Mobility endpoints in marketing authorisation of drugs: what gets the European medicines agency moving?
European Public Assessment Reports
clinical outcome assessment
digital outcomes
mobility
older people
real-world mobility
Journal
Age and ageing
ISSN: 1468-2834
Titre abrégé: Age Ageing
Pays: England
ID NLM: 0375655
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 01 2022
06 01 2022
Historique:
received:
27
07
2021
entrez:
25
1
2022
pubmed:
26
1
2022
medline:
29
1
2022
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Mobility is defined as the ability to independently move around the environment and is a key contributor to quality of life, especially in older age. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of mobility as a decisive outcome for the marketing authorisation of drugs by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). Fifteen therapeutic areas which commonly lead to relevant mobility impairments and alter the quantity and/or the quality of walking were selected: two systemic neurological diseases, four conditions primarily affecting exercise capacity, seven musculoskeletal diseases and two conditions representing sensory impairments. European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) published by the EMA until September 2020 were examined for mobility endpoints included in their 'main studies'. Clinical study registries and primary scientific publications for these studies were also reviewed. Four hundred and eighty-four EPARs yielded 186 relevant documents with 402 'main studies'. The EPARs reported 153 primary and 584 secondary endpoints which considered mobility; 70 different assessment tools (38 patient-reported outcomes, 13 clinician-reported outcomes, 8 performance outcomes and 13 composite endpoints) were used. Only 15.7% of those tools distinctly informed on patients' mobility status. Out of 402, 105 (26.1%) of the 'main studies' did not have any mobility assessment. Furthermore, none of these studies included a digital mobility outcome. For conditions with a high impact on mobility, mobility assessment was given little consideration in the marketing authorisation of drugs by the EMA. Where mobility impairment was considered to be a relevant outcome, questionnaires or composite scores susceptible to reporting biases were predominantly used.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Mobility is defined as the ability to independently move around the environment and is a key contributor to quality of life, especially in older age. The aim of this study was to evaluate the use of mobility as a decisive outcome for the marketing authorisation of drugs by the European Medicines Agency (EMA).
METHODS
Fifteen therapeutic areas which commonly lead to relevant mobility impairments and alter the quantity and/or the quality of walking were selected: two systemic neurological diseases, four conditions primarily affecting exercise capacity, seven musculoskeletal diseases and two conditions representing sensory impairments. European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) published by the EMA until September 2020 were examined for mobility endpoints included in their 'main studies'. Clinical study registries and primary scientific publications for these studies were also reviewed.
RESULTS
Four hundred and eighty-four EPARs yielded 186 relevant documents with 402 'main studies'. The EPARs reported 153 primary and 584 secondary endpoints which considered mobility; 70 different assessment tools (38 patient-reported outcomes, 13 clinician-reported outcomes, 8 performance outcomes and 13 composite endpoints) were used. Only 15.7% of those tools distinctly informed on patients' mobility status. Out of 402, 105 (26.1%) of the 'main studies' did not have any mobility assessment. Furthermore, none of these studies included a digital mobility outcome.
CONCLUSIONS
For conditions with a high impact on mobility, mobility assessment was given little consideration in the marketing authorisation of drugs by the EMA. Where mobility impairment was considered to be a relevant outcome, questionnaires or composite scores susceptible to reporting biases were predominantly used.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35077553
pii: 6514230
doi: 10.1093/ageing/afab242
pmc: PMC8789320
pii:
doi:
Substances chimiques
Pharmaceutical Preparations
0
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Geriatrics Society.
Références
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2020 Oct;86(10):2014-2016
pubmed: 32909294
Lancet Neurol. 2020 May;19(5):462-470
pubmed: 32059811
Sensors (Basel). 2020 Oct 20;20(20):
pubmed: 33092143
BMJ. 2010 Oct 12;341:c4737
pubmed: 20940209
Mov Disord. 2013 Sep 15;28(11):1534-43
pubmed: 24132841
JAMA. 2011 Jan 5;305(1):50-8
pubmed: 21205966
Eur Rev Aging Phys Act. 2019 May 3;16:6
pubmed: 31073340
NPJ Digit Med. 2021 Oct 14;4(1):149
pubmed: 34650191
BMJ. 2002 May 18;324(7347):1193-4
pubmed: 12016186
Digit Biomark. 2020 Nov 26;4(Suppl 1):13-27
pubmed: 33442578
Lancet. 2012 Jul 21;380(9838):294-305
pubmed: 22818941
BMJ. 2019 Aug 21;366:l4570
pubmed: 31434697
Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2020 Sep;19(9):573-574
pubmed: 32398879
BMJ. 2009 Aug 07;339:b2981
pubmed: 19666685
Compr Physiol. 2012 Apr;2(2):1143-211
pubmed: 23798298
BMJ. 2009 Jul 21;339:b2535
pubmed: 19622551
JAMA. 2020 Oct 20;324(15):1512-1521
pubmed: 33079152
JAMA. 2018 Nov 20;320(19):2020-2028
pubmed: 30418471
Pain Pract. 2012 Apr;12(4):255-65
pubmed: 21797963
Value Health. 2015 Sep;18(6):741-52
pubmed: 26409600
Eur J Cancer. 2009 Feb;45(3):347-53
pubmed: 19013787