» Articles » PMID: 37142315

Process of Drug Registration in Israel: the Correlation Between the Number of Discussions Within the Ministry of Health and Postapproval Variations by EMA And/or FDA

Abstract

Objectives: US FDA and EMA allow facilitated regulatory pathways to expedite access to new treatments. Limited supportive data may result in major postapproval variations. In Israel, partly relying on Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA), clinical data are reviewed independently by the Advisory Committee of Drug Registration (ACDR). In this study, the correlation between the number of discussions at the ACDR and major postapproval variations is examined.

Design: This is an observational retrospective comparative cohort study.

Setting: Applications with FDA and/or EMA approval at time of assessment in Israel were included. The timeframe was chosen to allow a minimum of 3 years of postmarketing approval experience for potential major label variations. Data regarding the number of discussions at ACDR were extracted from protocols. Data on postapproval major variations were extracted from the FDA and EMA websites.

Results: Between 2014 and 2016, 226 (176 drugs) applications, met the study criteria. 198 (87.6%) and 28 (12.4%) were approved following single and multiple discussions, respectively. A major postapproval variation was recorded in 129 (65.2%) compared with 23 (82.1%) applications approved following single and multiple discussions, respectively (p=0.002). Increased risk for major variation was found for medicines approved following multiple discussions (HR=1.98, 95% CI: 1.26 to 3.09) with a median time of 1.2 years, applications approved based on phase II trials (HR=2.58, 95% CI: 1.72 to 3.87), surrogate endpoints (HR=1.99, 95% CI: 1.44 to 2.74) and oncologic indications (HR=2.48, 95% CI: 1.78 to 3.45).

Conclusions: Multiple ACDR discussions associated with limited supportive data are predictive for major postapproval variations. Moreover, our findings demonstrate that approval by the FDA and/or EMA does not pave the way to automatic approval in Israel. In a substantial per cent of the cases, submission of the same clinical data resulted in different safety and efficacy considerations, requiring additional supporting data in some cases or even rejection of the application in others.

Citing Articles

A narrative review: 3D bioprinting of cultured muscle meat and seafood products and its potential for the food industry.

Gurel M, Rathod N, Cabrera L, Voyton S, Yeo M, Ozogul F Trends Food Sci Technol. 2024; 152.

PMID: 39309029 PMC: 11412102. DOI: 10.1016/j.tifs.2024.104670.

References
1.
Hatswell A, Baio G, Berlin J, Irs A, Freemantle N . Regulatory approval of pharmaceuticals without a randomised controlled study: analysis of EMA and FDA approvals 1999-2014. BMJ Open. 2016; 6(6):e011666. PMC: 4932294. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-011666. View

2.
Mostaghim S, Gagne J, Kesselheim A . Safety related label changes for new drugs after approval in the US through expedited regulatory pathways: retrospective cohort study. BMJ. 2017; 358:j3837. PMC: 5588044. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.j3837. View

3.
Moore T, Furberg C . Development times, clinical testing, postmarket follow-up, and safety risks for the new drugs approved by the US food and drug administration: the class of 2008. JAMA Intern Med. 2013; 174(1):90-5. DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.11813. View

4.
Seruga B, Templeton A, Vera Badillo F, Ocana A, Amir E, Tannock I . Under-reporting of harm in clinical trials. Lancet Oncol. 2016; 17(5):e209-19. DOI: 10.1016/S1470-2045(16)00152-2. View

5.
Le-Rademacher J, Hillman S, Meyers J, Loprinzi C, Limburg P, Mandrekar S . Statistical controversies in clinical research: Value of adverse events relatedness to study treatment: analyses of data from randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trials. Ann Oncol. 2017; 28(6):1183-1190. DOI: 10.1093/annonc/mdx043. View