Characteristics of clinical trials in rare vs. common diseases : A register-based Latvian study

Publisher Copyright: © 2018 Logviss et al. This is an open ccess article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and eproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.Background Conducting clinical studies in small populations may be very challenging; therefore quality of clinical evidence may differ between rare and non-rare disease therapies. Objective This register-based study aims to evaluate the characteristics of clinical trials in rare diseases conducted in Latvia and compare them with clinical trials in more common conditions. Methods The EU Clinical Trials Register (clinicaltrialsregister.eu) was used to identify interventional clinical trials related to rare diseases (n = 51) and to compose a control group of clinical trials in non-rare diseases (n = 102) for further comparison of the trial characteristics. Results We found no significant difference in the use of overall survival as a primary endpoint in clinical trials between rare and non-rare diseases (9.8% vs. 13.7%, respectively). However, clinical trials in rare diseases were less likely to be randomized controlled trials (62.7% vs. 83.3%). Rare and non-rare disease clinical trials varied in masking, with rare disease trials less likely to be double blind (45.1% vs. 63.7%). Active comparators were less frequently used in rare disease trials (36.4% vs. 58.8% of controlled trials). Clinical trials in rare diseases enrolled fewer participants than those in non-rare diseases: In Latvia (mean 18.3 vs. 40.2 subjects, respectively), in the European Economic Area (mean 181.0 vs. 626.9 subjects), and in the whole clinical trial (mean 335.8 vs. 1406.3 subjects). Although, we found no significant difference in trial duration between the groups (mean 38.3 vs. 36.4 months). Conclusions The current study confirms that clinical trials in rare diseases vary from those in non-rare conditions, with notable differences in enrollment, randomization, masking, and the use of active comparators. However, we found no significant difference in trial duration and the use of overall survival as a primary endpoint.publishersversionPeer reviewe

Predictors of orphan drug approval in the European Union

Objective: To encourage the development of drugs for rare diseases, orphan drug legislation has been introduced in the USA (1983) and in the EU (2000). Recent literature discusses factors that may influence the development of new orphan medicinal products in the EU. This study aims to identify predictors for successful marketing authorisation of potential orphan drugs in the EU. Methods: A comparison between randomly selected authorised and a matched sample of not-yet-authorised orphan drug designations has been performed. Determinants in the study included characteristics of the indication, of the product and of the sponsor. Data were collected from the public domain only. Results: Orphan drug approval was strongly associated with previous experience of the sponsor in obtaining approval for another orphan drug (OR=17.3, 95% CI=5.6-53.1). Furthermore, existing synthetic entities compared to biotechnology products tended to have a higher likelihood of reaching approval status (OR=3.9, 95% CI=0.9-16.6). Conclusion: This study showed that experience of a company in developing orphan drugs is an important predictor for subsequent authorisation of other orphan drugs. The same applies for existing (synthetic) molecules, for which much knowledge is available. Further research should be directed towards studying the quality of the clinical development program of those designated orphan medicinal products not reaching approval status

Ten years of marketing approvals of anticancer drugs in Europe: regulatory policy and guidance documents need to find a balance between different pressures

Despite important progress in understanding the molecular factors underlying the development of cancer and the improvement in response rates with new drugs, long-term survival is still disappointing for most common solid tumours. This might be because very little of the modest gain for patients is the result of the new compounds discovered and marketed recently. An assessment of the regulatory agencies' performance may suggest improvements. The present analysis summarizes and evaluates the type of studies and end points used by the EMEA to approve new anticancer drugs, and discusses the application of current regulations. This report is based on the information available on the EMEA web site. We identified current regulatory requirements for anticancer drugs promulgated by the agency and retrieved them in the relevant directory; information about empirical evidence supporting the approval of drugs for solid cancers through the centralised procedure were retrieved from the European Public Assessment Report (EPAR). We surveyed documents for drug applications and later extensions from January 1995, when EMEA was set up, to December 2004. We identified 14 anticancer drugs for 27 different indications (14 new applications and 13 extensions). Overall, 48 clinical studies were used as the basis for approval; randomised comparative (clinical) trial (RCT) and Response Rate were the study design and end points most frequently adopted (respectively, 25 out of 48 and 30 out of 48). In 13 cases, the EPAR explicitly reported differences between arms in terms of survival: the range was 0–3.7 months, and the mean and median differences were 1.5 and 1.2 months. The majority of studies (13 out of 27, 48%) involved the evaluation of complete and/or partial tumour responses, with regard to the end points supporting the 27 indications. Despite the recommendations of the current EMEA guidance documents, new anticancer agents are still often approved on the basis of small single arm trials that do not allow any assessment of an ‘acceptable and extensively documented toxicity profile' and of end points such as response rate, time to progression or progression-free survival which at best can be considered indicators of anticancer activity and are not ‘justified surrogate markers for clinical benefit'. Anticipating an earlier than ideal point along the drug approval path and the use of not fully validated surrogate end points in nonrandomised trials looks like a dangerous shortcut that might jeopardise consumers' health, leading to unsafe and ineffective drugs being marketed and prescribed. The present Note for Guidance for new anticancer agents needs revising. Drugs must be rapidly released for patients who need them but not be at the expense of adequate knowledge about the real benefit of the drugs

Forecasting drug utilization and expenditure in a metropolitan health region

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>New pharmacological therapies are challenging the healthcare systems, and there is an increasing need to assess their therapeutic value in relation to existing alternatives as well as their potential budget impact. Consequently, new models to introduce drugs in healthcare are urgently needed. In the metropolitan health region of Stockholm, Sweden, a model has been developed including early warning (horizon scanning), forecasting of drug utilization and expenditure, critical drug evaluation as well as structured programs for the introduction and follow-up of new drugs. The aim of this paper is to present the forecasting model and the predicted growth in all therapeutic areas in 2010 and 2011.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Linear regression analysis was applied to aggregate sales data on hospital sales and dispensed drugs in ambulatory care, including both reimbursed expenditure and patient co-payment. The linear regression was applied on each pharmacological group based on four observations 2006-2009, and the crude predictions estimated for the coming two years 2010-2011. The crude predictions were then adjusted for factors likely to increase or decrease future utilization and expenditure, such as patent expiries, new drugs to be launched or new guidelines from national bodies or the regional Drug and Therapeutics Committee. The assessment included a close collaboration with clinical, clinical pharmacological and pharmaceutical experts from the regional Drug and Therapeutics Committee.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The annual increase in total expenditure for prescription and hospital drugs was predicted to be 2.0% in 2010 and 4.0% in 2011. Expenditures will increase in most therapeutic areas, but most predominantly for antineoplastic and immune modulating agents as well as drugs for the nervous system, infectious diseases, and blood and blood-forming organs.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The utilisation and expenditure of drugs is difficult to forecast due to uncertainties about the rate of adoption of new medicines and various ongoing healthcare reforms and activities to improve the quality and efficiency of prescribing. Nevertheless, we believe our model will be valuable as an early warning system to start developing guidance for new drugs including systems to monitor their effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness in clinical practice.</p

HASH(0x559bb2d96d28)

HASH(0x559bb2eee730)HASH(0x559bb2d29ba0

HASH(0x559bb2d13eb0)

HASH(0x559bb2f22508)HASH(0x559bb2e6afa8