Demonstration of Major Therapeutic Advantage From a Review of EU Conditional Marketing Authorizations in Oncology and Hematology

IF 6.3 2区 医学 Q1 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Florian Lasch, Joana R. B. Carvalho, Caroline Pothet
{"title":"Demonstration of Major Therapeutic Advantage From a Review of EU Conditional Marketing Authorizations in Oncology and Hematology","authors":"Florian Lasch,&nbsp;Joana R. B. Carvalho,&nbsp;Caroline Pothet","doi":"10.1002/cpt.3554","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>In the EU, conditional marketing authorization is a pragmatic tool for early approval of a medicine that fulfills an unmet medical need. In the pharmaceutical legislation, an unmet medical need means that a condition lacks a satisfactory method for diagnosis, prevention, or treatment. If such satisfactory methods exist, the new medicinal product must hold a major therapeutic advantage for those affected, meaning that it must demonstrate an improvement in efficacy or safety over existing methods or, in exceptional cases, a major improvement in patient care. This review evaluates the approaches taken to justify a major therapeutic advantage in oncology and hematology products recommended for approval between 2006 and 2023. The review confirmed an increase in the number of conditional marketing authorizations over time. Out of a total of 65 CMAs, a satisfactory treatment method was available for 40 cases (61.5%), thereby requiring a demonstration of major therapeutic advantage to fulfill the unmet medical need requirement. Satisfactory treatments existed more often for the more recently approved medicinal products. Qualitative arguments and quantitative comparisons were common to demonstrate meaningful improvement in efficacy or safety. In the absence of head-to-head trials, indirect comparisons were often used. Most quantitative comparisons used naïve side-by-side comparisons, lacking adjustments for trial differences or quantification of uncertainty. Regulatory guidance on indirect comparisons and data requirements may be helpful to support applicants and assessors in making available promising medicines early that fulfill an unmet medical need and continue to meet rigorous efficacy and safety standards pending availability of comprehensive data post-approval.</p>","PeriodicalId":153,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics","volume":"117 4","pages":"1098-1105"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11924147/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cpt.3554","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In the EU, conditional marketing authorization is a pragmatic tool for early approval of a medicine that fulfills an unmet medical need. In the pharmaceutical legislation, an unmet medical need means that a condition lacks a satisfactory method for diagnosis, prevention, or treatment. If such satisfactory methods exist, the new medicinal product must hold a major therapeutic advantage for those affected, meaning that it must demonstrate an improvement in efficacy or safety over existing methods or, in exceptional cases, a major improvement in patient care. This review evaluates the approaches taken to justify a major therapeutic advantage in oncology and hematology products recommended for approval between 2006 and 2023. The review confirmed an increase in the number of conditional marketing authorizations over time. Out of a total of 65 CMAs, a satisfactory treatment method was available for 40 cases (61.5%), thereby requiring a demonstration of major therapeutic advantage to fulfill the unmet medical need requirement. Satisfactory treatments existed more often for the more recently approved medicinal products. Qualitative arguments and quantitative comparisons were common to demonstrate meaningful improvement in efficacy or safety. In the absence of head-to-head trials, indirect comparisons were often used. Most quantitative comparisons used naïve side-by-side comparisons, lacking adjustments for trial differences or quantification of uncertainty. Regulatory guidance on indirect comparisons and data requirements may be helpful to support applicants and assessors in making available promising medicines early that fulfill an unmet medical need and continue to meet rigorous efficacy and safety standards pending availability of comprehensive data post-approval.

Abstract Image

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
12.70
自引率
7.50%
发文量
290
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics (CPT) is the authoritative cross-disciplinary journal in experimental and clinical medicine devoted to publishing advances in the nature, action, efficacy, and evaluation of therapeutics. CPT welcomes original Articles in the emerging areas of translational, predictive and personalized medicine; new therapeutic modalities including gene and cell therapies; pharmacogenomics, proteomics and metabolomics; bioinformation and applied systems biology complementing areas of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, human investigation and clinical trials, pharmacovigilence, pharmacoepidemiology, pharmacometrics, and population pharmacology.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信