• SKIP TO CONTENT
  • SKIP NAVIGATION
  • Patient Resources
    • COVID-19 Patient Resource Center
    • Clinical Trials
    • Search Clinical Trials
    • Patient Notification System
    • What is Clinical Research?
    • Volunteering for a Clinical Trial
    • Understanding Informed Consent
    • Useful Resources
    • FDA Approved Drugs
  • Professional Resources
    • Research Center Profiles
    • Clinical Trial Listings
    • Market Research
    • FDA Approved Drugs
    • Training Guides
    • Books
    • eLearning
    • Events
    • Newsletters
    • White Papers
    • SOPs
    • eCFR and Guidances
  • White Papers
  • Trial Listings
  • Advertise
  • COVID-19
  • iConnect
  • Sign In
  • Create Account
  • Sign Out
  • My Account
Home » Report: EMA’s system of comparing drugs is flawed

Report: EMA’s system of comparing drugs is flawed

September 9, 2011
CenterWatch Staff

The European system of comparing drugs against placebo and not against a comparator is flawed, according to researchers at the London School of Economics, reported InPharm.

The LSE report argues pharmaceutical companies should show how their drugs compare to existing treatments before approval, so that only the most beneficial and safest therapies reach patients. It suggests this will ease the burden on countries’ scarce healthcare resources by ensuring only the best drugs are funded.

Currently, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) asks for a new drug to be compared only against a placebo, unless this is deemed unethical, rather than against a direct comparator.

The report’s authors—researchers at LSE and the European observatory on health systems and policies, said this does not allow patients, clinicians and other healthcare decision makers to determine whether a new drug is superior, equivalent or inferior to its existing alternatives. This can result in “the widespread use of potentially less efficacious and unsafe drugs,” they warned.

A number of studies have also questioned the true added value offered by new, and often more expensive, drugs compared with existing treatments.

The EMA has encouraged such ‘pre-market’ studies to establish comparative efficacy and risk but has yet to set comparative assessments as the default evidence standard for market approval, the authors wrote.

While estimates suggest that comparative efficacy data are available for 50-70% of new molecular entities at the time of approval, the report argued that this varies across therapeutic areas, and often only a fraction of evidence is accessible at the time of market authorization.

A further challenge is that no particular type of study is ideal for assessing comparative efficacy, they added.

Despite these limitations, they believe “comparative efficacy evidence should have a formal role in drug licensing decisions.” The report called for open dialogue between regulators, drugmakers and government agencies “to achieve better congruence between licensing and reimbursement requirements,” and better public access to comparative data on the effectiveness and safety of new drugs.

“Numerous promising medicines have been developed and many more are on the way to initial clinical trials,” said the authors. “With this success comes an equally important additional need – to develop a systematic approach to evaluate the risks and benefits of these new therapies in the context of existing alternatives.”

“An important initial step is to support a formal role for comparative efficacy evidence in drug licensing,” they concluded.

Upcoming Events

  • 16Feb

    Fundamentals of FDA Inspection Management: Reduce Anxiety, Increase Inspection Success

  • 21May

    WCG MAGI Clinical Research Conference – 2023 East

Featured Products

  • Spreadsheet Validation: Tools and Techniques to Make Data in Excel Compliant

    Spreadsheet Validation: Tools and Techniques to Make Data in Excel Compliant

  • Surviving an FDA GCP Inspection

    Surviving an FDA GCP Inspection: Resources for Investigators, Sponsors, CROs and IRBs

Featured Stories

  • SurveywBlueBackground-360x240.png

    Sites Name Tech Acceptance as Essential Factor in Selection of Sponsors, Survey Finds

  • TrendsInsights2023-360x240.png

    WCG Clinical Research Trends and Insights for 2023, Part Two

  • TimeMoneyEffort-360x240.png

    Time is Money and So Is Effort, Budgeting Experts Say

  • TrendsInsights2023A-360x240.png

    WCG Clinical Research Trends and Insights for 2023, Part Three

Standard Operating Procedures for Risk-Based Monitoring of Clinical Trials

The information you need to adapt your monitoring plan to changing times.

Learn More Here
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Do Not Sell or Share My Data

Footer Logo

300 N. Washington St., Suite 200, Falls Church, VA 22046, USA

Phone 617.948.5100 – Toll free 866.219.3440

Copyright © 2023. All Rights Reserved. Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing