PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to compare the approaches of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the evaluation and approval of new anticancer indications and to identify possible clinical implications associated with these differences. METHODS: Information on the European Union therapeutic indications for the cohort of anticancer drugs was extracted from the European Public Assessment Reports and from the FDA review reports. RESULTS: Overall, 42 anticancer drugs were approved by EMA between 1995 and 2008, corresponding to a total of 100 indications. In 47 of 100 indications, a difference was found. For 19 of these 47 indications, the difference was that one agency approved an indication, whereas the other agency did not. For the remaining 28 indications, the same indication was approved by both of the agencies and differences were evaluated through an algorithm; in 10 cases, discrepancies in therapeutic indications between EMA and FDA were considered clinically relevant. We found an overall trend that the agency that was second to give a positive approval was usually more restrictive in terms of wording of the indication compared with the agency that provided approval first. Regarding the use and robustness of available clinical data for evaluation, no clear associations could be found. CONCLUSION: Clinically relevant differences in the outcome of the EMA and FDA approval process of oncology products were found. Neither of the agencies seems to have a prevailing restrictive behavior over the other. Further efforts on harmonizing decision making between regulatory systems are needed.
PURPOSE: The aims of this study were to compare the approaches of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the evaluation and approval of new anticancer indications and to identify possible clinical implications associated with these differences. METHODS: Information on the European Union therapeutic indications for the cohort of anticancer drugs was extracted from the European Public Assessment Reports and from the FDA review reports. RESULTS: Overall, 42 anticancer drugs were approved by EMA between 1995 and 2008, corresponding to a total of 100 indications. In 47 of 100 indications, a difference was found. For 19 of these 47 indications, the difference was that one agency approved an indication, whereas the other agency did not. For the remaining 28 indications, the same indication was approved by both of the agencies and differences were evaluated through an algorithm; in 10 cases, discrepancies in therapeutic indications between EMA and FDA were considered clinically relevant. We found an overall trend that the agency that was second to give a positive approval was usually more restrictive in terms of wording of the indication compared with the agency that provided approval first. Regarding the use and robustness of available clinical data for evaluation, no clear associations could be found. CONCLUSION: Clinically relevant differences in the outcome of the EMA and FDA approval process of oncology products were found. Neither of the agencies seems to have a prevailing restrictive behavior over the other. Further efforts on harmonizing decision making between regulatory systems are needed.
Authors: Meletios A Dimopoulos; Paul G Richardson; Philippe Moreau; Kenneth C Anderson Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2014-11-25 Impact factor: 66.675