Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39657514›Full record

ArticleESMO open2024

Uncertainties about the benefit-risk balance of oncology medicines assessed by the European Medicines Agency.

A C Taams, C A Herberts, A C G Egberts, N Zafiropoulos, F Pignatti, L T Bloem

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in ESMO open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

A C TaamsDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Dutch Medicines Evaluation Board, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
C A HerbertsDutch Medicines Evaluation Board, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
A C G EgbertsDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Department of Clinical Pharmacy, University Medical Centre Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
N ZafiropoulosEuropean Medicines Agency, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
F PignattiEuropean Medicines Agency, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
L T BloemDivision of Pharmacoepidemiology and Clinical Pharmacology, Utrecht Institute for Pharmaceutical Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. Electronic address: l.t.bloem@uu.nl.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundDrug regulators assess and describe uncertainties regarding treatment outcomes and the benefit-risk balance of newly authorised medicines. We aimed to evaluate the type and number of uncertainties described in the benefit-risk assessment for initial marketing authorisations of oncology medicines assessed by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). We also aimed to develop a systematic classification of uncertainties to contribute to improved communication about uncertainties. MATERIALS AND

methodsWe included all medicines containing a new active substance assessed by the EMA and granted an initial marketing authorisation by the European Commission in 2011-2022 for an oncology indication. We extracted characteristics of these oncology medicines and uncertainties described under the benefit-risk balance section of European public assessment reports. Uncertainties were categorised and their frequencies stratified according to time of marketing authorisation, and medicine and regulatory characteristics.

resultsIn total, 121 oncology medicines were included for which 800 (median 6, range 0-23) uncertainties were identified. Uncertainties were classified into five categories: safety (n = 404, 51%), efficacy (n = 322, 40%), pharmacology (n = 58, 7%), use in clinical practice (n = 10, 1%), and quality (n = 6, 1%). Among 27 subcategories, most uncertainties were related to specific adverse events (n = 156, 20%), effect size (n = 155, 20%), safety in subpopulations (n = 124, 16%), or efficacy in subpopulations (n = 88, 11%). The type of medicine (P = 0.012), type of marketing authorisation (P = 0.001), and year of marketing authorisation (P = 0.007) were associated with the number of uncertainties per medicine, with the highest number observed for cell and gene therapies [8 (3-23)], medicines granted conditional marketing authorisation [7 (3-23)], and medicines authorised in 2019-2022 [7 (2-23)].

conclusionAt the time of initial marketing authorisation of oncology medicines, uncertainties about their benefit-risk balance most often concerned safety aspects, followed by efficacy. The number of uncertainties was highest for cell and gene therapies, conditionally authorised medicines, and medicines authorised in recent years.

Indexed as

Antineoplastic AgentsDrug ApprovalEuropeEuropean UnionHumansMedical OncologyNeoplasmsRisk AssessmentUncertaintyAntineoplastic AgentsclassificationEuropean Medicines Agencyoncology medicinesregulatory decision makinguncertainties

Identifiers

PMID39657514
PMCPMC11696770

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.