Biomarkers and personalised medicine in rheumatoid arthritis: a proposal for interactions between academia, industry and regulatory bodies.

Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is one of the most appropriate conditions for the application of personalised medicine as a high degree of heterogeneity has been recognised, which remains to be explained. Such heterogeneity is also reflected in the large number of treatment targets and options. A growing number of biologics as well as small molecules are already in use and there are promising new drugs in development. In order to make the best use of treatment options, both targeted and non-targeted biomarkers have to be identified and validated. To this aim, new rules are needed for the interaction between academia and industry under regulatory control. Setting up multi-centre biosample collections with clear definition of access, organising early, possibly non-committing discussions with regulatory authorities, and defining a clear route for the validation, qualification and registration of the biomarker-drug combination are some of the more critical areas where effective collaboration between the drug industry, academia and regulators is needed.

Generics: what is the role of registration authorities.

Substitution of branded medicines by cheaper generic medicines has been and is subject for debate in the Netherlands. One of the tasks of the Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board (CBG) is the evaluation of generic medicines. The way the CBG approves generics, as outlined in this paper, is based on assessment of the quality of the medicine and bioequivalence testing according to strict European guidelines. Registration of generic medicines in the Netherlands will only take place when bioequivalence has been demonstrated. Once bioequivalence has been demonstrated, the CBG is convinced that the generic has the same efficacy and safety as the branded medicine. Consequently, the CBG is of the opinion that the branded medicine can be safely exchanged with the generic medicine. However, for the acceptance of generics in daily practice adequate communication to the patient by prescriber, pharmacist, health insurance company and patient organisations is essential.

Adherence to treatment of osteoporosis: a need for study.

UNLABELLED: Adherence to anti-osteoporosis medications is currently low and is associated with poor anti-fracture efficacy. This manuscript reviews the potential design of clinical studies that aim to demonstrate improved adherence, with new chemical entities to be used in the management of osteoporosis. INTRODUCTION: Several medications have been unequivocally shown to decrease fracture rates in clinical trials. However, in real life settings, long-term persistence and compliance to anti-osteoporosis medication is poor, hence decreasing the clinical benefits for patients. METHODS: An extensive search of Medline from 1985 to 2006 retrieved all trials including the keywords osteoporosis, compliance, persistence or adherence followed by a critical appraisal of the data obtained through a consensus expert meeting. RESULTS: The impact of non-adherence on the clinical development of interventions is reviewed, so that clinicians, regulatory agencies and reimbursement agencies might be better informed of the problem, in order to stimulate the necessary research to document adherence. CONCLUSION: Adherence to therapy is a major problem in the treatment of osteoporosis. Both patients and medication factors are involved. Adherence studies are an important aspect of outcomes studies, but study methodologies are not well developed at the moment and should be improved. Performing adherence studies will be stimulated when registration authorities accept the result of these studies and include the relevant information in Sect. 5.1 of the summary of product characteristics. Reimbursement authorities might also consider such studies as important information for decisions on reimbursement.

Uncertain future of trials in osteoporosis.

The advent of effective agents for the treatment of osteoporosis has led to the view that placebo-controlled trials to test new agents for efficacy are no longer appropriate since proven treatments are available. In this review we argue that, if new agents are to be developed, there is still a place for the placebo-controlled trial. A move to studies of equivalence or non-inferiority raises more problems than it resolves.