Skip to content
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Menu
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Menu
Home
About Us
Resources
Profiles Metrics
Authors Directory
Institutions Directory
Top Authors
Top Institutions
Top Sponsors
AI Digest
Contact Us
Publication Details
AFRICAN RESEARCH NEXUS
SHINING A SPOTLIGHT ON AFRICAN RESEARCH
Evaluation of oncology drugs at the European Medicines Agency and US Food and Drug Administration: When differences have an impact on clinical practice
Journal of Clinical Oncology, Volume 29, No. 16, Year 2011
Notification
URL copied to clipboard!
Description
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. © 2011 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.
Authors & Co-Authors
Trotta, Francesco
Italy, Rome
Italian Medicines Agency
Leufkens, Hubert G.M(bert)
Netherlands, Utrecht
Universiteit Utrecht
Netherlands, Utrecht
Medicines Evaluation Board, Netherlands
Schellens, Jan H.M.
Netherlands, Utrecht
Universiteit Utrecht
Netherlands, Utrecht
Medicines Evaluation Board, Netherlands
Netherlands, Amsterdam
The Netherlands Cancer Institute
Laing, Richard Ogilvie
Switzerland, Geneva
Organisation Mondiale de la Santé
Statistics
Citations: 67
Authors: 4
Affiliations: 5
Identifiers
Doi:
10.1200/JCO.2010.34.1248
ISSN:
15277755
Research Areas
Cancer
Food Security
Study Design
Cohort Study