for novel medicinal products in the EU and the US

Pediatric legislations in the European Union (EU) and the United States (US) have increased medicines approved for use in the pediatric population. Despite many similarities between these frameworks, the EU Paediatric Regulation more often provides regulators with a mandate to require pediatric drug development for novel medicinal products compared to US regulators. If used, this could give rise to differences in the guidance for pediatric use provided for clinicians in the two regions. However, the level of discordance in the guidance for pediatric use between the two regions is unknown. This cross-sectional study compares guidance for pediatric use in the EU Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) and the US Prescription Information (USPI) on the level of indications granted for novel medicinal products approved after the pediatric legislations came in to force in both regions. For all indications granted as of March 2020 for novel medicinal products approved in both regions between 2010 and 2018, we compared the guidance for pediatric use in the EU SmPC and the USPI. The guidance for pediatric use differed for 18% (61/348) of the listed indications covering 21% (45/217) of the products, but without the guidance being contradictory. Where guidance differed, an equal share was observed for indications with a higher level of information for pediatric use in one region over the other (49% (30/61) in the US; 51% (31/61) in the EU). The discrepancies in pediatric information could be explained by differences in regulations for 21% (13/61) of the indications. Only a few conditions and diseases (EU n = 4; US n = 1) were observed to cover potential pediatric use outside the approved adult indication. Although the EU Paediatric Regulation more often provides regulators a mandate for requiring pediatric drug development as compared to the US PREA, this was not reflected in the prescription information approved by the two regulatory authorities

Literature review of visual representation of the results of benefit–risk assessments of medicinal products

Background The PROTECT Benefit–Risk group is dedicated to research in methods for continuous benefit–risk monitoring of medicines, including the presentation of the results, with a particular emphasis on graphical methods. Methods A comprehensive review was performed to identify visuals used for medical risk and benefit–risk communication. The identified visual displays were grouped into visual types, and each visual type was appraised based on five criteria: intended audience, intended message, knowledge required to understand the visual, unintentional messages that may be derived from the visual and missing information that may be needed to understand the visual. Results Sixty-six examples of visual formats were identified from the literature and classified into 14 visual types. We found that there is not one single visual format that is consistently superior to others for the communication of benefit–risk information. In addition, we found that most of the drawbacks found in the visual formats could be considered general to visual communication, although some appear more relevant to specific formats and should be considered when creating visuals for different audiences depending on the exact message to be communicated. Conclusion We have arrived at recommendations for the use of visual displays for benefit–risk communication. The recommendation refers to the creation of visuals. We outline four criteria to determine audience–visual compatibility and consider these to be a key task in creating any visual. Next we propose specific visual formats of interest, to be explored further for their ability to address nine different types of benefit–risk analysis information

Recommendations for benefit–risk assessment methodologies and visual representations

Purpose The purpose of this study is to draw on the practical experience from the PROTECT BR case studies and make recommendations regarding the application of a number of methodologies and visual representations for benefit–risk assessment. Methods Eight case studies based on the benefit–risk balance of real medicines were used to test various methodologies that had been identified from the literature as having potential applications in benefit–risk assessment. Recommendations were drawn up based on the results of the case studies. Results A general pathway through the case studies was evident, with various classes of methodologies having roles to play at different stages. Descriptive and quantitative frameworks were widely used throughout to structure problems, with other methods such as metrics, estimation techniques and elicitation techniques providing ways to incorporate technical or numerical data from various sources. Similarly, tree diagrams and effects tables were universally adopted, with other visualisations available to suit specific methodologies or tasks as required. Every assessment was found to follow five broad stages: (i) Planning, (ii) Evidence gathering and data preparation, (iii) Analysis, (iv) Exploration and (v) Conclusion and dissemination. Conclusions Adopting formal, structured approaches to benefit–risk assessment was feasible in real-world problems and facilitated clear, transparent decision-making. Prior to this work, no extensive practical application and appraisal of methodologies had been conducted using real-world case examples, leaving users with limited knowledge of their usefulness in the real world. The practical guidance provided here takes us one step closer to a harmonised approach to benefit–risk assessment from multiple perspectives

Influence of drug safety advisories on drug utilisation: an international interrupted time series and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the association between regulatory drug safety advisories and changes in drug utilisation. DESIGN: We conducted controlled, interrupted times series analyses with administrative prescription claims data to estimate changes in drug utilisation following advisories. We used random-effects meta-analysis with inverse-variance weighting to estimate the average postadvisory change in drug utilisation across advisories. STUDY POPULATION: We included advisories issued in Canada, Denmark, the UK and the USA during 2009-2015, mainly concerning drugs in common use in primary care. We excluded advisories related to over-the-counter drugs, drug-drug interactions, vaccines, drugs used primarily in hospital and advisories with co-interventions within ±6 months. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Change in drug utilisation, defined as actual versus predicted percentage change in the number of prescriptions (for advisories without dose-related advice), or in the number of defined daily doses (for dose-related advisories), per 100 000 population. RESULTS: Among advisories without dose-related advice (n=20), the average change in drug utilisation was -5.83% (95% CI -10.93 to -0.73; p=0.03). Advisories with dose-related advice (n=4) were not associated with a statistically significant change in drug utilisation (-1.93%; 95% CI -17.10 to 13.23; p=0.80). In a post hoc subgroup analysis of advisories without dose-related advice, we observed no statistically significant difference between the change in drug utilisation following advisories with explicit prescribing advice, such as a recommendation to consider the risk of a drug when prescribing, and the change in drug utilisation following advisories without such advice. CONCLUSIONS: Among safety advisories issued on a wide range of drugs during 2009-2015 in 4 countries (Canada, Denmark, the UK and the USA), the association of advisories with changes in drug utilisation was variable, and the average association was modest

Hydroxyzine Initiation Following Drug Safety Advisories on Cardiac Arrhythmias in the UK and Canada: A Longitudinal Cohort Study

INTRODUCTION: Regulatory advisories on hydroxyzine and risk of QT prolongation and Torsade de pointes (TdP) were issued in the UK in April 2015 and Canada in June 2016. We hypothesized patients with risk factors for QT prolongation and TdP, compared with those without risk factors, would be less likely to initiate hydroxyzine in the UK and in British Columbia (BC), Canada, following advisories. METHODS: We conducted a longitudinal study with repeated measures, and evaluated hydroxyzine initiation in a UK cohort and a concurrent BC control cohort (April 2013-March 2016) as well as in a BC advisory cohort (June 2014-May 2017). RESULTS: This study included 247,665 patients in the UK cohort, 297,147 patients in the BC control cohort, and 303,653 patients in the BC advisory cohort. Over a 12-month post-advisory period, hydroxyzine initiation decreased by 21% in the UK (rate ratio 0.79, 95% confidence interval 0.66-0.96) relative to the expected level of initiation based on the pre-advisory trend. Hydroxyzine initiation did not change in the BC control cohort or following the Canadian advisory in the BC advisory cohort. The decrease in hydroxyzine initiation in the UK in the 12 months after the advisories was not significantly different for patients with risk factors compared with those without risk factors. CONCLUSION: Hydroxyzine initiation decreased in the UK, but not in BC, in the 12 months following safety advisories. The decrease in hydroxyzine initiation in the UK was not significantly different for patients with versus without risk factors for QT prolongation and TdP

Impact of 2018 EU Risk Minimisation Measures and Revised Pregnancy Prevention Programme on Utilisation and Prescribing Trends of Medicinal Products Containing Valproate: An Interrupted Time Series Study

Introduction: Due to established teratogenicity of valproates, the EU risk minimisation measures (RMMs) with a pregnancy prevention programme (PPP) for valproate were updated in March 2018. Objectives: To investigate the effectiveness of the 2018 EU RMMs on valproate utilisation in five European countries/regions. Methods: A multi-database, times series study of females of childbearing potential (12–55 years) was conducted using electronic medical records from five countries/regions (01.01.2010–31.12.2020): Denmark, Tuscany (Italy), Spain, the Netherlands, and the UK. Clinical and demographic information from each database was transformed to the ConcePTION Common Data Model, quality checks were conducted and a distributed analysis was performed using common scripts. Incident and prevalent use of valproate, proportion of discontinuers and switchers to alternative medicine, frequency of contraception coverage during valproate use, and occurrence of pregnancies during valproate exposure were estimated per month. Interrupted time series analyses were conducted to estimate the level or trend change in the outcome measures. Results: We included 69,533 valproate users from 9,699,371 females of childbearing potential from the five participating centres. A significant decline in prevalent use of valproates was observed in Tuscany, Italy (mean difference post-intervention −7.7%), Spain (−11.3%), and UK (−5.9%) and a non-significant decline in the Netherlands (−3.3%), but no decline in incident use after the 2018 RMMs compared to the period before. The monthly proportion of compliant valproate prescriptions/dispensings with a contraceptive coverage was low (<25%), with an increase after the 2018 RMMs only in the Netherlands (mean difference post-intervention 12%). There was no significant increase in switching rates from valproates to alternative medicine after the 2018 intervention in any of the countries/regions. We observed a substantial number of concurrent pregnancies during valproate exposure, but with a declining rate after the 2018 RMMs in Tuscany, Italy (0.70 per 1000 valproate users pre- and 0.27 post-intervention), Spain (0.48 and 0.13), the Netherlands (0.34 and 0.00), and an increasing rate in UK (1.13 and 5.07). Conclusion: There was a small impact of the 2018 RMMs on valproate use in the studied European countries/regions. The substantial number of concurrent pregnancies with valproate exposure warrants a careful monitoring of implementation of the existing PPP for valproate in clinical practice in Europe, to see if there is any need for additional measures in the future

Impact of the 2018 revised Pregnancy Prevention Programme by the European Medicines Agency on the use of oral retinoids in females of childbearing age in Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, and Spain: an interrupted time series analysis

Background: In March 2018, the European pregnancy prevention programme for oral retinoids was updated as part of risk minimisation measures (RMM), emphasising their contraindication in pregnant women. Objective: To measure the impact of the 2018 revision of the RMMs in Europe by assessing the utilisation patterns of isotretinoin, alitretinoin and acitretin, contraceptive measures, pregnancy testing, discontinuation, and pregnancy occurrence concomitantly with a retinoid prescription. Methods: An interrupted time series (ITS) analysis to compare level and trend changes after the risk minimisation measures implementation was conducted on a cohort of females of childbearing age (12-55 years of age) from January 2010 to December 2020, derived from six electronic health data sources in four countries: Denmark, Netherlands, Spain, and Italy. Monthly utilisation figures (incidence rates [IR], prevalence rates [PR] and proportions) of oral retinoids were calculated, as well as discontinuation rates, contraception coverage, pregnancy testing, and rates of exposed pregnancies to oral retinoids, before and after the 2018 RMMs. Results: From 10,714,182 females of child-bearing age, 88,992 used an oral retinoid at any point during the study period (mean age 18.9-22.2 years old). We found non-significant level and trend changes in incidence or prevalence of retinoid use in females of child-bearing age after the 2018 RMMs. The reason of discontinuation was unknown in >95% of cases. Contraception use showed a significant increase trend in Spain; for other databases this information was limited. Pregnancy testing was hardly recorded thus was not possible to model ITS analyses. After the 2018 RMM, rates of pregnancy occurrence during retinoid use, and start of a retinoid during a pregnancy varied from 0.0 to 0.4, and from 0.2 to 0.8, respectively. Conclusion: This study shows a limited impact of the 2018 RMMs on oral retinoids utilisation patterns among females of child-bearing age in four European countries. Pregnancies still occur during retinoid use, and oral retinoids are still prescribed to pregnant women. Contraception and pregnancy testing information was limited in most databases. Regulators, policymakers, prescribers, and researchers must rethink implementation strategies to avoid any pregnancy becoming temporarily related to retinoid use

Impact of the 2018 revised Pregnancy Prevention Programme by the European Medicines Agency on the use of oral retinoids in females of childbearing age in Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, and Spain: an interrupted time series analysis

Background: In March 2018, the European pregnancy prevention programme for oral retinoids was updated as part of risk minimisation measures (RMM), emphasising their contraindication in pregnant women.Objective: To measure the impact of the 2018 revision of the RMMs in Europe by assessing the utilisation patterns of isotretinoin, alitretinoin and acitretin, contraceptive measures, pregnancy testing, discontinuation, and pregnancy occurrence concomitantly with a retinoid prescription.Methods: An interrupted time series (ITS) analysis to compare level and trend changes after the risk minimisation measures implementation was conducted on a cohort of females of childbearing age (12–55 years of age) from January 2010 to December 2020, derived from six electronic health data sources in four countries: Denmark, Netherlands, Spain, and Italy. Monthly utilisation figures (incidence rates [IR], prevalence rates [PR] and proportions) of oral retinoids were calculated, as well as discontinuation rates, contraception coverage, pregnancy testing, and rates of exposed pregnancies to oral retinoids, before and after the 2018 RMMs.Results: From 10,714,182 females of child-bearing age, 88,992 used an oral retinoid at any point during the study period (mean age 18.9–22.2 years old). We found non-significant level and trend changes in incidence or prevalence of retinoid use in females of child-bearing age after the 2018 RMMs. The reason of discontinuation was unknown in &gt;95% of cases. Contraception use showed a significant increase trend in Spain; for other databases this information was limited. Pregnancy testing was hardly recorded thus was not possible to model ITS analyses. After the 2018 RMM, rates of pregnancy occurrence during retinoid use, and start of a retinoid during a pregnancy varied from 0.0 to 0.4, and from 0.2 to 0.8, respectively.Conclusion: This study shows a limited impact of the 2018 RMMs on oral retinoids utilisation patterns among females of child-bearing age in four European countries. Pregnancies still occur during retinoid use, and oral retinoids are still prescribed to pregnant women. Contraception and pregnancy testing information was limited in most databases. Regulators, policymakers, prescribers, and researchers must rethink implementation strategies to avoid any pregnancy becoming temporarily related to retinoid use