From adaptive licensing to adaptive pathways: Delivering a flexible life-span approach to bring new drugs to patients

Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics

Volumn 97, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 234-246

  Eichler, H G ^a   Baird, L G ^b   Barker, R ^c   Bloechl Daum, B ^a,d   Borlum Kristensen F ^e   Brown, J ^f   Chua, R ^g   Del Signore, S ^h   Dugan, U ⁱ   Ferguson, J ^j   Garner, S ^k   Goettsch, W ^l   Haigh, J ^m   Honig, P ⁿ   Hoos, A ^o   Huckle, P ^p   Kondo, T ^q   Le Cam, Y ^r   Leufkens, H ^a,s   Lim, R ^t   Longson, C ^k   Lumpkin, M ^u   Maraganore, J ^v,w   O'Rourke, B ^x   Oye, K ^b   Pezalla, E ^y   Pignatti, F ^a   Raine, J ^a,z   Rasi, G ^a,aa   Salmonson, T ^a,ab   Samaha, D ^ac   Schneeweiss, S ^ad   Siviero, P D ^ae   Skinner, M ^af   Teagarden, J R ^ag   Tominaga, T ^q   Trusheim, M R ^ah   Tunis, S ^ai   Unger, T F ^b   Vamvakas, S ^a   Hirsch, G ^b   more..

^a EUROPEAN MEDICINES AGENCY   (United Kingdom)

^b MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^c Centre for the Advancement of Sustainable Medical Innovation   (United Kingdom)

^d MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

^e Danish Health and Medicines Authority   (Denmark)

^f HARVARD PILGRIM HEALTH CARE INSTITUTE   (United States)

^g HEALTH SCIENCES AUTHORITY   (Singapore)

^h SANOFI   (France)

ⁱ BRISTOL MYERS SQUIBB   (United States)

^j Novartis Vaccines Diagnostics Cambridge   (United States)

^k NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR HEALTH AND CARE EXCELLENCE   (United Kingdom)

^l Zorginstituut Nederland (ZIN)   (Netherlands)

^m AMGEN LTD   (United Kingdom)

ⁿ M4P ^*  (United States)

^o M4P (Medicines 4 Patients) Consulting   (United Kingdom)

^p GLAXOSMITHKLINE   (United States)

^q PHARMACEUTICALS AND MEDICAL DEVICES AGENCY   (Japan)

^r Plateforme Maladies Rares   (France)

^s UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

^t HEALTH CANADA   (Canada)

^u BILL AND MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION   (United States)

^v ALNYLAM PHARMACEUTICALS   (United States)

^w Biotechnology Industry Association   (United States)

^x CANADIAN AGENCY FOR DRUGS AND TECHNOLOGIES IN HEALTH   (Canada)

^y AETNA   (United States)

^z MEDICINES AND HEALTHCARE PRODUCTS REGULATORY AGENCY   (United Kingdom)

^aa UNIVERSITY OF ROME TOR VERGATA   (Italy)

^ab MEDICAL PRODUCTS AGENCY   (Sweden)

^ac 2535 boulevard Laurier   (Canada)

^ad HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^ae ITALIAN MEDICINES AGENCY   (Italy)

^af Panel member of the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute   (United States)

^ag National Organization for Rare Disorders   (United States)

^ah MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

^ai Center for Medical Technology Policy   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

NEW DRUG;

ADAPTIVE LICENSING; ARTICLE; CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); DRUG CONTROL; DRUG DEVELOPMENT; DRUG INDUSTRY; DRUG MONITORING; HEALTH CARE ACCESS; HEALTH CARE NEED; HEALTH CARE SYSTEM; HEALTH SERVICE; HUMAN; HUMAN IMMUNODEFICIENCY VIRUS INFECTION; KNOWLEDGE MANAGEMENT; LICENSING; PREDICTION; PRESCRIPTION; PREVENTIVE HEALTH SERVICE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; DRUG APPROVAL; LEGISLATION AND JURISPRUDENCE; PROCEDURES;

DRUG APPROVAL; DRUG DISCOVERY; HUMANS; LICENSURE;

EID: 84927675287     PISSN: 00099236     EISSN: 15326535     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cpt.59     Document Type: Article

References (73)

1. Woodcock, J. Evidence vs. access: can twenty-first-century drug regulation refine the tradeoffs? Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 91:378–380 (2012).
2. Baird, L. et al. Accelerated access to innovative medicines for patients in need. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 96:559–571 (2014).
3. Commission Regulation (EC) No 507/2006. . Accessed 4 July 2014.
4. Henshall, C. & Schuller, T. HTAi Policy Forum. Health technology assessment, value-based decision making, and innovation. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care. 29:353–359 (2013).
5. Tominaga, T., Ando, Y., Nagai, N., Sato, J. & Kondo, T. Balancing societal needs and regulatory certainty: the case study of peramivir in Japan. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 93:342–344 (2013).
6. Eichler, H.G. et al. Adaptive licensing: taking the next step in the evolution of drug approval. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 91:426–437 (2012).
7. Woosley, R.L. & Rice, G. A new system for moving drugs to market. Issues Sci. Technol. (Winter), 63–39 (2005).
8. Husereau, D., Henshall, C. & Jivraj, J. Adaptive approaches to licensing, health technology assessment, and introduction of drugs and devices. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care. 12:1–9 (2014).
9. EFPIA: The right prevention and treatment for the right patient at the right time. Strategic Research Agenda for Innovative Medicines Initiative 2. . Accessed 3 July 2014.
10. Eichler, H.G. et al. The risks of risk aversion in drug regulation. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 12:907–916 (2013).
11. Durham, M.S. Tysabri approved for funding: background. (2010). Accessed 8 July 2014.
12. Roth, D. A third seat at the table: an insider's perspective on patient representatives. Hastings Center Report, Volume 41, Number 1, January-February 2011. p 29–31.
13. Keane, M. A free-market approach to clinical data gathering is more ethical. Am. J. Bioeth. 13:19–21 (2013).
14. Bianco, P. & Sipp, D. Sell help not hope. Nature. 510:336–337 (2014).
15. Coast, J. Strategies for the economic evaluation of end-of-life care: making a case for the capability approach. Expert Rev. Pharmacoecon. Outcomes Res. 14:473–482 (2013).
16. NICE. NICE seeks views on how it assesses drugs and other technologies. (2014). Accessed 3 July 2014.
17. KCE Drug reimbursement systems: international comparison and policy recommendations. KCE reports 147C. (2010). Accessed 3 July 2014.
18. FDA. Guidance for industry. Expedited programs for serious conditions—drugs and biologics. (2014). Accessed 3 July 2014.
19. Baird, L., Teagarden, R., Unger, T. & Hirsch, G. New medicines eight years faster to patients: blazing a new trail in drug development with adaptive licensing. Scrip Regulatory Affairs 2013 May 24.
20. Lièvre, A. et al. KRAS mutation status is predictive of response to cetuximab therapy in colorectal cancer. Cancer Res. 66:3992–3995 (2006).
21. European Medicines Agency. EPAR Ziagen. European Medicines Agency. (Last updated 18 Apr 2011).
22. Sleijfer, S., Bogaerts, J. & Siu, L.L. Designing transformative clinical trials in the cancer genome era. J. Clin. Oncol. 31:1834–1841 (2013).
23. Willyard, C. ‘Basket studies’ will hold intricate data for cancer drug approvals. Nat. Med. 19:655 (2013).
24. Institute of Medicine. Implementing a National Cancer Clinical Trials System for the 21st Century: Second Workshop Summary. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2013. p 36.
25. EMA. European Medicines Agency decision. EMA/113589/2014. (2014). Accessed 3 July 2014.
26. Johnston, J.D. & Feldschreiber, P. Proposal for new European pharmaceutical legislation to permit access to custom-made anti-sense oligonucleotide medicinal products. Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 77:939–946 (2014).
27. Pimplikar, S.W., Nixon, R.A., Robakis, N.K., Shen, J. & Tsai, L.H. Amyloid-independent mechanisms in Alzheimer's disease pathogenesis. J. Neurosci. 30:14946–14954 (2010).
28. Pike, K.E. et al. Beta-amyloid imaging and memory in non-demented individuals: evidence for preclinical Alzheimer's disease. Brain. 130:2837–2844 (2007).
29. Burke, M. Why Alzheimer's drugs keep failing. . Accessed 18 July 2014.
30. Kozauer, N. & Katz, R. Regulatory innovation and drug development for early-stage Alzheimer's disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 368:1169–1171 (2013).
31. Kenny, M. A Q and A with Thomas Müller. . Scrip Regulatory Affair 2012 Dec 7.
32. CMTP: CMTP issues recommendations for late phase drug studies in type 2 diabetes. (2014). Accessed 3 July 2014.
33. Ferrario, A. & Kanavos, P. Managed entry agreements for pharmaceuticals: the European experience. (2013). Accessed 3 July 2014.
34. Spearpoint, P.A., Yip, C.Y. & Zhang, W. Lessons for adaptive licensing: analysis of conditionally approved EMA compounds, their reimbursement status and regulatory/reimbursement data requirements. Value Health. 17:A100 (2014).
35. CMS Coverage Decision Based on FDA Parallel Review Program. .
36. Hay, M., Thomas, D.W., Craighead, J.L., Economides, C. & Rosenthal, J. Clinical development success rates for investigational drugs. Nat. Biotechnol. 32:40–51 (2014).
37. Kocher, R. & Roberts, B. The calculus of cures. N. Engl. J. Med. 370:1473–1475 (2014).
38. Trusheim, M.R., Berndt, E.R. & Douglas, F.L. Stratified medicine: strategic and economic implications of combining drugs and clinical biomarkers. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 6:287–293 (2007).
39. Kristensen, F.B. et al. Practical tools and methods for health technology assessment in Europe: structures, methodologies, and tools developed by the European network for Health Technology Assessment, EUnetHTA. Int. J. Technol. Assess. Health Care. 25(Suppl 2):1–8 (2009).
40. The National Patient-Centered Clinical Research Network. . Accessed 31 July 2014.
41. Rabinowitz, J., Werbeloff, N., Stauffer, V., Mandel, F. & Kapur, S. More efficient drug discovery trials in schizophrenia: insights from 29 placebo-controlled randomised controlled trials (RCTs) from the NEWMEDS repository. Presented at the 24th Congress of the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology, Paris, September 3–7, 2011. .
42. Eichler, H.G. et al. Relative efficacy of drugs: an emerging issue between regulatory agencies and third-party payers. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 9:277–291 (2010).
43. Selker, H.P. et al. A proposal for integrated efficacy-to-effectiveness (E2E) clinical trials. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 95:147–153 (2014).
44. FDA. Guidance for Industry Adaptive Design Clinical Trials for Drugs and Biologics. (2010). Accessed 3 July 2014.
45. EMA. Reflection paper on methodological issues in confirmatory clinical trials planned with an adaptive design. (2007). Accessed 3 July 2014.
46. Kim, E.S. et al. The BATTLE Trial: personalizing therapy for lung cancer. Cancer Discov. 1:44–53 (2011).
47. Tabernero, J. et al. VE-BASKET, a Simon 2-stage adaptive design, phase II, histology-independent study in nonmelanoma solid tumors harboring BRAF V600 mutations (V600m): activity of vemurafenib (VEM) with or without cetuximab (CTX) in colorectal cancer (CRC). J. Clin. Oncol. 32:5s, 2014 (suppl; abstr 3518). (2014). Accessed 31 July 2014.
48. Young, S.S. & Karr, A. Deming, data and observational studies. A process out of control and needing fixing. Significance 116–120 (2011).
49. Schneeweiss, S. Learning from big health care data. N. Engl. J. Med. 370:2161–2163 (2014).
50. Psaty, B.M. & Breckenridge, A.M. Mini-sentinel and regulatory science-big data rendered fit and functional. N. Engl. J. Med. 370:2165–2167 (2014).
51. Schneeweiss, S., Gagne, J.J., Glynn, R.J., Ruhl, M. & Rassen. J.A. Assessing the comparative effectiveness of newly marketed medications: methodological challenges and implications for drug development. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 90:777–790 (2011).
52. .
53. Fleurence, R.L. et al. Launching PCORnet, a national patient-centered clinical research network. J. Am. Med. Inform. Assoc. 21:578–582 (2014).
54. Arlett, P. et al. The European Medicines Agency's evidence-based management of the benefit to risk of medicines. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. (2014); e-pub ahead of print.
55. .
56. Sutter, S. Safety surveillance using real-time medical records starts with anticoagulant pilot. The Pink Sheet June 2, 2014, p 10–11.
57. ASCO Completes Prototype for CancerLinQ, Marking First Demonstration of a “Learning Health System” to Transform Cancer Care. . Accessed 7 July 2014.
58. FDA. The voice of the patient: a series of reports from FDA's Patient-Focused Drug Development Initiative. (2014). Accessed 31 July 2014.
59. EMA. Patients and consumers. (2014). Accessed 31 July 2014.
60. Genetic Alliance UK. New medicines for serious conditions: weighing the risks and benefits. The verdict of a jury of patients. . Accessed 10 July 2014.
61. Beyer, A., Fasolo, B., Hillege, H., de Graeff, P. & Eichler, H.G. Value and utilities among European patients: testing a decision-analytic tool for measuring patient preferences. Med. Decision Making. Submitted 13 June 2014.
62. The EU Pharmacovigilance system. . Accessed 3 July 2014.
63. Dyer, O. Canadian health ministry is given new powers to tighten drug safety. BMJ. 348:g4231 (2014).
64. New Governmental Regulatory System for Stem Cell-Based Therapies in Japan. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science March 28, 2014.
65. .
66. Vermeer, N.S. et al. Risk management plans as tool for proactive pharmacovigilance: a cohort study of newly approved drugs in Europe. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther.; e-pub ahead of print.
67. IMI GetReal project website. . Accessed 3 July 2014.
68. Pricewaterhousecoopers report: Pharma 2020: The vision. Which path will you take? (2007).
69. FDA: Structured approach to benefit-risk assessment in drug regulatory decision-making. Draft PDUFA V Implementation Plan. February 2013. Fiscal Years 2013-2017. (2013). Accessed 3 July 2014.
70. EMA Benefit-risk Methodology Project. Work package 2 report: Applicability of current tools and processes for regulatory benefit-risk assessment. (2010). Accessed 3 July 2014.
71. High tech town hall charts path to reform drug development, spur innovation. .
72. Adaptive Licensing Pilot Project. .
73. Schlich, T. Railways, industry, and surgery-the introduction of risk management. N. Engl. J. Med. 369:1978–1979 (2013).