Regulatory approval of pharmaceuticals without a randomised controlled study: analysis of EMA and FDA approvals 1999–2014

Abstract

IntroductionThe efficacy of pharmaceuticals is most often demonstrated by randomised controlled trials (RCTs); however, in some cases, regulatory applications lack RCT evidence.ObjectiveTo investigate the number and type of these approvals over the past 15 years by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).MethodsDrug approval data were downloaded from the EMA website and the ‘Drugs@FDA’ database for all decisions on pharmaceuticals published from 1 January 1999 to 8 May 2014. The details of eligible applications were extracted, including the therapeutic area, type of approval and review period.ResultsOver the period of the study, 76 unique indications were granted without RCT results (44 by the EMA and 60 by the FDA), demonstrating that a substantial number of treatments reach the market without undergoing an RCT. The majority was for haematological malignancies (34), with the next most common areas being oncology (15) and metabolic conditions (15). Of the applications made to both agencies with a comparable data package, the FDA granted more approvals (43/44 vs 35/44) and took less time to review products (8.7 vs 15.5 months). Products reached the market first in the USA in 30 of 34 cases (mean 13.1 months) due to companies making FDA submission before EMA submissions and faster FDA review time.DiscussionDespite the frequency with which approvals are granted without RCT results, there is no systematic monitoring of such treatments to confirm their effectiveness or consistency regarding when this form of evidence is appropriate. We recommend a more open debate on the role of marketing authorisations granted without RCT results, and the development of guidelines on what constitutes an acceptable data package for regulators.

Availability of evidence of benefits on overall survival and quality of life of cancer drugs approved by European Medicines Agency: retrospective cohort study of drug approvals 2009-13

“…Recent FDA-EMA comparisons show differences in regulatory decisions, route of approval, and availability of cancer drugs that could have important implications for clinical practice and patient safety. [31][32][33][34][35] In particular, regulatory provisions for expediting drug development and approval differ between the US and the EU, 32 with EU regulation being more restrictive in scope. 36 This could lead to divergent outcomes between the two regions.…”

European Medicines Agency’s Priority Medicines Scheme at 2 Years: An Evaluation of Clinical Studies Supporting Eligible Drugs

“…The design and end points observed in studies after the PRIME designation likely reflect the influence of both the recent developments toward increased flexibility in granting marketing authorizations and the scheme itself. That PRIME designation is not associated with greater use of trial designs preferred by regulatory agency and HTA bodies, namely blinded RCTs, may reflect the larger trend of nonrandomized and uncontrolled evaluations of drugs becoming increasingly common . Many therapies that receive the PRIME designation target relatively small populations.…”

Balancing early access with uncertainties in evidence for drugs authorized by prospective case series – systematic review of reimbursement decisions

“…Often, these studies are randomized and controlled, providing relative efficacy estimates with high validity. However, to facilitate rapid access for new innovations, particularly when unmet medical needs are addressed, the scientific evidence in some EMA drug approvals is restricted to prospective case series, that is, single‐arm studies without a control group .…”