Insights & news

Comparison of Regulatory Outcome of EMA and FDA New Medicine Marketing Applications (2014-2016)

  • 30/08/2019
  • Articles

Officials of the European Medicines Agency (“EMA”) and the US Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) published a study on the regulatory outcome of 107 new medicine marketing applications submitted to both agencies in the period 2014 – 2016 (the “Study”* – see attached). The Study shows that there was a high rate of convergence between the decisions on marketing approvals of both agencies.
 
The decisions upon first submission and review presented the same regulatory outcome for 91.5% of the applications (98 cases out of 107). That impressive figure rose to 98% as a result of resubmitted and reexamined applications (105 cases out of 107). Only two medicines, namely corifollitropin alfa and ataluren, were the subject of discordant marketing authorisation decisions.
 
The Study also reveals that the broad alignment between the agencies on medicine approvals coexists with some variation in type of marketing authorisation. In addition, some concordant approval decisions exhibited differences in the approved indication.
 
The divergent outcome upon first submission and review in the 9 cases referred to above were due to a difference in conclusions regarding efficacy (3 out of 9 medicines) and more disparate reasons such as dissimilarities in the submitted clinical data; and differing conclusions about the strength of evidence in support of safety or an applicant’s compliance with good manufacturing practices.
 
According to the Study, the therapeutic areas that stood out from the perspective of outcome divergence were oncology and hematology.
 
It is hoped that EMA and FDA officials will carry out similar studies in years to come as these may inform future policy decisions.   
 

 
*M. Kashoki, Z. Hanaizi, S. Yordanova, R. Vesely, C. Bouygues, J. Llinares and S. Kweder, “A Comparison of EMA and FDA Decisions for New Drug Marketing Applications 2014-2016: Concordance, Discordance and Why”, Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, July 2019. 

Attachments:

Key contacts

Related practice areas

Related insights

Sign up for updates
    • 14/01/2020
    • Articles

    OECD Makes Recommendations for Improvement of Performance-Based Managed Entry Agreements for Medicines

    The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (“OECD”) published a health working paper (the “Paper”) authored by Martin Wenzl and Suzannah Chapman that offers recommendations for the use of performance-based managed entry agreements in OECD countries and EU Member States (see, attached). The Paper reflects the results of a review of managed entry agreements (“MEAs”) carried out in 2018 and 2019. MEAs are arrangements between healthcare payers and pharmaceutical firms that provide for the reimbursement of generally new health technologies, including medicines, while controlling the financial impact of that reimbursement and keeping price concessions confidential. These financial agreements are thus tools for achieving patient access to medicines while managing uncertainty. A further group of MEA’s, far less common than these purely financial agreements, are performance-based contracts. Both financial MEA’s and performance-based MEA’s can be assessed either at the level of individual patients or at that of a given population. The Paper indicates that the experience with performance-based MEA’s is both limited and mixed. This is in large part due to the dearth of available information as few countries have formally assessed their experience with performance-based MEA’s. The Paper therefore relies on limited public sources and a number of expert interviews. Only Belgium and Sweden had independent evaluations conducted by third parties. The tentative conclusion of the Paper is that performance-based MEA’s have made only a limited contribution towards reducing uncertainty regarding product performance. This is why the Paper makes recommendations for good practices that make it more likely for performance-based MEA’s to reach their objectives. These are: i. to use performance-based MEA’s strategically and in the wider context of information derived from the use of other instruments such as horizon-scanning; ii. to identify uncertainties and design the performance-based MEA’s to address such uncertainties; iii. to create a governance framework that ensures transparency of process and guarantees that results are actually acted upon; iv. to ensure an appropriate level of transparency of content, even though some parts of the MEA’s, such as prices, may have to remain confidential. The Paper points out that countries could benefit from sharing information but very little information is at present published or shared. Still, the Paper cites approvingly a number of collaborative initiatives of the European Medicines Agency such as the EU-wide framework on patient registries or the European Network of Centres for Pharmacoepidemiology and Pharmacovigilance.

    Read more
    • 13/01/2020
    • News

    Brussels Court of Appeal Confirms Infringement of Competition Rules by Professional Organisation of Pharmacists but Directs BCA to Recalculate Fine

    On 8 January 2020 the Market Court of the Brussels Court of Appeal confirmed a finding of the Belgian Competition Authority (“BCA”) that the professional organisation of pharmacists had infringed the competition rules. However, it also directed the BCA to recalculate the fine which is now expected to turn out significantly lower. Please find attached a note on the judgment as well as its text.

    Read more
    • 10/01/2020
    • Articles

    MEP Cindy Franssen Raises Important Questions Regarding Medicine Shortages in European Union

    Member of the European Parliament Cindy Franssen submitted to the European Commission (the “Commission”) a series of interesting questions regarding medicine shortages (see, attachment). Broadly, the questions probe for (i) possible violations of Directive 2001/83/EC if pharmaceutical firms “caus[e] shortages [of medicines] on the basis of commercial decisions”; (ii) the measures which the Commission plans to take to tackle shortages; and (iii) the proposals which the Commission intends to put forward in order to enhance local production of medicines. While some of these questions exhibit bias against the pharmaceutical industry, they are likely to prompt important answers from the Commission in relation to (i) the public service obligation associated with supplying medicines as contained in Article 81 of Directive 2001/83/EC; (ii) the initiatives which the Commission will take to address medicine shortages (see, Van Bael & Bellis Life Sciences Newsflash of 26 November 2019 and Van Bael & Bellis Life Sciences Newsflash of 11 September 2019); and (iii) calls made in various circles to make sure that the production of key pharmaceutical ingredients is moved to Europe (see for example, Van Bael & Bellis Life Sciences Newsflash of 9 July 2019).

    Read more

Subscribe to our updates

Please select the practice areas you are interested in: *