The impact of FDA and EMA regulatory decision-making process on the access to CFTR modulators for the treatment of cystic fibrosis

Abstract

Background: Over the past decade, a new class of drugs called CFTR (cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator) modulators have shown to be able to improve clinical outcomes in patient with Cystic Fibrosis. In this analysis, we have extensively reviewed the regulatory pathways and decisions adopted by FDA and EMA to speed up the development, the review and the approval of these drugs, with the aim of identifying possible clinical and public health implications associated with differences. Results: CFTR modulators have been developed towards addressing three main genetic domains: (1) F508del homozygous (F508del/F508del), (2) F508del heterozygous, and (3) genotypes not carrying F508del mutation; and expanded from adult to paediatric population. Programs to expedite the reviewing and licensing of CFTR modulators were extensively adopted by FDA and EMA. All CFTR modulators have been licensed in the US as orphan drugs, but in the EU the orphan status for LUM/IVA was not confirmed at the time of marketing authorization as results from the pivotal trial were not considered clinically significant. While FDA and EMA approved CFTR modulators on the basis of results from phase III double-blind RCTs, main differences were found on the extension of indications: FDA accepted non-clinical evidence considering a recovery of the CFTR function ≥ 10% based on chloride transport, a reliable indicator to correlate with improvement in clinical outcomes. By contrast, EMA did not deem preclinical data sufficient to expand the label of CFTR modulators without confirmatory clinical data. Conclusions: Regulators played an important role in fostering the development and approval of CFTR modulators. However, differences were found between FDA and EMA in the way of reviewing and licensing CFTR modulators, which extended beyond semantics affecting patients’ eligibility and access: FDA’s approach was more mechanistic/biology-driven while the EMA’s one was more oriented by clinical evidence. This might refer to the connection between the EMA and the Member States, which tends to base decisions on pricing and reimbursement on clinical data rather than pre-clinical ones. Here we have proposed a two-step personalized-based model to merge the ethical commitment of ensuring larger access to all potential eligible patients (including those harboring very rare mutations) with the one of ensuring access to clinically assessed and effective medicines through Real World Data.