Masterstudiengang "Drug Regulatory Affairs"
Master-Thesis
Article 45 EU Worksharing Procedure conducted according to Paediatric Regulation (EC) 1901/2006: What has been accomplished for paediatric use? – A Retrospective Analysis ***
Dr. Elke Maneke (Abschlußjahr: 2015)
Summary
Language: English
The lack of information and availability of appropriate pharmaceutical formulations exposed children to an increased risk to experience adverse drug reactions due to inappropriate dosing information including a risk for insufficient or even missing efficacy. Consequently, a variety of measures have been implemented by Regulation (EC) No.1901/2006 as amended in order to ameliorate medicinal care of paediatric populations. With introduction of Article 45 (1) of the Paediatric Regulation, paediatric use information in the SmPC was supposed to be improved by assessing study data from paediatric clinical trials, which have been completed before 26 January 2007.
Since the majority of paediatric studies falling under the scope of an Article 45(1) of Regulation (EC) No.1901/2006 have been submitted for nationally licensed medicinal products, the retrospective analysis focussed exclusively on active substances subject to an Article 45 EU Worksharing Procedure. Assessment reports of 162 active substances encompassing small molecules; vaccines and biologics have been reviewed and summarized in Annex A. Annex A served as source to perform a retrospective analysis which focussed on the following criteria in order to answer the question what has been accomplished for paediatric use:
- Time from enrolment to completion of an Article 45 EU Worksharing Procedure
- Number of Article 45 EU Worksharing Procedures completed by Rapporteur Member State versus enrolment by 31 December 2014
- Recommendations proposed with completion of Article 45 EU Worksharing Procedures including an in-depth analysis of (a) the recommendations to different SmPC categories; (b) reasons for deletion of a paediatric indication and (c) proposals of new paediatric indications
- Review of active substances, which have been selected to additional clinical investigations as indicated by the priority list EMA/PDCO/98717/2012 (latest revision: 05 August 2013) and Paediatric Investigations Plans published on the EMA homepage.
Two out of three active substances received a SmPC recommendation based on submitted paediatric study data; literature and/or public guidelines. New indications got recommended for about 7% of the active substances including six active substances, which never had been licensed for a paediatric condition before. A deletion of paediatric indications was recommended for five active substances and fifty-six active substances passed the Article 45 EU Worksharing Procedure without a recommendation for SmPC update.
Although paediatric use information has been further clarified for the majority of active substances, it should be noted nevertheless that, 26% of the 162 active substances did not receive a recommendation for a SmPC update, because robust evidence was missing. It is without doubt that medicinal products with a long regulatory history represent a valuable source for paediatric healthcare. This has been further substantiated by the number of Paediatric Investigations Plans, which have been agreed for 22 active substances assessed in an Article 45 EU Worksharing Procedure or by the 15 active substances, which have been included in the priority list for studies on off-patent paediatric medicinal products EMA/PDCO/98717/2012 (latest revision: 05 August 2013). However, missing high quality investigations in a randomized and controlled study setting may be considered as one of the major constraints of this regulatory procedure and questions the aim of Article 45 (1) of Regulation (EC) No 1901/2006 as amended. Another major limitation identified for this regulatory procedure was related to the different license status of paediatric indications and approved posology, which prevented that valuable paediatric information could be implemented in the SmPC across all EU MSs either for the reasons that some CMS did not agree with the conclusions of the Rapporteur MS or, if the proposal got endorsed, that the recommended wording could not be brought into the appropriate context, because the paediatric indication or even the active substance never got licensed in a CMS. This issue contradicts the purpose of the Paediatric Regulation, which was aiming to grant children the same access to authorized medicinal products suitable for their use across EU.
Therefore, in the long run, the assessments conducted under the scope of an Article 45(1) of the Paediatric Regulation may need to be re-evaluated and replaced by dedicated research and development activities involving a PIP.
Pages: 51
Annexes: Annex A, pages: 54