Pharmaceutical Medicine最新文献

Pharmacovigilance (PV) activities aim to identify potential risks of medicines and vaccines after they have been authorised in the market by collecting and analysing information on suspected adverse events from different stakeholders. These can be captured and transmitted electronically in the form of Individual Case Safety Reports (ICSRs). Hence, up-to-date ICSRs management systems, like VigiFlow and signal detection and management systems as VigiLyze, have an important role in the PV system of a country. In 2019, after various attempts to establish a PV database that could fulfil the needs of the country, Mexico's National Regulatory Authority, COFEPRIS (Federal Commission for the Prevention against Sanitary Risks) decided to implement these tools. This has been a successful project that is still ongoing, it has involved national and international organisations, and has required the participation and integration of different components of the national PV system. The implementation of these tools has allowed COFEPRIS to increase its reporting trends and quality of reporting, while contributing to make more efficient interactions and processes with PV stakeholders, even during the COVID-19 pandemic. It has also allowed them to strengthen their commitment to the WHO-Programme for International Drug Monitoring, while highlighting opportunities for improvement in the national PV scenario and in the PV tools themselves. The aim of this article is to describe the implementation process, give an overview of current results regarding ICSR data and processes, and highlight the achievements, challenges, and opportunities for improvement after the three years since the beginning of the project.

This brief paper aims to describe the Risk Evaluation and Mitigation Strategy (REMS) Public Dashboard launched by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in December 2021. The FDA REMS Public Dashboard can be accessed through the REMS@FDA website. The dashboard was developed in Qlik Sense® to support a user-friendly interactive web-based tool that allows healthcare providers, patients, researchers, pharmaceutical companies, and regulators to readily access and visualize REMS information. The dashboard includes eight separate pages to capture information on all REMS, active REMS, REMS with elements to assure safe use, shared system REMS, REMS modifications, REMS revisions, released REMS, and REMS Summary; for REMS programs approved from 2008 to the present. Most of the pages allow users to choose different REMS characteristics to visualize and stratify the data by variables such as REMS approval time, application type, or REMS elements. This interactive platform is intended to allow users to quickly visualize trends over time and locate details of the REMS programs to inform emerging research and regulatory issues in the context of current drug safety. The FDA continues to explore ways to enhance public access of the REMS information in near real-time through the REMS Public Dashboard.

The centralised clinical trial authorisation process, introduced by European Regulation 536/2014, came into force on 31 January 2022. The Regulation is inflexible, both legally and in the technical detail of the authorisation process itself. The principal justification for moving away from the older European Directive 2001/20 seems to be limited to multinational trials: multiple applications to national competent authorities (NCAs), would theoretically be replaced by a single, internationally harmonised authorisation. In fact, the Regulation itself reserves many powers to the NCAs, and the latter, in any case, can lawfully impose further requirements even after that harmonised approval; the year's experience reflects these disadvantages. It would have been better if Regulation 536/2014 had been written to allow the European Medicines Agency greater flexibility, and offered an alternative, optional approach to clinical trial authorisation in the European Union.

Background: Clinical development paradigms for cell and gene therapies appear to be different to those of more conventional treatments: therefore, it is informative to explore this from the perspective of investments required to bring a new cell and/or gene therapy to the market. While there are a number of studies in the literature analyzing clinical-stage R&D costs for novel therapeutics, these are 'modality-agnostic' and thus do not elucidate costs specifically for the emerging class of cell and gene therapies.

Objectives: The objective of this study was to understand the research and development (R&D) costs associated with the clinical development of new cell and gene therapy assets METHODS: As part of our analysis of clinical-stage R&D costs for cell and gene therapies, we focused our efforts on cell and gene therapy assets recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) or expected to receive FDA approval by the end of 2024. A total of 25 therapies were identified for the study, 11 of which had sufficient level of detail for our clinical-stage R&D costing study. We calculated the clinical-stage R&D costs to bring a new cell and/or gene therapy to the market following a three-step approach, starting with (1) calculation of the out-of-pocket investment reported in US SEC reports; (2) we adjusted these figures for the risk of failure by applying a clinical trial phase-dependent attrition risk rate; (3) we accounted for the cost of capital of 10.5%.

Results: After accounting for R&D attrition rate (i.e., costs of failed programs) and applying a cost of capital at 10.5%, we estimate that the clinical-stage R&D investment required to bring a new cell and/or gene therapy to market is US$1943 M (95% CI US$1395 M, US$2490 M).

Conclusion: This knowledge can inform financial planning for biopharma companies looking to enter the space and inform policy makers within the context of the commercialization and pricing of such therapies.

Background: Poor adherence to glaucoma medication regimens may be associated with subsequent optic nerve damage and irreversible visual loss. Specific barriers to effective patient adherence in low-middle income countries are not fully recognized and new disease-specific instruments to assess adherence have been developed.

Objective: The purpose of this cross-sectional study was to evaluate adherence of primary open-angle glaucoma (POAG) patients to treatment in a middle-income country.

Methods: POAG patients were recruited from the Glaucoma Service - Irmandade da Santa Casa de Misericordia de Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil. Clinical and demographic data were retrieved from participants' electronic records. All patients answered the Glaucoma Treatment Compliance Assessment Tool (GTCAT). This 27-item questionnaire was designed to evaluate multiple behavioral factors associated with glaucoma medication adherence.

Results: The sample comprised 96 patients with POAG. The mean age was 63.2 ± 8.9 years; 48 were male and 48 female; 55 (57.3%) were White, 36 (37.5%) African-Brazilian, and five (5.2 %) were of mixed color. Most patients (97.9%) had less than a high school degree and all had a family income < US$10,000. The GTCAT identified 69 (71.8%) patients who "sometimes forget to use drops," 68 (70.8%) patients who "sometimes fall asleep before dosing time," and 60 (62.5%) patients "whose drops aren't with them at the time to take them"; 82 (85.4%) patients admitted to using "reminders to take medications." Eighty-two (85.4%) patients agreed that "doctor answers my questions," and 77 (80.5%) said "they are happy with their eye doctor."

Conclusions: The GTCAT identified a number of mostly unintentional factors associated with adherence in this cohort of Brazilian patients. The data may impact on how to understand and improve adherence to ocular hypotensive treatment in the Brazilian population.

Background: In Australia, facilitated regulatory pathways (FRPs) became available with the introduction of priority review (PR) in 2017 and provisional approval (PA) in 2018, which aim to facilitate expedited review and approval for novel medicines. The pathways were developed in consultation with a wide range of stakeholders and have since been utilised by pharmaceutical companies for various therapeutic products. However, the perceptions of the firsthand users of these pathways have not been evaluated in Australia.

Objectives: We have conducted a survey of Australian regulatory professionals aiming to solicit the perceived benefits, barriers to utilisation, shortcomings and proposed modifications to utilising these pathways. We have also solicited the users' perspective on key aspects of the pathways, including overall satisfaction, regulatory burden, availability and ease of use of guidelines, regulator support, impact on company strategy and recommendations for improvement.

Methods: A survey was developed and distributed to Australian regulatory professionals from the pharmaceutical industry who had submission experience of new medicine applications via either PR, PA or the standard registration pathway to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). The questionnaire consisted of 44 questions with a skip logic and the option for free text comments.

Results: We received responses from 16/42 companies that had utilised these new pathways. Nine respondents had experience with the PR pathway and ten with the PA pathway. The respondents were generally satisfied with the effectiveness of the PR process in expediting registration approvals, but they were ambivalent towards the PA pathway in terms of overall satisfaction and timelines. Respondents expressed a desire for further improvements in the speed of approval, earlier access for patients across various pathways and introduction of new Health Technology Assessment processes for medicines approved under PA.

Conclusion: While the FRPs have been an important and positive development in the Australian regulatory landscape, there remain opportunities for further improvements, some of which have been highlighted by this study and may help inform future regulatory decisions.

Background: Coroners, who hold inquests to determine the causes of unnatural deaths in England and Wales, having recognised factors that could cause other deaths, are legally obliged to signal concerns by sending 'Reports to Prevent Future Deaths' (PFDs) to interested persons. We aimed to establish whether Coroners' concerns about medications are widely recognised.

Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Embase and Web of Science up to 30 November, 2022 for publications linking PFDs and medications using a combination of search terms "coroner*", "inquest*", "medicine*", "medication*" and "prevent*". We also searched the BMJ, a UK journal that carries news items; and the databases Nexis Advance and News On the Web for reports in national newspapers between 2013 and 2022, using the search terms ("regulation 28" OR "prevent future deaths" OR "prevention of future deaths") AND "coroner". We recorded the number of publications, as well as their citations in Google Scholar at 23 May, 2023.

Results: Only 11 published papers on medicines referenced UK PFDs, nine of which were from our group. The BMJ carried 23 articles mentioning PFDs, five related to medicines. Of 139 PFDs (out of over 4000) mentioned in national newspapers, only nine related to medicines.

Conclusions: The PFDs related to medicines are not widely referred to in medical journals or UK national newspapers. By contrast, the Australian and New Zealand National Coronial Information System has contributed cases to 206 publications cited in PubMed, of which 139 are related to medicines. Our search suggests that information from English and Welsh Coroners' PFDs is under-recognised, even though it should inform public health. The results of inquiries by Coroners and medical examiners worldwide into potentially preventable deaths involving medicines should be used to strengthen the safety of medicines.