Mandslay Diana, Almeida Diogo, Marques Adriana, Rocha João, Drafi Frantisek, Sepodes Bruno, Torre Carla
Faculdade de Farmácia, Universidade de Lisboa, Lisbon, Portugal.
Laboratory of Systems Integration Pharmacology, Clinical and Regulatory Science, Research Institute for Medicines of the University of Lisbon (iMED.ULisboa), Lisbon, Portugal.
Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2025 Jan;117(1):73-93. doi: 10.1002/cpt.3410. Epub 2024 Aug 14.
In the current landscape, regulatory agencies face the challenge of reconciling timely authorizations for novel medicines addressing life-threatening conditions with thorough evaluations of their benefits and risks. This challenge is pronounced with advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs), where expedited approval mechanisms and orphan drug designations are often applied, making post-authorization measures a crucial mechanism to address uncertainties. We compared post-authorization measures imposed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency on ATMPs approvals, from 2009 to 2023. A systematic extraction of FDA postmarketing requirements (PMRs) and EMA-imposed post-authorization measures (PAMs) from publicly available regulatory documents was conducted. Descriptive analysis focused on post-authorization measure categories, objectives, study designs, and their status and registration rates. A total of 15 ATMPs were approved in both jurisdictions over the study period. For these products, the EMA imposed 53 PAMs (34 Annex II conditions and 19 Specific Obligations), whereas the FDA imposed 27 PMRs. As of December 2023, 15 EMA-imposed PAMs were fulfilled, with no explicit fulfilments indicated for FDA PMRs. Both agencies promoted real-world data use in around half of the imposed PAMs (23 by EMA vs. 15 by FDA), marking regulators' growing recognition of Real-World Evidence for decision-making. This study highlights disparities between imposed PAMs: EMA imposed more PAMs, covering efficacy, safety, and quality aspects, while the FDA required fewer measures focusing on specific safety concerns. These discrepancies primarily reflect distinct regulatory structures and approaches to further post-authorization data collection between the EMA and FDA, rather than disparities in initial benefit/risk assessments.
在当前形势下,监管机构面临着一项挑战,即如何在及时批准用于治疗危及生命疾病的新型药物与全面评估其益处和风险之间取得平衡。对于先进治疗药物(ATMPs)而言,这一挑战尤为突出,因为此类药物常常采用加速审批机制和孤儿药指定,使得上市后措施成为解决不确定性的关键机制。我们比较了2009年至2023年美国食品药品监督管理局(FDA)和欧洲药品管理局(EMA)对ATMPs批准所采取的上市后措施。我们从公开的监管文件中系统提取了FDA的上市后要求(PMRs)和EMA实施的上市后措施(PAMs)。描述性分析聚焦于上市后措施的类别、目标、研究设计及其状态和登记率。在研究期间,两个辖区共批准了15种ATMPs。对于这些产品,EMA实施了53项PAMs(34项附件II条件和19项特定义务),而FDA实施了27项PMRs。截至2023年12月,EMA实施的15项PAMs已完成,FDA的PMRs未显示有明确完成情况。两个机构在大约一半的实施PAMs中都推动了真实世界数据的使用(EMA为23项,FDA为15项),这标志着监管机构越来越认可将真实世界证据用于决策。本研究突出了所实施PAMs之间的差异:EMA实施的PAMs更多,涵盖疗效、安全性和质量方面,而FDA要求的措施较少,主要关注特定的安全问题。这些差异主要反映了EMA和FDA在上市后数据收集的监管结构和方法上的不同,而非初始效益/风险评估的差异。