Direct Oral Anticoagulant Approvals by Four Major Regulatory Agencies: a Cross-sectional Analysis of Premarket and Postmarket Evidence

Overview

Journal BMJ Open

Specialty General Medicine

Date 2024 Oct 26

PMID 39461853

Authors

Maryam Mooghali

Tianna Zhou

Joseph S Ross

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Objectives: To compare the premarket and postmarket evidence of safety and efficacy of direct oral anticoagulants approved for stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation patients across four major regulatory agencies.

Design: Cross-sectional.

Setting: European Medicines Association (EMA), US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Health Canada and Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA).

Participants: Apixaban, dabigatran, edoxaban and rivaroxaban marketing authorisations.

Outcome Measures: Concordance among regulatory agencies with respect to (1) premarket evidence used to establish efficacy and safety and (2) postmarket safety boxed warnings and postmarketing study requirements.

Results: Apixaban, dabigatran and rivaroxaban were approved by each of the four regulatory agencies; edoxaban was only not approved by TGA. For premarket efficacy evidence, there was concordance across all agencies in terms of phase 3 trials for three (75%) drugs, sample size for three (75%) drugs, primary endpoints for four (100%) drugs, numerical results for three (75%) drugs, agency interpretation of results for four (100%) drugs and number of phase 2 trials for three (75%) drugs. For the premarket safety evidence, there was concordance across all agencies in terms of phase 3 trials for three (75%) drugs, sample size for two (50%) drugs, primary endpoints for four (100%) drugs, numerical results for three (75%) drugs, agency interpretation of results for three (75%) drugs and number of phase 2 trials for zero (0%) drugs. For postmarket safety information, FDA was the only agency that issued boxed warnings (for three (75%) drugs). Additionally, EMA and TGA required postmarketing studies (for four (100%) and two (50%) drugs, respectively), while FDA and Health Canada did not have any postmarketing requirements.

Conclusions: There was a high degree of concordance in the phase 3 trial premarket evidence used to establish efficacy and safety of direct oral anticoagulant approvals across four major regulatory agencies, but discordance in the phase 2 trial premarket evidence used, as well as in postmarket safety boxed warnings and postmarketing study requirements. These discrepancies highlight opportunities for further harmonisation in the evaluation and regulation of medical products globally.

References

Iwasaki Y, Nishida K, Kato T, Nattel S . Atrial fibrillation pathophysiology: implications for management. Circulation. 2011; 124(20):2264-74. DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.111.019893. View

Lexchin J . New drug submissions in Canada and a comparison with the Food and Drug Administration and the European Medicines Agency: Cross-sectional analysis. PLoS One. 2023; 18(6):e0286802. PMC: 10270583. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286802. View

Lythgoe M, Desai A, Gyawali B, Savage P, Krell J, Warner J . Cancer Therapy Approval Timings, Review Speed, and Publication of Pivotal Registration Trials in the US and Europe, 2010-2019. JAMA Netw Open. 2022; 5(6):e2216183. PMC: 9187952. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.16183. View

Hwang T, Kesselheim A, Tibau A, Lee C, Vokinger K . Clinical Benefit and Expedited Approval of Cancer Drugs in the United States, European Union, Switzerland, Japan, Canada, and Australia. JCO Oncol Pract. 2022; 18(9):e1522-e1532. PMC: 9509186. DOI: 10.1200/OP.21.00909. View

Kashoki M, Hanaizi Z, Yordanova S, Vesely R, Bouygues C, Llinares J . A Comparison of EMA and FDA Decisions for New Drug Marketing Applications 2014-2016: Concordance, Discordance, and Why. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2019; 107(1):195-202. PMC: 6977394. DOI: 10.1002/cpt.1565. View

Dalla Torre di Sanguinetto S, Heinonen E, Antonov J, Bolte C . A Comparative Review of Marketing Authorization Decisions in Switzerland, the EU, and the USA. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2018; 53(1):86-94. DOI: 10.1177/2168479018764660. View

Larochelle M, Downing N, Ross J, David F . Assessing the potential clinical impact of reciprocal drug approval legislation on access to novel therapeutics in the USA: a cohort study. BMJ Open. 2017; 7(2):e014582. PMC: 5306516. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014582. View

Murakami M, Narukawa M . Matched analysis on orphan drug designations and approvals: cross regional analysis in the United States, the European Union, and Japan. Drug Discov Today. 2016; 21(4):544-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.drudis.2016.02.016. View

Zou C, Becker J, Phillips A, Garritano J, Krumholz H, Miller J . Registration, results reporting, and publication bias of clinical trials supporting FDA approval of neuropsychiatric drugs before and after FDAAA: a retrospective cohort study. Trials. 2018; 19(1):581. PMC: 6199729. DOI: 10.1186/s13063-018-2957-0. View

10.

Perry L, Bhasale A, Fabbri A, Lexchin J, Puil L, Joarder M . Comparative Analysis of Medicines Safety Advisories Released by Australia, Canada, the United States, and the United Kingdom. JAMA Intern Med. 2019; 179(7):982-984. PMC: 6583834. DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.0294. View

11.

Janda G, Khetpal V, Shi X, Ross J, Wallach J . Comparison of Clinical Study Results Reported in medRxiv Preprints vs Peer-reviewed Journal Articles. JAMA Netw Open. 2022; 5(12):e2245847. PMC: 9856222. DOI: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.45847. View

12.

Lip G, Lane D . Stroke prevention in atrial fibrillation: a systematic review. JAMA. 2015; 313(19):1950-62. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2015.4369. View

13.

Van Norman G . Drugs and Devices: Comparison of European and U.S. Approval Processes. JACC Basic Transl Sci. 2018; 1(5):399-412. PMC: 6113412. DOI: 10.1016/j.jacbts.2016.06.003. View

14.

Hooimeyer A, Bhasale A, Perry L, Fabbri A, Mohammad A, McEwin E . Regulatory post-market drug safety advisories on cardiac harm: A comparison of four national regulatory agencies. Pharmacol Res Perspect. 2020; 8(6):e00680. PMC: 7652786. DOI: 10.1002/prp2.680. View

15.

Wallach J, Egilman A, Dhruva S, McCarthy M, Miller J, Woloshin S . Postmarket studies required by the US Food and Drug Administration for new drugs and biologics approved between 2009 and 2012: cross sectional analysis. BMJ. 2018; 361:k2031. PMC: 5967364. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.k2031. View

16.

Zeitoun J, Lefevre J, Downing N, Bergeron H, Ross J . Inconsistencies among European Union pharmaceutical regulator safety communications: a cross-country comparison. PLoS One. 2014; 9(10):e109100. PMC: 4204813. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0109100. View

17.

Hakariya H, Moriarty F, Ozaki A, Mulinari S, Saito H, Tanimoto T . Continued cancer drug approvals in Japan and Europe after market withdrawal in the United States: A comparative study of accelerated approvals. Clin Transl Sci. 2024; 17(7):e13879. PMC: 11236735. DOI: 10.1111/cts.13879. View

18.

Turner E, Matthews A, Linardatos E, Tell R, Rosenthal R . Selective publication of antidepressant trials and its influence on apparent efficacy. N Engl J Med. 2008; 358(3):252-60. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsa065779. View

19.

Zeukeng M, Seoane-Vazquez E, Bonnabry P . A comparison of new drugs approved by the FDA, the EMA, and Swissmedic: an assessment of the international harmonization of drugs. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2018; 74(6):811-818. DOI: 10.1007/s00228-018-2431-7. View

20.

Boesen K, Jorgensen K, Gotzsche P . Clinical trials were missing from regulatory documents of extended-release methylphenidate for ADHD in adults: a case study of public documents. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021; 143:242-253. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.10.027. View