Suppr超能文献

对比较 FDA 和 CHMP/EMA 的新视角:抗肿瘤酪氨酸激酶抑制剂的批准。

A fresh perspective on comparing the FDA and the CHMP/EMA: approval of antineoplastic tyrosine kinase inhibitors.

机构信息

Rashmi Shah Consultancy Ltd, Gerrards Cross, UK.

出版信息

Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2013 Sep;76(3):396-411. doi: 10.1111/bcp.12085.

Abstract

We compared and determined the reasons for any differences in the review and approval times of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European EMA/CHMP. Applications for these novel cancer drugs were submitted to them within a mean of 31.2 days of each other, providing a fair basis for comparison. The FDA had granted priority review to 12 TKIs but the EMA/CHMP did not grant the equivalent accelerated assessment to any. The FDA granted accelerated approvals to six (38%) and CHMP granted (the equivalent) conditional approvals to four (29%) of these agents. On average, the review and approval times were 205.3 days in the US compared with 409.6 days in the European Union (EU). The active review times, however, were comparable (225.4 days in the EU and 205.3 days in the US). Since oncology drug development lasts about 7 years, the 20 days difference in review times between the two agencies is inconsequential. Clock stops during review and the time required to issue an approval had added the extra 184.2 days to review time in the EU. We suggest possible solutions to expedite the EU review and approval processes. However, post-marketing emergence of adverse efficacy and safety data on gefitinib and lapatinib, respectively, indicate potential risks of expedited approvals. We challenge the widely prevalent myth that early approval translates into early access or beneficial impact on public health. Both the agencies collaborate closely but conduct independent assessments and make decisions based on distinct legislation, procedures, precedents and societal expectations.

摘要

我们比较并确定了美国食品和药物管理局(FDA)和欧洲药品管理局人用医药产品委员会(CHMP)对酪氨酸激酶抑制剂(TKI)审查和批准时间存在差异的原因。这些新型抗癌药物的申请在彼此的平均 31.2 天内向他们提交,为比较提供了公平的基础。FDA 对 12 种 TKI 给予了优先审查,但 EMA/CHMP 没有对任何一种给予等效的加速评估。FDA 批准了 6 种(38%)加速批准,CHMP 批准了 4 种(29%)同等条件批准的这些药物。平均而言,美国的审查和批准时间为 205.3 天,而欧盟为 409.6 天。然而,积极审查时间是可比的(欧盟为 225.4 天,美国为 205.3 天)。由于肿瘤药物开发需要大约 7 年的时间,因此这两个机构之间审查时间的 20 天差异并不重要。在审查期间时钟停止,并且批准所需的时间使欧盟审查时间额外增加了 184.2 天。我们建议了可能的解决方案来加快欧盟的审查和批准过程。然而,吉非替尼和拉帕替尼的上市后不良疗效和安全性数据的出现分别表明了加速批准的潜在风险。我们对广泛存在的神话提出了挑战,即早期批准转化为早期获得或对公众健康产生有益影响。这两个机构密切合作,但根据不同的法规、程序、先例和社会期望进行独立评估并做出决策。

相似文献

7
Priority review drugs approved by the FDA and the EMA: time for international regulatory harmonization of pharmaceuticals?
Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2015 Jul;24(7):709-15. doi: 10.1002/pds.3793. Epub 2015 May 27.
9
Initial and supplementary indication approval of new targeted cancer drugs by the FDA, EMA, Health Canada, and TGA.
Invest New Drugs. 2022 Aug;40(4):798-809. doi: 10.1007/s10637-022-01227-5. Epub 2022 Apr 7.
10

引用本文的文献

5
Pharmacokinetic Profile of Gilteritinib: A Novel FLT-3 Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor.
Clin Pharmacokinet. 2020 Oct;59(10):1273-1290. doi: 10.1007/s40262-020-00888-w.
6
FDA and EMA Approvals of New Breast Cancer Drugs-A Comparative Regulatory Analysis.
Cancers (Basel). 2020 Feb 13;12(2):437. doi: 10.3390/cancers12020437.
8
Pathways to ensure universal and affordable access to hepatitis C treatment.
BMC Med. 2018 Oct 9;16(1):175. doi: 10.1186/s12916-018-1162-z.
9
A comparison of new drugs approved by the FDA, the EMA, and Swissmedic: an assessment of the international harmonization of drugs.
Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2018 Jun;74(6):811-818. doi: 10.1007/s00228-018-2431-7. Epub 2018 Feb 22.
10
How do we avoid disaster when exiting the European Medicines Agency? Making the most of Brexit in pharmaceutical regulation.
Ecancermedicalscience. 2017 Jun 27;11:ed67. doi: 10.3332/ecancer.2017.ed67. eCollection 2017.

本文引用的文献

1
Tyrosine kinase inhibitors: their on-target toxicities as potential indicators of efficacy.
Drug Saf. 2013 Jun;36(6):413-26. doi: 10.1007/s40264-013-0050-x.
2
Review of novel therapeutics by three regulatory agencies.
N Engl J Med. 2012 Sep 20;367(12):1166; author reply 1166-7. doi: 10.1056/NEJMc1208803.
3
A pilot study on cost-related medication nonadherence in Ontario.
J Popul Ther Clin Pharmacol. 2012;19(2):e239-47. Epub 2012 Jul 12.
4
The price we pay for progress: a meta-analysis of harms of newly approved anticancer drugs.
J Clin Oncol. 2012 Aug 20;30(24):3012-9. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2011.40.3824. Epub 2012 Jul 16.
5
Regulatory review of novel therapeutics--comparison of three regulatory agencies.
N Engl J Med. 2012 Jun 14;366(24):2284-93. doi: 10.1056/NEJMsa1200223. Epub 2012 May 16.
6
Hurdles in anticancer drug development from a regulatory perspective.
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2012 Feb 21;9(4):236-43. doi: 10.1038/nrclinonc.2012.14.
7
The effect of cost on adherence to prescription medications in Canada.
CMAJ. 2012 Feb 21;184(3):297-302. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.111270. Epub 2012 Jan 16.
10
Despite criticism of the FDA review process, new cancer drugs reach patients sooner in the United States than in Europe.
Health Aff (Millwood). 2011 Jul;30(7):1375-81. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0231. Epub 2011 Jun 16.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验