The European Medicines Agency's EU conditional marketing authorisations for COVID-19 vaccines.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Cavaleri M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7833511 | biostudies-literature | 2021 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
The European Medicines Agency's EU conditional marketing authorisations for COVID-19 vaccines.
Cavaleri Marco M Enzmann Harald H Straus Sabine S Cooke Emer E
Lancet (London, England) 20210113 10272
Similar Datasets
Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic posed challenges to communicating accurate information about vaccines because of the spread of misinformation. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) tried to reassure the public by communicating early on about the development and approval of COVID-19 vaccines. The EMA surveyed patients/consumers, healthcare professional organizations, and individual stakeholders, both at the EU level and in an Italian regional context. The objectives of the study were to see if the EMA's core information materials were informative and well-understood and which communication channels were preferred by the public. The main findings showed that individual patients/consumers generally prefer to obtain information about COVID-19 vaccines from the internet or mass media, while organizations and individual healthcare professionals prefer to obtain information from national and international health authorities. Both at EU and local levels, participants had a good understanding of the key messages from regulators and found the materials useful and relevant. However, some improvements were recommended to the visual, text, and dissemination formats, including publishing more information on safety and using a more public-friendly language. Also, it was recommended to maintain the EMA's approach of using media, stakeholder engagement, and web-based formats to communicate about COVID-19 vaccines. In conclusion, user-testing of proactive communication materials aimed to prebunk misinformation during a public health crisis helps to ensure that users understand the development and safety of novel vaccine technologies. This information can then be used as a basis for further evidence-based communication activities by regulators and public health bodies in an emergency context.
| S-EPMC10610863 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Since 2005, more than 40 new medicines for the treatment of type 2 diabetes have been introduced on the market. These consist of 15 new active substances establishing three new classes of non-insulin products, and several new or modified insulin products and combinations. The approval of these products in Europe is regulated via the centralized procedure at the European Medicines Agency. Demonstration of benefit with regard to improved glucose control remains the principal outcome required from confirmatory studies to demonstrate efficacy. For the majority of these new medicines approved since 2005, cardiovascular outcome trials have now been completed, and have invariably supported the cardiovascular safety of these products. In some of these trials additional important benefits have been observed, for instance, a reduction in major adverse cardiovascular events and improvement of renal outcome. The existing regulatory framework and the continuous adaption of regulatory requirements to emerging developments will continue to guide the approval of new products in the future.
| S-EPMC6667915 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPrompted by the Covid-19 pandemic and the need to ensure timely and safe access to medicines during a pandemic, the aim of this study was to compare and contrast the EU and US regulations, processes, and outcomes pertaining to the granting of accelerated Marketing Authorizations (MAs) for COVID-19 vaccines and treatments with a view to determining how effective these regulations were in delivering safe medicines in a timely manner.MethodsMAs for medicines approved for Covid-related indications in the first two pandemic years (March 2020-February 2022) were identified using the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) websites. Authorization reports and utilized regulations were reviewed to determine and compare approval timelines, facilitated pathways, accepted clinical evidence, and effectiveness of the regulations by assessing them against time and safety standards.ResultsBy the end of February 2022, the EMA and FDA had granted 12 and 14 MAs, respectively. Two EU and two US approvals were issued in relation to new indications for already-approved treatments; the remaining ones were first-time approvals of novel vaccines and treatments. The median time to approval was 24 days for the EMA's conditional MAs and 36 days for the USFDA's Emergency Use Authorizations (EUA) for all Covid-19 medicines. This is compared with 23 and 28 days, respectively, specifically for first-time novel vaccines and treatments authorized by both USFDA and EMA. The USFDA and EMA differed markedly in terms of the time taken to approve new indications of already-approved treatment; the USFDA took 65 days for such approval, compared with 133 days for the EMA. Where MAs were issued by both authorities, USFDA approvals were issued before EMA approvals; applications for approval were submitted to the FDA before submission to the EMA. Three EU and two US MAs were based on data from two or more phase 3 clinical trials; the remaining ones were based on single trial data. Only six EU and four US trials had been completed by the time of authorization. This was in line with regulations. While the applicable regulations shared many similarities, there were marked differences. For instance, the EU's conditional MA regulation pertains only to first approvals of new treatments. It does not cover new indications of already-approved treatments. This contrasts with the US, where the EUA regulation applies to both types of applications, something that may have impacted approval timelines. Overall, both EU and US utilized regulations were considered to be effective. For most cases, utilizing such regulations for Covid-19 MAs resulted in faster approval timelines compared to standard MAs. They were flexible enough to manage the process of granting emergency approvals while maintaining strict requirements and allowing comprehensive reviews of the supporting evidence.ConclusionUS and EU regulations were effective in ensuring timely accelerated market access to Covid-19 medicines during the pandemic without compromising the approval standards related to safety or efficacy. The population in both regions will receive comparable access to medicines during a pandemic if sponsors submit their applications to both authorities in parallel.
| S-EPMC10764419 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The pace of innovation is accelerating, and so medicines regulators need to actively innovate regulatory science to protect human and animal health. This requires consideration and consultation across all stakeholder groups. To this end, the European Medicines Agency worked with stakeholders to draft its Regulatory Science Strategy to 2025 and launched it for public consultation. The responses to this consultation were analyzed qualitatively, using framework analysis and quantitatively, to derive stakeholders' aggregate scores for the proposed recommendations. This paper provides a comprehensive resource of stakeholder positions on key regulatory science topics of the coming 5 years. These stakeholder positions have implications for the development and regulatory approval of both human and veterinary medicines.
| S-EPMC7540226 | biostudies-literature
Project description: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.
| S-EPMC11924147 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To address unresolved questions about drug safety and efficacy at the time of approval, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) may require that manufacturers conduct additional studies during the postmarketing period. As a growing proportion of new cancer drugs are approved on the basis of limited evidence of clinical benefit, timely completion of postmarketing requirements is important. We used publicly available regulatory documents to evaluate key characteristics of pivotal studies supporting EMA-approved cancer drugs from 2004-2014 and assessed completion rates of postmarketing data collection requirements after a minimum of 5 years. From 2004-2014, 79% (45/57) of EMA-approved cancer drugs had to fulfill postmarketing requirements. Pivotal trials supporting the approval of cancer drugs with postmarketing requirements were less likely to have randomized designs (41/61, 67% vs. 11/11, 100%), include an active comparator (20/61, 33% vs. 10/11, 91%), or measure overall survival as the primary study end point (18/61, 30% vs. 6/11, 55%) compared with pivotal trials for drugs without postmarketing requirements. Among 200 postmarketing requirements, almost half were designed to assess drug safety. After a minimum of 5 years, 60% (121/200) of requirements were completed, 10% (19/200) were ongoing, and 30% (60/200) were delayed. About half (40/75, 53%) of postmarketing requirements for new clinical studies were completed on time. Delays in the completion of postmarketing requirements often did not impact the likelihood of drugs receiving permanent marketing authorization (87%, 39/45) after 5 years. Our findings highlight the need for EMA to better enforce its authority to require timely completion of postmarketing requirements and studies.
| S-EPMC9540185 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Mobility is defined as the ability to independently move around the environment and is a key contributor to quality of life, especially in older age. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of mobility as a decisive outcome for the marketing authorisation of drugs by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Fifteen therapeutic areas which commonly lead to relevant mobility impairments and alter the quantity and/or the quality of walking were selected: two systemic neurological diseases, four conditions primarily affecting exercise capacity, seven musculoskeletal diseases and two conditions representing sensory impairments. European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) published by the EMA until September 2020 were examined for mobility endpoints included in their 'main studies'. Clinical study registries and primary scientific publications for these studies were also reviewed. Four hundred and eighty-four EPARs yielded 186 relevant documents with 402 'main studies'. The EPARs reported 153 primary and 584 secondary endpoints which considered mobility; 70 different assessment tools (38 patient-reported outcomes, 13 clinician-reported outcomes, 8 performance outcomes and 13 composite endpoints) were used. Only 15.7% of those tools distinctly informed on patients' mobility status. Out of 402, 105 (26.1%) of the 'main studies' did not have any mobility assessment. Furthermore, none of these studies included a digital mobility outcome. For conditions with a high impact on mobility, mobility assessment was given little consideration in the marketing authorisation of drugs by the EMA. Where mobility impairment was considered to be a relevant outcome, questionnaires or composite scores susceptible to reporting biases were predominantly used.
| S-EPMC8789320 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHemodialysis patients have high-risk of severe SARS-CoV-2 infection but were unrepresented in randomized controlled trials evaluating the safety and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines. We estimated the real-world effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in a large international cohort of hemodialysis patients.MethodsIn this historical, 1:1 matched cohort study, we included adult hemodialysis patients receiving treatment from December 1, 2020, to May 31, 2021. For each vaccinated patient, an unvaccinated control was selected among patients registered in the same country and attending a dialysis session around the first vaccination date. Matching was based on demographics, clinical characteristics, past COVID-19 infections and a risk score representing the local background risk of infection at vaccination dates. We estimated the effectiveness of mRNA and viral-carrier COVID-19 vaccines in preventing infection and mortality rates from a time-dependent Cox regression stratified by country.ResultsIn the effectiveness analysis concerning mRNA vaccines, we observed 850 SARS-CoV-2 infections and 201 COVID-19 related deaths among the 28110 patients during a mean follow up of 44 ± 40 days. In the effectiveness analysis concerning viral-carrier vaccines, we observed 297 SARS-CoV-2 infections and 64 COVID-19 related deaths among 12888 patients during a mean follow up of 48 ± 32 days. We observed 18.5/100-patient-year and 8.5/100-patient-year fewer infections and 5.4/100-patient-year and 5.2/100-patient-year fewer COVID-19 related deaths among patients vaccinated with mRNA and viral-carrier vaccines respectively, compared to matched unvaccinated controls. Estimated vaccine effectiveness at days 15, 30, 60 and 90 after the first dose of a mRNA vaccine was: for infection, 41.3%, 54.5%, 72.6% and 83.5% and, for death, 33.1%, 55.4%, 80.1% and 91.2%. Estimated vaccine effectiveness after the first dose of a viral-carrier vaccine was: for infection, 38.3% without increasing over time and, for death, 56.6%, 75.3%, 92.0% and 97.4%.ConclusionIn this large, real-world cohort of hemodialyzed patients, mRNA and viral-carrier COVID-19 vaccines were associated with reduced COVID-19 related mortality. Additionally, we observed a strong reduction of SARS-CoV-2 infection in hemodialysis patients receiving mRNA vaccines.
| S-EPMC10479614 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWithin a few months, the COVID-19 pandemic had spread to many countries and had been a real challenge for health systems all around the world. This unprecedented crisis has led to a surge of online discussions about potential cures for the disease. Among them, vaccines have been at the heart of the debates and have faced lack of confidence before marketing in France.ObjectiveThis study aims to identify and investigate the opinions of French Twitter users on the announced vaccines against COVID-19 through sentiment analysis.MethodsThis study was conducted in 2 phases. First, we filtered a collection of tweets related to COVID-19 available on Twitter from February 2020 to August 2020 with a set of keywords associated with vaccine mistrust using word embeddings. Second, we performed sentiment analysis using deep learning to identify the characteristics of vaccine mistrust. The model was trained on a hand-labeled subset of 4548 tweets.ResultsA set of 69 relevant keywords were identified as the semantic concept of the word "vaccin" (vaccine in French) and focused mainly on conspiracies, pharmaceutical companies, and alternative treatments. Those keywords enabled us to extract nearly 350,000 tweets in French. The sentiment analysis model achieved 0.75 accuracy. The model then predicted 16% of positive tweets, 41% of negative tweets, and 43% of neutral tweets. This allowed us to explore the semantic concepts of positive and negative tweets and to plot the trends of each sentiment. The main negative rhetoric identified from users' tweets was that vaccines are perceived as having a political purpose and that COVID-19 is a commercial argument for the pharmaceutical companies.ConclusionsTwitter might be a useful tool to investigate the arguments for vaccine mistrust because it unveils political criticism contrasting with the usual concerns on adverse drug reactions. As the opposition rhetoric is more consistent and more widely spread than the positive rhetoric, we believe that this research provides effective tools to help health authorities better characterize the risk of vaccine mistrust.
| S-EPMC10132828 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundWe aimed to elucidate which vaccines were accepted by European countries as valid proof of vaccination against COVID-19 for international travelers.MethodOn 27-September-2021 a cross-sectional study was conducted on VisaGuide.World, that reports on valid vaccines for international travelers. Other databases, lay press and regulatory agencies were also checked. The main outcome measure was which of the vaccines included on the WHO emergency use listing (EUL) [ChAdOx1 (Vaxzevria, Covishield),BNT162b2,mRNA-1273,Ad26.CoV2.S,BBIBP-CorV,CoronaVac] and Sputnik V, were accepted in each country. The influence of the vaccines approved for COVID-19 vaccination programs on the vaccines recognized as proof of vaccination was assessed.ResultsThere was a remarkable heterogeneity on the vaccines accepted as proof of vaccination among 46 countries. Russia accepted only one. Cyprus, Greece and Slovenia accepted all vaccines considered. Eleven countries accepted the seven WHO EUL vaccines: eight EU countries, plus Iceland, Norway and Switzerland. Seven EU countries accepted only the four EMA-authorized vaccines. Considering Covishield as equivalent to Vaxzevria, 69% of countries recognized only vaccinated travelers who received any of the vaccines approved for vaccination programs in the country of arrival as valid.ConclusionVaccines accepted as proof of vaccination should be harmonized. Accepting any of the WHO EUL vaccines would be a scientifically sound objective.
| S-EPMC8977214 | biostudies-literature