Ophthalmic medicine regulatory approvals through the European Centralised Procedure, 1999–2017: Clinical efficacy considerations

Abstract

Objectives:Regulatory approval of new medicines requires a thorough assessment of the potential clinical benefits and risks. Study end-points are expected to demonstrate a clinically relevant treatment effect that will translate into direct patient benefits. This study sought to review the ophthalmic medicines with European Union–wide approval granted via the Centralised Procedure and characterise the key efficacy end-points underpinning the demonstration of clinical benefit.Methods:This study was a retrospective review of published data pertaining to the European regulatory authorisation of centrally approved ophthalmic products between 1999 and 2017, inclusive. All sources and data consulted are in the public domain. European Public Assessment Reports published by the European Medicines Agency were consulted for data concerning the pivotal clinical efficacy studies supporting the applications. Data analyses were descriptive.Results:The European Medicines Agency have authorised 30 products via the Centralised Procedure between 1999 and 2017. For these products, a total of 24 additional approvals for line extensions or additional therapeutic indications were granted. Four products have been approved for orphan indications, including one approval ‘under exceptional circumstances’ and one ‘Conditional Marketing Authorisation’. Approvals for products in retina (36%) and glaucoma (28%) indications together accounted for the majority of authorisations, with trial end-points predominantly based on visual acuity and intraocular pressure parameters, respectively. Products were also approved for indications in ocular surface disease, inflammation, optic neuropathy and surgical adjuncts, with a range of functional and anatomical end-points.Conclusion:Approvals for ophthalmic medicines have been granted for a range of clinical indications, representing a considerable portion of available major therapeutics for practitioners. Benefit–risk assessments rely on clinical trial data demonstrating a clearly relevant patient benefit.