Skip to main content

Do the EMA accelerated assessment procedure and the FDA priority review ensure a therapeutic added value? 2006–2015: a cohort study

European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology volume 72, pages 1275–1281 (2016)Cite this article

Abstract

Purpose

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) have both implemented procedures in order to shorten review time for marketing authorizations with potential therapeutic added value, called priority review and accelerated assessment procedure, respectively. The aim of this study is to compare the new molecular entities (NME) assessed in shorter review time by both agencies and to investigate whether granting a shorter review time status subsequently predicts its therapeutic value attributed by a health technology assessment agency, the French Haute Autorité de Santé (HAS).

Methods

All NME approved by the EMA and the FDA with a therapeutic added value between 2007 and June 30, 2015 were extracted. We assessed the sensibility, the positive predictive value, and the EMA review time.

Results

One hundred seventy-eight NME were approved by the FDA and the EMA and a therapeutic value was available for 160 NME. Eighty-eight (55.0 %) NME were on FDA priority review, 24 (15.0 %) on EMA accelerated procedure and 43 (26.9 %) were considered of high clinical added value. The sensibility was 86.0 % for the FDA and 30.2 % for the EMA. The positive predictive value was, respectively, 42.0 and 54.2 %. Twenty-five NME on FDA priority review and of high therapeutic added value were not on EMA accelerated assessment procedure, leading to a supplementary mean EMA review time of 146 days.

Conclusion

The EMA was restrictive to grant a shorten review time status for products with therapeutic interest during the study period.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

References

  1. Food and Drug Administration. Priority Review. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/ForPatients/Approvals/Fast/ucm405405.htm (last accessed 17 December 2015)

  2. European Medicine Agency. Guideline on the procedure for accelerated assessment pursuant to article 14 (9) of regulation (EC) No 726/2004. Available at: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Regulatory_and_procedural_guideline/2009/10/WC500004136.pdf (last accessed 17 December 2015).

  3. Kesselheim AS, Wang B, Franklin JM, Darrow JJ (2015) Trends in utilization of FDA expedited drug development and approval programs, 1987-2014: cohort study. BMJ 351:h4633

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Shah RR, Roberts SA, Shah DR (2013) A fresh perspective on comparing the FDA and the CHMP/EMA: approval of antineoplastic tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Br J Clin Pharmacol 76(3):396–411

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Carpenter D, Zucker EJ, Avorn J (2008) Drug-review deadlines and safety problems. N Engl J Med 358:1354–1361

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Richey EA, Lyons EA, Nebeker JR, Shankaran V, McKoy JM, Luu TH, Nonzee N, Trifilio S, Sartor O, Benson AB 3rd, Carson KR, Edwards BJ, Gilchrist-Scott D, Kuzel TM, Raisch DW, Tallman MS, West DP, Hirschfeld S, Grillo-Lopez AJ, Bennett CL (2009) Accelerated approval of cancer drugs: improved access to therapeutic breakthroughs or early release of unsafe and ineffective drugs? J Clin Oncol 27:4398–4405

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. International Society of Drug Bulletins. ISDB Declaration on therapeutic advance in the use of medicines. Available at: http://www.isdbweb.org/documents/uploads/Declaration/ISDB-decl-english.pdf (last accessed 01 July 2016)

  8. Haute Autorité de Santé. Pricing & reimbursement of drugs and HTA policies in France. Available at: http://www.has-sante.fr/portail/upload/docs/application/pdf/2014-03/pricing_reimbursement_of_drugs_and_hta_policies_in_france.pdf (last accessed 17 December 2015).

  9. Food and Drug Administration. New molecular entity (NME) drug and new biologic approvals. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/HowDrugsareDevelopedandApproved/DrugandBiologicApprovalReports/NDAandBLAApprovalReports/ucm373420.htm (last accessed 17 December 2015).

  10. Downing NS, Aminawung JA, Shah ND, Braunstein JB, Krumholz HM, Ross JS (2012) Regulatory review of novel therapeutics—comparison of three regulatory agencies. N Engl J Med 366(24):2284–2293

    CAS  Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  11. Alqahtani S, Seoane-Vazquez E, Rodriguez-Monguio R, Eguale T (2015) Priority review drugs approved by the FDA and the EMA: time for international regulatory harmonization of pharmaceuticals? Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 24(7):709–715

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. European Medicine Agency. Guideline on the scientific application and the practical arrangements necessary to implement the procedure for accelerated assessment pursuant to Article 14(9) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004. Available at: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2016/03/WC500202629.pdf (last accessed 01 July 2016).

  13. Lanthier M, Miller KL, Nardinelli C, et al. (2013) An improved approach to measuring drug innovation finds steady rates of first-inclass pharmaceuticals, 1987–2011. Health Aff (Millwood) 32:1433–1439

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Kesselheim AS, Wang B, Avorn J (2013) Defining “innovativeness” in drug development: a systematic review. Clin Pharmacol Ther 94(3):336–348

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Aronson JK, Ferner RE, Hughes DA (2012) Defining rewardable innovation in drug therapy. Nat Rev Drug Discov 11:253–254

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Ferner RE, Hughes DA, Aronson JK (2010) NICE and new: appraising innovation. BMJ 340:b5493

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Darrow JJ, Avorn J, Kesselheim AS (2014) New FDA breakthrough-drug category—implications for patients. N Engl J Med 370(13):1252–1258

    CAS  Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. European Medicines Agency. Draft reflection paper on a proposal to enhance early dialogue to facilitate accelerated assessment of priority medicines (PRIME). Available at: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Regulatory_and_procedural_guideline/2015/10/WC500196065.pdf (last accessed 13 November 2015).

  19. European Medicine Agency. Pilot project on adaptive licensing. Available at: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Other/2014/03/WC500163409.pdf (last accessed 01 July 2016).

  20. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry. expedited programs for serious conditions—drugs and biologics. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM358301.pdf (last accessed 01 July 2016).

  21. Berlin RJ (2009) Examination of the relationship between oncology drug labeling revision frequency and FDA product categorization. Am J Public Health 99:1693–1698

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  22. Motola D, De Ponti F, Rossi P, Martini N, Montanaro N (2005) Therapeutic innovation in the European Union: analysis of the drugs approved by the EMEA between 1995 and 2003. Br J Clin Pharmacol 59(4):475–478

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Ahlqvist-Rastad JBD, Beermann B, Mignot G (2004) Judging the therapeutic value of drugs: a comparison between La revue Prescrire and information från Läkemedelsverket, the bulletin of the Swedish medical products agency. Int J Risk Saf Med 16:83

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

  1. French West Indies Toxicovigilance Coordination, Basse-Terre Hospital, Basse-Terre, France

    Denis Boucaud-Maitre

  2. Department of Diabetology, Endocrinology-Nutrition, Georges Pompidou European Hospital, Paris, France

    Jean-Jacques Altman

Authors
  1. Denis Boucaud-Maitre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jean-Jacques Altman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Denis Boucaud-Maitre.

Ethics declarations

Declaration of competing interests

DBM was a member of the French Drugs Agency from 2007 to 2014 and was involved in drug assessment for the European Medicine Agency during the same period (European expert). JJA was an external expert at the French Drugs Agency from 1980 to 2013. He was an external member of the Scientific Advice Group Endocrinology of the European Medicine Agency, from 2006 to 2014. JJA reports personal fees from Bayer, personal fees from Lilly, personal fees from Abbott, outside the submitted work.

Details of contributors

  • DBM researched data, analyzed data and wrote the manuscript. JJA contributed to the discussion and reviewed the manuscript.

  • All authors had full access to all the data (including statistical reports and tables) in the study and can take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

Ethical approval

No ethical approval was necessary as all the data are public.

Statement of all funding sources

None.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 52 kb)

ESM 2

(DOCX 16 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Boucaud-Maitre, D., Altman, JJ. Do the EMA accelerated assessment procedure and the FDA priority review ensure a therapeutic added value? 2006–2015: a cohort study. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 72, 1275–1281 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-016-2104-3

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00228-016-2104-3

Keywords

  • European medicine agency
  • Food and Drug Administration
  • Accelerated assessment procedure
  • Priority review