ElMaestro
★★★

Denmark,
2017-07-19 22:24
(2444 d 03:57 ago)

Posting: # 17562
Views: 5,433
 

 EU ombudsman looking into EMA presubmission meetings [Study As­sess­ment]

Hi all,

Strategic inquiry into pre-submission activities organised by the European Medicines Agency

That could be a bit of a stinker. But from the way it is worded I am almost of the impression that the ombudsman has the wrong idea of how scientific advice is usually undertaken and what the purpose is. Obviously, there is an aspect of transparency to discuss, but the sentence "there is still a risk that pre-submission activities create, in the eyes of the public, at least some perception of bias" is surprising to me.
Anyways, if anything is perceived this way then the ombudsman clearly needs to react.

My own experience is that regulators are fairly good at mentioning very early in SA procedures that it does not involve assessment, and that assessment will only be undertaken after submission (they say/write/express that on a regular basis nationally as well as at EMA).

Do some of you experts out there see bias arising out of taking scientific advices, or do you have some ideas what the real background of all this is?

Pass or fail!
ElMaestro
Helmut
★★★
avatar
Homepage
Vienna, Austria,
2017-07-20 03:54
(2443 d 22:27 ago)

@ ElMaestro
Posting: # 17563
Views: 4,607
 

 EU ombudsman looking into EMA presubmission meetings

Hi ElMaestro,

how did you find this “gem”?

❝ But from the way it is worded I am almost of the impression that the ombudsman has the wrong idea of how scientific advice is usually undertaken and what the purpose is.


Well, it should have taken her max. five minutes to dig this one out.

❝ My own experience is that regulators are fairly good at mentioning very early in SA procedures that it does not involve assessment, and that assessment will only be undertaken after submission (they say/write/express that on a regular basis nationally as well as at EMA).


Not only your experience. From section 23 of the document linked above:

Applicants seeking scientific advice under Article 57-1 (n) of Regulation (EC) No 726/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 31 March 2004, or protocol assistance under Article 6 of the Regulation on Orphan Medicinal Products (EC) 141/2000 must note that any scientific advice or protocol assistance given is not legally binding with regard to any future marketing authorisation application of the product concerned, either on the Agency/CHMP/COMP, or on the Applicant.
The answer given is based on the question and documentation submitted without prejudice to evolution and developments in the state-of-the-art.
Furthermore, Applicants should note that the advice provided is without prejudice to applicable legislation relating to the particulars and documents, which must be submitted in support of a marketing authorisation application. It is also without prejudice to any intellectual property rights of third parties.
When providing scientific advice or protocol assistance, the CHMP or COMP (for questions related to demonstration of significant benefit within the scope of protocol assistance) do not pre-empt the outcome of the evaluation of any subsequent marketing authorisation application.
Advice will be given in good faith but circumstances could change, especially in the case of early advice or subsequent scientific developments. In some cases e.g. as a result of scientific developments, an alternative approach to that advised may be appropriate. In this case it is recommended to Applicants to request a follow-up to the initial scientific advice or protocol assistance given.
However, where Applicants choose not to apply the advice, they are requested to justify clearly their position in any subsequent marketing authorisation application.


I think the ombudsman didn’t find this document. Otherwise why did she ask “Please provide a statistical overview of pre-submission activities held from 2012-2016 with an indication of the type of pre-submission activity and the type of medicine developer involved…” Well, Section 26:

After each CHMP, an overview of the number of final scientific advice or protocol assistance letters adopted, with broad details on the substance(s) (biological, chemical or other), the intended indication(s), the type of request (new request or follow-up) and the topic (pharmaceutical, non-clinical, clinical or significant benefit) is published in the CHMP Monthly report. The number of new requests accepted by the Committee is provided as well.


Then: “Does EMA charge medicine developers to cover the costs of preparing for and attending pre-submission activities as well as the costs of any follow-up?” I stopped counting the word ”fee” at ~30. Did she look for “costs” only?

❝ Do some of you experts out there see bias arising out of taking scientific advices, or do you have some ideas what the real background of all this is?


No. And no!

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! [image]
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes
ElMaestro
★★★

Denmark,
2017-07-20 12:09
(2443 d 14:12 ago)

@ Helmut
Posting: # 17570
Views: 4,545
 

 EU ombudsman looking into EMA presubmission meetings

Hi Hötzi,

❝ how did you find this “gem”?


I skim a few newsletters from time to time, saw it mentioned on one of them.

❝ Well, it should have taken her max. five minutes to dig this one out.


Funny, I sent that link to the journalist yesterday.

There must be something here which triggered the ombudsman, possibly a complaint.
But as I wrote the journalist, this sentence can be totally perceived the wrong way:
"Following the Agency’s advice increases the probability of a positive outcome."

Take one step back and read it again. An agency saying: If you transfer muchas Euros to our accounts and show up for a meeting then your chances of approval will be higher.

I do not know how the term coercion is perceived outside GCP, but this could be one such case. :no:

Pass or fail!
ElMaestro
Ohlbe
★★★

France,
2017-07-20 12:12
(2443 d 14:09 ago)

@ ElMaestro
Posting: # 17571
Views: 4,505
 

 EU ombudsman looking into EMA presubmission meetings

Dear ElMaestro,

❝ Do some of you experts out there see bias arising out of taking scientific advices, or do you have some ideas what the real background of all this is?


I don't think the issue is with scientific advice. This process is quite straightforward and well documented. In addition the MS involved in scientific advice may not be the same which will be (Co-)Rapporteur when the application is submitted.

I think what is being discussed is rather the pre-submission meetings described in question 2.9 here.

Regards
Ohlbe
UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
22,957 posts in 4,819 threads, 1,636 registered users;
68 visitors (0 registered, 68 guests [including 13 identified bots]).
Forum time: 01:21 CET (Europe/Vienna)

With four parameters I can fit an elephant,
and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.    John von Neumann

The Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5