Comparative analysis of the information reported on labels of medicinal products containing new active substances between Europe and the USA.

IF 1.7
Giuseppe Marano, Arianna Annunziata, Maria Cutillo, Roberto Da Cas, Francesca Menniti-Ippolito, Ilaria Ippoliti
{"title":"Comparative analysis of the information reported on labels of medicinal products containing new active substances between Europe and the USA.","authors":"Giuseppe Marano, Arianna Annunziata, Maria Cutillo, Roberto Da Cas, Francesca Menniti-Ippolito, Ilaria Ippoliti","doi":"10.4415/ANN_26_02_03","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Although notable efforts have been made to harmonise regulatory processes for the approval of new therapeutic drugs by the competent authorities, some discrepancies concerning risk-benefit assessments and regulatory actions remain.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This analysis compared the approaches of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the approval of new active substances and identified potential clinical implications associated with these differences in \"Indication\", \"Contraindications\" and \"Posology and administration of drugs\" sections of drug summary of products characteristics (SmPC).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The overall analysis showed major differences in 63.9% for the indications, in 75% for contraindications and in 13.9% for posology. Considering the more represented therapeutic areas (cancer and haematology/haemostaseology drugs), the percentage of major differences for the indications was 70% in cancer area and 50% in haematology/haemostaseology area. For contraindications major differences were observed in 90% of cancer drugs, and 60% in haematology/haemostaseology drugs.</p><p><strong>Discussion: </strong>Our findings highlight the need of further efforts on harmonizing decision making driven by scientific data between regulatory authorities in the interest of patients in a public health perspective.</p>","PeriodicalId":502090,"journal":{"name":"Annali dell'Istituto superiore di sanita","volume":"62 2","pages":"115-120"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Annali dell'Istituto superiore di sanita","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4415/ANN_26_02_03","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Introduction: Although notable efforts have been made to harmonise regulatory processes for the approval of new therapeutic drugs by the competent authorities, some discrepancies concerning risk-benefit assessments and regulatory actions remain.

Methods: This analysis compared the approaches of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the approval of new active substances and identified potential clinical implications associated with these differences in "Indication", "Contraindications" and "Posology and administration of drugs" sections of drug summary of products characteristics (SmPC).

Results: The overall analysis showed major differences in 63.9% for the indications, in 75% for contraindications and in 13.9% for posology. Considering the more represented therapeutic areas (cancer and haematology/haemostaseology drugs), the percentage of major differences for the indications was 70% in cancer area and 50% in haematology/haemostaseology area. For contraindications major differences were observed in 90% of cancer drugs, and 60% in haematology/haemostaseology drugs.

Discussion: Our findings highlight the need of further efforts on harmonizing decision making driven by scientific data between regulatory authorities in the interest of patients in a public health perspective.

欧洲和美国含有新活性物质的药品标签报告信息的比较分析。
导言:尽管主管部门已经做出了显著的努力来协调新治疗药物批准的监管过程,但在风险-效益评估和监管行动方面仍然存在一些差异。方法:本分析比较了欧洲药品管理局(EMA)和美国食品药品监督管理局(FDA)批准新原料药的方法,并确定了这些差异与药品特性摘要(SmPC)的“适应症”、“禁忌症”和“药物的药理和给药”部分的潜在临床意义。结果:总体分析显示,适应症差异为63.9%,禁忌症差异为75%,病理差异为13.9%。考虑到更具代表性的治疗领域(癌症和血液学/血液学药物),适应症的主要差异百分比在癌症领域为70%,在血液学/血液学领域为50%。对于禁忌症,90%的癌症药物和60%的血液学/血液学药物存在主要差异。讨论:我们的研究结果强调,需要进一步努力协调监管当局之间的决策,以科学数据为驱动,从公共卫生的角度考虑患者的利益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书