Poor concordance exists between medications that receive a priority review in Canada and those given an expeditious review in the United States. The objectives of this study were to obtain an evaluation of the clinical significance of new drugs approved in both countries from expert clinical pharmacologists, and to examine the concordance of their aggregate assessment with whether or not the product received an expeditious review in either country. Five experts assessed 146 new medications approved in both Canada and the United States between 1996 and early 2002. Overall, the concordance between the experts' assessments was poor and there was large variation in products considered to be of sufficient importance for priority status. Nevertheless, the experts' evaluations suggested that several priority-reviewed products did not warrant such a review. Regulatory agencies select new medications of potential clinical significance to receive shorter review times to minimize the delay in access to them, but, in Canada, only a low proportion of priority-status products had review times within Health Canada's performance target. The large variation in the assessment of clinical significance suggests that a more appropriate strategy in Canada is to devote sufficient resources to reviewing all medications in a timely manner.
To review clinical and cost-effectiveness evidence underlying reimbursement decisions relating to drugs whose authorization mainly is based on evidence from prospective case series.
A systematic review of all new drugs evaluated in 2011-2016 within a health care profession-driven resource prioritization process, with a market approval based on prospective case series, and a reimbursement decision by the Swedish Dental and Pharmaceutical Benefits Agency (TLV). Public assessment reports from the European Medicines Agency, published pivotal studies, and TLV, Scottish Medicines Consortium and National Institute of Health and Care Excellence decisions and guidance documents were reviewed.
Six drug cases were assessed (brentuximab vedotin, bosutinib, ponatinib, idelalisib, vismodegib, ceritinib). The validity of the pivotal studies was hampered by the use of surrogate primary outcomes and the absence of recruitment information. To quantify drug treatment effect sizes, the reimbursement agencies primarily used data from another source in indirect comparisons. TLV granted reimbursement in five cases, compared with five in five cases for Scottish Medicines Consortium and four in five cases for National Institute of Health and Care Excellence. Decision modifiers, contributing to granted reimbursement despite hugely uncertain cost-effectiveness ratios, were, for example, small population size, occasionally linked to budget impact, severity of disease, end of life and improved life expectancy.
For drugs whose authorization is based on prospective case series, most applications for reimbursement within public health care are granted. The underlying evidence has limitations over and above the design per se, and decision modifiers are frequently referred to in the value-based pricing decision making.
Ensuring quality, safety and efficacy of the medicinal products placed on the market of the Russian Federation constitutes the area that requires strict regulation. When changes are made to the manufacturing process, the manufacturer generally needs to evaluate the relevant quality attributes of the product to demonstrate that modifications did not occur that would adversely impact the safety and efficacy of the drug. Where there is the lack of a sound legal basis, there is a need in harmonization of current Russian legislation with international and European rules governing medicinal product for human use to ensure quality, safety and efficacy thereof.
Advisory committees for the regulatory agencies of the United States (US Food and Drug Administration [FDA]) and Canada (Health Canada) recently considered issues associated with the determination of bioequivalence for some multiphasic modified-release (MR) drug products. The FDA has concluded that because of the complicated properties of some multiphasic MR products, additional metrics such as partial AUC are required for their assessment, whereas an advisory panel of Health Canada has decided that the current metrics are adequate and sufficient.
The authors agree with the conclusion of the FDA that additional metrics are required.
The rationales considered by the advisory committees are discussed and commented upon. It is suggested that without applying an additional metric such as partial AUC, some multiphasic MR drug products might falsely be assumed to be therapeutically equivalent and unexpected clinical effects may occur.
The safety and efficacy of current symptomatic drugs for AD was established using parallel groups taking different doses of active drugs vs placebo over three to twelve months, whereas drugs with potential stabilizing/disease modifying effects are being tested by adding new compounds or placebo to standard symptomatic drugs over 12 to 18 months. Delaying progression to disease milestones may offer additional validity to these studies. It is unclear if biological and neuroimaging markers will add to the clinical evidence.
An official review by the regulatory authorities of the conduct of a clinical trial is called a GCP-inspection and is an important element of Good Clinical Practice. The Danish Medicines Agency initiated GCP-inspections in Denmark in 1992. The article gives a short description of the inspections together with a few examples of findings during the inspections.
The registration and legislation concerning clinical trials are described with specific focus on subjects of importance to Danish doctors. Especially the investigators' responsibility for the registration of the trial, reporting of serious adverse events and final report to the agency are mentioned. The fact that the evaluation of a protocol will focus on the risk, the contents of essential new knowledge and the design are emphasised. The process of approval and the fees are mentioned, and finally the changes caused by the new GCP-directive are discussed.