Process of drug registration in Israel: the correlation between the number of discussions within the Ministry of Health and postapproval variations by EMA and/or FDA
Katerina Shulman,
Ilana Weiss,
Matitiahu Berkovitch,
Shai Ashkenazi,
Moshe E Gatt,
Osnat Luxenburg,
Stephany Hiayev,
Einat Shacham-Shmueli,
Michal Hirsch Vexberg,
Rami Hershkowitz,
Einat Gorelik,
Haim Mayan,
Yehudit Steinmetz,
Noa Berar Yanai,
Orly Schlissel,
Muhammad Azem,
Neriya Gutgold,
Milly Divinsky,
Nirit Yarom,
Alla Vishkautzan,
Chezi Ganzel,
Lidia Arcavi,
Eli Marom,
Biatrice Uziely,
Shoshana Zevin,
Hadar Meirow,
Denize Ainbinder
Affiliations
Katerina Shulman
Oncology Institute, Carmel Medical Center, Haifa, Israel
Ilana Weiss
The Pharmaceutical Division, State of Israel Ministry of Health, Jerusalem, Israel
Matitiahu Berkovitch
Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University Sackler, Tel Aviv, Israel
Shai Ashkenazi
The Adelson School of Medicine, Ariel University, Ariel, Israel
Moshe E Gatt
Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel
Osnat Luxenburg
Medical Technology, Health Information and Research Director, State of Israel Ministry of Health, Jerusalem, Israel
Stephany Hiayev
Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel
Einat Shacham-Shmueli
Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University Sackler, Tel Aviv, Israel
Michal Hirsch Vexberg
The Pharmaceutical Division, State of Israel Ministry of Health, Jerusalem, Israel
Rami Hershkowitz
Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University Sackler, Tel Aviv, Israel
Einat Gorelik
The Pharmaceutical Division, State of Israel Ministry of Health, Jerusalem, Israel
Haim Mayan
Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University Sackler, Tel Aviv, Israel
Yehudit Steinmetz
The Pharmaceutical Division, State of Israel Ministry of Health, Jerusalem, Israel
Noa Berar Yanai
The Ruth and Bruce Rappaport Faculty of Medicine, Technion Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel
Orly Schlissel
The Pharmaceutical Division, State of Israel Ministry of Health, Jerusalem, Israel
Muhammad Azem
The Pharmaceutical Division, State of Israel Ministry of Health, Jerusalem, Israel
Neriya Gutgold
The Pharmaceutical Division, State of Israel Ministry of Health, Jerusalem, Israel
Milly Divinsky
The Pharmaceutical Division, State of Israel Ministry of Health, Jerusalem, Israel
Nirit Yarom
Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University Sackler, Tel Aviv, Israel
Alla Vishkautzan
The Pharmaceutical Division, State of Israel Ministry of Health, Jerusalem, Israel
Chezi Ganzel
Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel
Lidia Arcavi
Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel
Eli Marom
The Pharmaceutical Division, State of Israel Ministry of Health, Jerusalem, Israel
Biatrice Uziely
Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel
Shoshana Zevin
Faculty of Medicine, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem, Israel
Hadar Meirow
The Pharmaceutical Division, State of Israel Ministry of Health, Jerusalem, Israel
Denize Ainbinder
The Pharmaceutical Division, State of Israel Ministry of Health, Jerusalem, Israel
Objectives US FDA and EMA allow facilitated regulatory pathways to expedite access to new treatments. Limited supportive data may result in major postapproval variations. In Israel, partly relying on Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and European Medicines Agency (EMA), clinical data are reviewed independently by the Advisory Committee of Drug Registration (ACDR). In this study, the correlation between the number of discussions at the ACDR and major postapproval variations is examined.Design This is an observational retrospective comparative cohort study.Setting Applications with FDA and/or EMA approval at time of assessment in Israel were included. The timeframe was chosen to allow a minimum of 3 years of postmarketing approval experience for potential major label variations. Data regarding the number of discussions at ACDR were extracted from protocols. Data on postapproval major variations were extracted from the FDA and EMA websites.Results Between 2014 and 2016, 226 (176 drugs) applications, met the study criteria. 198 (87.6%) and 28 (12.4%) were approved following single and multiple discussions, respectively. A major postapproval variation was recorded in 129 (65.2%) compared with 23 (82.1%) applications approved following single and multiple discussions, respectively (p=0.002). Increased risk for major variation was found for medicines approved following multiple discussions (HR=1.98, 95% CI: 1.26 to 3.09) with a median time of 1.2 years, applications approved based on phase II trials (HR=2.58, 95% CI: 1.72 to 3.87), surrogate endpoints (HR=1.99, 95% CI: 1.44 to 2.74) and oncologic indications (HR=2.48, 95% CI: 1.78 to 3.45).Conclusions Multiple ACDR discussions associated with limited supportive data are predictive for major postapproval variations. Moreover, our findings demonstrate that approval by the FDA and/or EMA does not pave the way to automatic approval in Israel. In a substantial per cent of the cases, submission of the same clinical data resulted in different safety and efficacy considerations, requiring additional supporting data in some cases or even rejection of the application in others.