EMA and FDA his­tor­i­cal­ly agree on just about every new drug ap­proval, but is that slow­ly chang­ing?

The EMA and FDA con­cur more than 90% of the time in their de­ci­sions to ap­prove new drugs, ac­cord­ing to a new study from EMA and FDA of­fi­cials that looked at 107 ap­pli­ca­tions from 2014 to 2016.

In just eight of the 107 ap­pli­ca­tions, the FDA ini­tial­ly de­clined to ap­prove a new drug or bi­o­log­ic while the EMA ap­proved it, al­though in all eight of those cas­es, the FDA end­ed up ap­prov­ing that drug or bi­o­log­ic. And in one case (Take­da’s Nin­laro (ix­a­zomib) for mul­ti­ple myelo­ma), the FDA ap­proved the treat­ment and the EMA ini­tial­ly did not, but lat­er did.

“Over­all, tak­ing ac­count of the re­sub­mit­ted and re­ex­am­ined ap­pli­ca­tions, the EMA and the FDA had fi­nal dis­cor­dant mar­ket­ing au­tho­riza­tion de­ci­sions for two drugs: cori­fol­litropin al­fa and ataluren,” the study notes, as both were ap­proved by the EMA and not the FDA.

More re­cent­ly, how­ev­er, the EMA’s Com­mit­tee for Med­i­c­i­nal Prod­ucts for Hu­man Use (CHMP) adopt­ed neg­a­tive opin­ions for two drugs in 2018 that were ap­proved by FDA in 2017, and one sick­le cell drug in 2019 that was al­so pre­vi­ous­ly ap­proved by FDA. In ad­di­tion, CHMP raised ques­tions about Mit­subishi Tan­abe Phar­ma’s treat­ment for amy­otroph­ic lat­er­al scle­ro­sis, which with­drew its ap­pli­ca­tion this year, and which was ap­proved by FDA in 2017.

“Di­ver­gence in ap­proval de­ci­sions, type of ap­proval, and ap­proved in­di­ca­tion were pri­mar­i­ly due to dif­fer­ences in agen­cies’ con­clu­sions about ef­fi­ca­cy based on re­view of the same da­ta or dif­fer­ing clin­i­cal da­ta sub­mit­ted to sup­port the ap­pli­ca­tion,” the study pub­lished in Clin­i­cal Phar­ma­col­o­gy & Ther­a­peu­tics found.

In the more re­cent case of the sick­le cell drug, the FDA said its ap­proval was based on a tri­al show­ing that pa­tients treat­ed with En­dari (glu­t­a­mine) ex­pe­ri­enced few­er hos­pi­tal vis­its for sick­le cell crises, on av­er­age, when com­pared to place­bo. But the EMA’s CHMP said it “con­sid­ered that the main study did not show that [glu­t­a­mine] was ef­fec­tive at re­duc­ing the num­ber of sick­le cell crises or hos­pi­tal vis­its.”

The study al­so notes how the FDA more com­mon­ly grant­ed ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­provals (12/25 in on­col­o­gy and 5/8 in hema­tol­ogy) than the EMA grant­ed con­di­tion­al mar­ket­ing au­tho­riza­tion or au­tho­riza­tion un­der ex­cep­tion­al cir­cum­stances (7/25 in on­col­o­gy and 2/8 in hema­tol­ogy).

But sub­mis­sions in these ar­eas of­ten oc­curred lat­er to the EMA than the FDA, and of­ten in­clud­ed ad­di­tion­al clin­i­cal tri­als or more ma­ture da­ta from the same clin­i­cal tri­al than were sub­mit­ted to the FDA. “In those in­stances, the EMA was more like­ly than the FDA to grant stan­dard ap­proval (where­as the FDA is­sued ac­cel­er­at­ed ap­proval) or a broad­er in­di­ca­tion,” the study said.

The study al­so found the EMA had a high­er rate of first-cy­cle ap­provals than the FDA, and the re­searchers “ob­served re­mark­able sim­i­lar­i­ty in the ba­sic sci­en­tif­ic and da­ta in­ter­pre­ta­tion is­sues raised by the FDA and the EMA dur­ing re­views of the same ap­pli­ca­tions. Specif­i­cal­ly, most of the FDA’s sec­ond cy­cle ap­provals (i.e., ap­provals af­ter re­sub­mis­sion of the ap­pli­ca­tions) were based on sub­mis­sion by the spon­sor of the same ad­di­tion­al da­ta that EMA had re­ceived dur­ing its ini­tial re­view ei­ther from the start or fol­low­ing re­quest af­ter clock‐stops.”

In their dis­cus­sion of the re­sults, the study au­thors al­so note the study’s lim­i­ta­tions, such as on­ly us­ing two years’ worth of da­ta. But over­all, the two agen­cies are com­mu­ni­cat­ing and work­ing to­geth­er more close­ly than in years past.

“The high rate of con­ver­gence in the au­tho­ri­sa­tion of new med­i­cines at EMA and the FDA is the re­sult of ex­pand­ed in­vest­ment in di­a­logue and co­op­er­a­tion since 2003 and has fos­tered align­ment be­tween the EU and the US with re­spect to de­ci­sions on mar­ket­ing au­tho­ri­sa­tions, while both agen­cies eval­u­ate ap­pli­ca­tions in­de­pen­dent­ly of each oth­er,” said Zaide Frias, head of the EMA’s hu­man med­i­cines eval­u­a­tion di­vi­sion.

So­cial im­age: Shut­ter­stock, AP


RAPS: First pub­lished in Reg­u­la­to­ry Fo­cus™ by the Reg­u­la­to­ry Af­fairs Pro­fes­sion­als So­ci­ety, the largest glob­al or­ga­ni­za­tion of and for those in­volved with the reg­u­la­tion of health­care prod­ucts. Click here for more in­for­ma­tion.

Author

Zachary Brennan

managing editor, RAPS

Scott Gottlieb, AP Images

Scott Got­tlieb is once again join­ing a team that en­joyed good times at the FDA un­der his high-en­er­gy stint at the helm

Right after jumping on Michael Milken’s FasterCures board on Monday, the newly departed FDA commissioner is back today with news about another life sciences board post that gives him a ringside chair to cheer on a lead player in the real-world evidence movement — one with very close ties to the FDA.

Aetion is reporting this morning that Gottlieb is joining their board, a group that includes Mohamad Makhzoumi, a general partner at New Enterprise Associates, where Gottlieb returned after stepping out of his role at the FDA 2 years after he started.

Gottlieb — one of the best connected execs in biopharma — knows this company well. As head of FDA he championed the use of real-world evidence to help guide drug developers and the agency in gaining greater efficiencies, which helped set up Aetion as a high-profile player in the game.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 59,600+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Deborah Dunsire. Lundbeck

UP­DAT­ED: Deb­o­rah Dun­sire is pay­ing $2B for a chance to leap di­rect­ly in­to a block­buster show­down with a few of the world's biggest phar­ma gi­ants

A year after taking the reins as CEO of Lundbeck, Deborah Dunsire is making a bold bid to beef up the Danish biotech’s portfolio of drugs in what will likely be a direct leap into an intense rivalry with a group of giants now carving up a growing market for new migraine drugs.

Bright and early European time Monday morning the company announced that it will pay up to about $2 billion to buy Alder, a little biotech that is far along the path in developing a quarterly IV formulation of a CGRP drug aimed at cutting back the number of crippling migraines patients experience each month. In a followup call, Dunsire also noted that the company will likely need 200 to 250 reps for this marketing task on both sides of the Atlantic. And analysts were quick to note that the dealmaking at Lundbeck isn’t done, with another $2 billion to $3 billion available for more deals to beef up the pipeline.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 59,600+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Tower Bridge in London [Shutterstock]

#UK­BIO19: Join GSK’s Hal Bar­ron and a group of top biotech ex­ecs for our 2nd an­nu­al biotech sum­mit in Lon­don

Over the past 10 years I’ve made a point of getting to know the Golden Triangle and the special role the UK biopharma industry plays there in drug development. The concentration of world class research institutes, some of the most accomplished scientists I’ve ever seen at work and a rising tide of global investment cash leaves an impression that there’s much, much more to come as biotech hubs are birthed and nurtured.

San Diego cou­ple charged with steal­ing trade se­crets, open­ing Chi­nese biotech as DOJ crack­down con­tin­ues

A San Diego couple has been charged with stealing trade secrets from a US hospital and opening a business based off those secrets in China as the controversial industry-wide crackdown on alleged corporate espionage continues. On the same day, the Department of Justice announced they had arrested Beijing representative Zhongsan Liu for allegedly trying to obtain research visas for government recruiters.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 59,600+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

UP­DAT­ED: Bio­gen pulls the plug on prized IPF drug from $562M+ Stromedix buy­out

One of Biogen’s attempts to branch out has flopped as the biotech scraps a mid-stage program for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 59,600+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Warts for the win: Aclar­is' lead drug clears piv­otal study

Aclaris Therapeutics has found a way to get rid of the warts and all.

The company — which earlier this month decided to focus on its arsenal of kinase inhibitors — on Monday unveiled positive data from a pivotal study testing its lead experimental drug for use in common warts.

The drug, A-101, was tested in a 502-patient study called THWART-2 — patients enrolled had one to six warts before qualifying for the trial. Patients either self-administered A-101 topical solution or a vehicle twice a week over a two-month period. A higher proportion of patients on the drug (a potent hydrogen peroxide topical solution) saw their warts disappear at day 60, versus the vehicle (p<0.0001) — meeting the main goal of the study.  Each secondary endpoint also emerged in favor of A-101, the company said.

Charles Nichols, LSU School of Medicine

Could psy­che­delics tack­le the obe­si­ty cri­sis? A long­time re­searcher in the field says his lat­est mouse study sug­gests po­ten­tial

Psychedelics have experienced a renaissance in recent years amid a torrent of preclinical and clinical research suggesting it might provide a path to treat mood disorders conventional remedies have only scraped at. Now a preclinical trial from a young biotech suggests at least one psychedelic compound has effects beyond the mind, and — if you believe the still very, very early hype — could provide the first single remedy for some of the main complications of obesity.

It’s fi­nal­ly over: Bio­gen, Ei­sai scrap big Alzheimer’s PhI­I­Is af­ter a pre­dictable BACE cat­a­stro­phe rais­es safe­ty fears

Months after analysts and investors called on Biogen and Eisai to scrap their BACE drug for Alzheimer’s and move on in the wake of a string of late-stage failures and rising safety fears, the partners have called it quits. And they said they were dropping the drug — elenbecestat — after the independent monitoring board raised concerns about…safety.

We don’t know exactly what researchers found in this latest catastrophe, but the companies noted in their release that investigators had determined that the drug was flunking the risk/benefit analysis.

Endpoints News

Keep reading Endpoints with a free subscription

Unlock this story instantly and join 59,600+ biopharma pros reading Endpoints daily — and it's free.

Ac­celeron drops a de­vel­op­ment pro­gram as #2 drug fails to spark func­tion­al ben­e­fits in pa­tients with a rare neu­ro­mus­cu­lar ail­ment

Acceleron is scrapping a muscular dystrophy development program underway for its number 2 drug in the pipeline after pouring over some failed mid-stage secondary data.

Gone is the ACE-083 project in patients with facioscapulohumeral muscular dystrophy. Their drug hit the primary endpoint on building muscle but flopped on key secondaries for functional improvements in patients, which execs felt was vital to the drug’s success.