elmono schreef:
[quote=Zakcentje]
emea.europa.eu/pdfs/human/opinion/Rhu...QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ON RECOMMENDATION FOR THE REFUSAL OF THE MARKETING AUTHORISATION
for
RHUCIN
International non-proprietary name (INN): recombinant human C1 inhibitor
On 13 December 2007, the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) adopted a negative opinion, recommending the refusal of the marketing authorisation for the medicinal product Rhucin 150 U/ml powder for solution for injection, intended for the treatment of acute attacks of angioedema in patients with congenital C1 inhibitor activity deficiency. The company that applied for authorisation is Pharming Group N.V. It may request a re-examination of the opinion within 15 days of receipt of notification of this negative opinion.
--
What were the major concerns that led the CHMP to recommend the refusal of the marketing authorisation?
The CHMP was concerned that there was insufficient evidence to show the benefits and risks of Rhucin.
In particular, the available studies were too small to show how effective Rhucin is in treating more severe forms of the disease, such as swelling in the larynx (voice box), or how safe and effective the medicine is when given to a patient more than once.
There was also insufficient information over the likelihood of patients developing antibodies following repeated doses of Rhucin. The Committee was also concerned over the possible presence of impurities in Rhucin, which could come from the rabbit milk from which the active substance is extracted and could affect the medicine’s safety. The company had not demonstrated that the levels of the impurities or the antibodies could be measured in a reliable manner.
In addition, there were concerns that the choice of the dose of Rhucin had not been sufficiently justified.
At that point in time, the CHMP was of the opinion that the benefits of Rhucin in the treatment of acute attacks of angioedema did not outweigh its risks. Hence, the CHMP recommended that Rhucin be refused marketing authorisation.
[/quote]
Ik lees weinig feitelijkheden van zijde van de EMEA. Ik lees veel vaagheden die in een eerder stadium concreet hadden kunnen worden gemaakt door de EMEA en vermoedelijk in detail zijn besproken. Dit riekt naar een gebrek aan interne communicatie binnen de EMEA en onkunde bij de rapporteurs:
- available studies too small. wat is afgesproken hierover tussen de EMEA en pharming in het trial design?
- The choice of the dose not sufficiently motivated. Hoe zou het danwel gemotiveerd moeten worden? Er zijn PII's gedaan notabene
- Impurities: Pharming heeft minder dan 8 parts per million vastgesteld.(dat was waarschijnlijk de gevoeligheid van hun apparatuur) Wat is de norm van de EMEA hieromtrent (hebben ze niet)
Als je het mij vraagt komt met deze vragen ook Jerini niet door de goedkeuring (of heeft Jerini soms wel tientallen keelaanvallen behandeld?)
hahaha, Pharming moet eerst nog even samenwerken met de EMEA en daarna bekijken of er juridische procedures mogelijk zijn. Wat een lacher