Cargando…

A Comparison of EMA and FDA Decisions for New Drug Marketing Applications 2014–2016: Concordance, Discordance, and Why

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) have robust scientific and technical collaborations. As a window to the impact of these activities we compared the agencies’ decisions on drug marketing applications. Decisions were compared for 107 new drug applications...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kashoki, Mwango, Hanaizi, Zahra, Yordanova, Stella, Veselý, Richard, Bouygues, Christelle, Llinares, Jordi, Kweder, Sandra L.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6977394/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31306483
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cpt.1565
_version_ 1783490500779573248
author Kashoki, Mwango
Hanaizi, Zahra
Yordanova, Stella
Veselý, Richard
Bouygues, Christelle
Llinares, Jordi
Kweder, Sandra L.
author_facet Kashoki, Mwango
Hanaizi, Zahra
Yordanova, Stella
Veselý, Richard
Bouygues, Christelle
Llinares, Jordi
Kweder, Sandra L.
author_sort Kashoki, Mwango
collection PubMed
description The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) have robust scientific and technical collaborations. As a window to the impact of these activities we compared the agencies’ decisions on drug marketing applications. Decisions were compared for 107 new drug applications with a regulatory outcome at both agencies in the period 2014–2016. Further analysis addressed individual applications for which the agencies had differing outcomes in terms of marketing approval, type of approval, and approved indication, including reasons underlying differences. The EMA and the FDA had high concordance (91–98%) in decisions on marketing approvals. 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. This high rate of concordance suggests that engagement and collaboration on regulatory science has a positive impact.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6977394
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69773942020-01-28 A Comparison of EMA and FDA Decisions for New Drug Marketing Applications 2014–2016: Concordance, Discordance, and Why Kashoki, Mwango Hanaizi, Zahra Yordanova, Stella Veselý, Richard Bouygues, Christelle Llinares, Jordi Kweder, Sandra L. Clin Pharmacol Ther Research The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA) have robust scientific and technical collaborations. As a window to the impact of these activities we compared the agencies’ decisions on drug marketing applications. Decisions were compared for 107 new drug applications with a regulatory outcome at both agencies in the period 2014–2016. Further analysis addressed individual applications for which the agencies had differing outcomes in terms of marketing approval, type of approval, and approved indication, including reasons underlying differences. The EMA and the FDA had high concordance (91–98%) in decisions on marketing approvals. 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. This high rate of concordance suggests that engagement and collaboration on regulatory science has a positive impact. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2019-08-14 2020-01 /pmc/articles/PMC6977394/ /pubmed/31306483 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cpt.1565 Text en © 2019 European Medicines Agency. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics. This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/ License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Research
Kashoki, Mwango
Hanaizi, Zahra
Yordanova, Stella
Veselý, Richard
Bouygues, Christelle
Llinares, Jordi
Kweder, Sandra L.
A Comparison of EMA and FDA Decisions for New Drug Marketing Applications 2014–2016: Concordance, Discordance, and Why
title A Comparison of EMA and FDA Decisions for New Drug Marketing Applications 2014–2016: Concordance, Discordance, and Why
title_full A Comparison of EMA and FDA Decisions for New Drug Marketing Applications 2014–2016: Concordance, Discordance, and Why
title_fullStr A Comparison of EMA and FDA Decisions for New Drug Marketing Applications 2014–2016: Concordance, Discordance, and Why
title_full_unstemmed A Comparison of EMA and FDA Decisions for New Drug Marketing Applications 2014–2016: Concordance, Discordance, and Why
title_short A Comparison of EMA and FDA Decisions for New Drug Marketing Applications 2014–2016: Concordance, Discordance, and Why
title_sort comparison of ema and fda decisions for new drug marketing applications 2014–2016: concordance, discordance, and why
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6977394/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31306483
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/cpt.1565
work_keys_str_mv AT kashokimwango acomparisonofemaandfdadecisionsfornewdrugmarketingapplications20142016concordancediscordanceandwhy
AT hanaizizahra acomparisonofemaandfdadecisionsfornewdrugmarketingapplications20142016concordancediscordanceandwhy
AT yordanovastella acomparisonofemaandfdadecisionsfornewdrugmarketingapplications20142016concordancediscordanceandwhy
AT veselyrichard acomparisonofemaandfdadecisionsfornewdrugmarketingapplications20142016concordancediscordanceandwhy
AT bouygueschristelle acomparisonofemaandfdadecisionsfornewdrugmarketingapplications20142016concordancediscordanceandwhy
AT llinaresjordi acomparisonofemaandfdadecisionsfornewdrugmarketingapplications20142016concordancediscordanceandwhy
AT kwedersandral acomparisonofemaandfdadecisionsfornewdrugmarketingapplications20142016concordancediscordanceandwhy
AT kashokimwango comparisonofemaandfdadecisionsfornewdrugmarketingapplications20142016concordancediscordanceandwhy
AT hanaizizahra comparisonofemaandfdadecisionsfornewdrugmarketingapplications20142016concordancediscordanceandwhy
AT yordanovastella comparisonofemaandfdadecisionsfornewdrugmarketingapplications20142016concordancediscordanceandwhy
AT veselyrichard comparisonofemaandfdadecisionsfornewdrugmarketingapplications20142016concordancediscordanceandwhy
AT bouygueschristelle comparisonofemaandfdadecisionsfornewdrugmarketingapplications20142016concordancediscordanceandwhy
AT llinaresjordi comparisonofemaandfdadecisionsfornewdrugmarketingapplications20142016concordancediscordanceandwhy
AT kwedersandral comparisonofemaandfdadecisionsfornewdrugmarketingapplications20142016concordancediscordanceandwhy