Assessing Post-Marketing Requirements for Orphan Drugs: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of FDA and EMA Oversight

IF 6.3 2区 医学 Q1 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics Pub Date : 2024-08-28 DOI:10.1002/cpt.3397
Jae Hyeon Yu, Sangwon Lee, Yoon Jung Kim, Won Young Kim, Min Jung Lee, Yun Kim
{"title":"Assessing Post-Marketing Requirements for Orphan Drugs: A Cross-Sectional Analysis of FDA and EMA Oversight","authors":"Jae Hyeon Yu,&nbsp;Sangwon Lee,&nbsp;Yoon Jung Kim,&nbsp;Won Young Kim,&nbsp;Min Jung Lee,&nbsp;Yun Kim","doi":"10.1002/cpt.3397","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) oversee pharmaceutical regulations, including orphan drugs targeting rare diseases with limited patient populations. Post-marketing studies are crucial for monitoring safety and efficacy, with post-marketing requirements (PMRs) mandated by the regulatory agencies to ensure compliance. This study aims to compare PMR statuses, objectives, and pivotal trial characteristics of orphan drugs approved by the FDA (<i>n</i> = 154) and EMA (<i>n</i> = 79) from 2008 to 2018, shedding light on regulatory differences and their impact on drug development. Contrary to expectations, our analysis found no significant disparity in the proportion of orphan drugs with and without PMRs approved by both the FDA (48.1%) and EMA (55.7%). Safety concerns surrounding orphan drugs post-approval, attributed partly to pivotal trial design, underscore the need for robust post-marketing surveillance. While the FDA primarily focuses on post-marketing safety (36.1%), the EMA places a higher emphasis on both efficacy and safety (47.1%), reflecting distinct approaches to PMR management between the two regulatory bodies. The observed trend of delayed PMRs at the EMA (47.1%) highlights the importance of effective cooperation between regulators and pharmaceutical companies to ensure the timely completion of PMRs and enhance drug safety.</p>","PeriodicalId":153,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics","volume":"116 6","pages":"1560-1571"},"PeriodicalIF":6.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cpt.3397","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cpt.3397","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

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) oversee pharmaceutical regulations, including orphan drugs targeting rare diseases with limited patient populations. Post-marketing studies are crucial for monitoring safety and efficacy, with post-marketing requirements (PMRs) mandated by the regulatory agencies to ensure compliance. This study aims to compare PMR statuses, objectives, and pivotal trial characteristics of orphan drugs approved by the FDA (n = 154) and EMA (n = 79) from 2008 to 2018, shedding light on regulatory differences and their impact on drug development. Contrary to expectations, our analysis found no significant disparity in the proportion of orphan drugs with and without PMRs approved by both the FDA (48.1%) and EMA (55.7%). Safety concerns surrounding orphan drugs post-approval, attributed partly to pivotal trial design, underscore the need for robust post-marketing surveillance. While the FDA primarily focuses on post-marketing safety (36.1%), the EMA places a higher emphasis on both efficacy and safety (47.1%), reflecting distinct approaches to PMR management between the two regulatory bodies. The observed trend of delayed PMRs at the EMA (47.1%) highlights the importance of effective cooperation between regulators and pharmaceutical companies to ensure the timely completion of PMRs and enhance drug safety.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
评估孤儿药上市后的要求:对 FDA 和 EMA 监督的横向分析。
美国食品和药物管理局 (FDA) 和欧洲药品管理局 (EMA) 负责监管药品法规,包括针对患者人数有限的罕见病的孤儿药。上市后研究对于监测安全性和有效性至关重要,监管机构规定了上市后要求 (PMR),以确保合规性。本研究旨在比较 2008 年至 2018 年期间 FDA(n = 154)和 EMA(n = 79)批准的孤儿药的 PMR 状态、目标和关键试验特征,揭示监管差异及其对药物开发的影响。与预期相反,我们的分析发现,FDA(48.1%)和 EMA(55.7%)批准的孤儿药中有 PMR 和无 PMR 的比例并无明显差异。孤儿药批准后的安全性问题部分归因于关键性试验的设计,这凸显了上市后严格监控的必要性。FDA 主要关注上市后的安全性(36.1%),而 EMA 则更重视疗效和安全性(47.1%),这反映了两个监管机构在 PMR 管理方面的不同方法。观察到的 EMA PMR 延误趋势(47.1%)突出了监管机构与制药公司之间有效合作的重要性,以确保及时完成 PMR 并提高药物安全性。
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 去求助
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.
期刊最新文献
A Phase I Trial of the Pharmacokinetic Interaction Between Cannabidiol and Tacrolimus. Oxygenation Effects of Antihypertensive Agents in Intensive Care: A Prospective Comparative Study of Nicardipine and Urapidil. Discovering Severe Adverse Reactions From Pharmacokinetic Drug-Drug Interactions Through Literature Analysis and Electronic Health Record Verification. French-Speaking Network of Pharmacogenetics (RNPGx) Recommendations for Clinical Use of Mavacamten. Clinical and Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Model Evaluations of Adagrasib Drug-Drug Interactions.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1