Template - Summary Report



EMA/52099/2013 "Error*"EMA/52099/2013 \* MERGEFORMAT EMA/52099/2013

EMA/PDCO Summary Report

on an application for a

UPI Number:

or (only if this is a recommended INN)

(Only in case of existing products)

|

|Active substance(s) | |

|INN | |

| |Put INN here. Additionally indicate if INN is proposed or recommended. |

|Invented name |Only when authorised |

|Type of product | |

|ATC code |Only if existing |

|Therapeutic area(s) | |

| |Treatment / diagnosis / prevention of |

| | |

| |Gastroenterology - Hepatology |

| |Neurology |

| |Psychiatry |

| |Haematology - Haemostaseology |

| |Oncology |

| |Immunology - Rheumatology - Transplantation |

| |Dermatology |

| |Ophthalmology |

| |Cardio-vascular Diseases |

| |Pneumology - Allergology |

| |Infectious Diseases - Parasitology |

| |Oto-rhino-laryngology |

| |Uro-nephrology |

| |Endocrinology - Gynaecology - Fertility - Metabolism |

| |Neonatology - Paediatric Intensive Care |

| |Pain |

| |Anaesthesiology |

| |Vaccines |

| |Diagnostics |

Authorised use

|Condition(s) |Adults: |

| |Children: |

|Pharmaceutical formulation(s) authorised | |

|Strength(s) authorised | |

|Route(s) of administration authorised | |

|Indication(s) authorised |Adults: |

| |Children: |

Applicant’s proposals

|Condition(s) |Adults: |

| |Children: |

|Pharmaceutical formulation(s) proposed | |

|Strength(s) proposed | |

|Route(s) of administration proposed | |

|Indication(s) proposed |Adults: |

| |Children: |

|PIP indication proposed | |

Comment:

Comment on any regulatory issues.

Applicable only if already authorised: are all authorised indications/form/route covered by the application?

Paediatric Co-ordinator:

Add * to above conditions indications if applicant or delete the following if not applicable:

Rapporteur:

Peer Reviewer:

Discussion of proposed condition(s) (scope of application)

Comment:

Discuss the proposed condition(s) in the context of current medical practice, paediatric needs and envisaged use, pharmacological properties of the medicine, medical classification systems and relevant orphan medicine designation(s), starting from the indication(s) being developed and / or authorised for use in the adult population (if applicable) and/or proposed as PIP indication.

(1) In which way are the pharmacological properties of the medicine consistent with the proposed condition? Is the medicine intended for treatment or for primary prevention of the condition, taking into account experience from medical practice using this or similar medicines?

(2) What are the unmet paediatric therapeutic needs that could reasonably be met using the medicine based on its properties? Among the needs, what are the priorities, if any?

Is the condition as proposed acceptable or should it be revised to represent the expected activity of the medicine and to address paediatric needs? If yes, which is the appropriate PIP condition?

(3) If classification systems lead to substantially different representations of the condition, which system is appropriate for the therapeutic area? Explain the hierarchical context of the paediatric use, for example by using MedDRA: Which is the relevant organ class (only if more than one) and which is/are the relevant high-level term(s) and high-level group term(s) encompassing the adult and paediatric indication(s)?

(4) Is / are orphan designation(s) identical to the appropriate PIP condition (disregarding editorial differences)? If the scope is different, which paediatric needs (if any) would be covered by the appropriate PIP condition(s), but not by the orphan designation(s)?

Paediatric Co-ordinator:

Rapporteur:

Peer Reviewer:

Regulatory information on completed clinical trials related to the condition and to the development for the paediatric population

|Reference Number |Trial Country |Protocol Number |Protocol Title |Trial Status |

| | | | | |

Comment:

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

Comment:

Any trials which would suggest another therapeutic interest in children not covered in the application?

In case of trial stopped prematurely, check if impact on the paediatric development is discussed in the application.

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

Regulatory status of the product

Marketing authorisation status inside the European Union

Only applications for Article 8, otherwise delete the following table.

|EU No. |Invented Name |

| | |

Date of completion of adult pharmacokinetic studies: Only applications for Article 7, otherwise write "Not applicable"

Justification when no date for completion of adult pharmacokinetic studies is provided or explanation for PIP / waiver submission date: Only applications for Article 7, otherwise write "Not applicable"

Orphan drug designation:

• - Add the EU number for the orphan drug condition. Repeat line if several ODDs.

Marketing authorisation status outside the European Union

Paediatric indications:

Refusal / withdrawal / restriction of a marketing or extension authorisation or application (inside or outside EEA)

None according to application - Or

Comment:

In keeping with legislation? If delayed, are justifications acceptable? If justifications acceptable, take into consideration for a deferral.

Discuss and comment on refusal/withdrawal/restriction of either marketing authorisation or extension application or of submitted applications inside or outside the EEA.

Paediatric Co-ordinator:

Rapporteur:

Peer Reviewer:

Regulatory advice on the development of the product

Advices from any regulatory authority relevant to the development in the paediatrics population.

|Advice Status |Advice Date |Advice Number |Advice Comment |Advice Type |

| | | | | |

Relevant guidelines:

Name only disease-specific guideline(s) here.

•

Comment:

Specify type of advice, and summarise part of information which is relevant to the development in the paediatric population as per PIP or waiver request.

Were there differences between national and the Agency’s Scientific Advice?

Has the applicant followed the SA given? Are there explanations or justifications why scientific advice has not been adhered to? (Brief, details to be discussed in part D).

Any FDA written request received (or planned)? Was there any the proposed paediatric study request (PPSR), was it refused to issue a Written Request?

Were any waivers granted? Justifications? Scope of development in children?

If guideline(s) explicit and relevant for paediatric development, has guideline been followed?

Note for the reviewers: any advice, CHMP assessment for similar products, previous Opinion of the PDCO related to a competitor should be considered and discussed. However, any confidential information (e.g., advice given for non-authorized product) should be clearly highlighted, preceded by the statement “CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION:” and deleted before submitting the D30/90 draft Summary Report to Applicants.

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

Overall development of the medicinal product

In case of several conditions, parts B, C, D and E are repeated in this order per condition.

Discussion on similarities and differences and pharmacological rationale

Similarities and differences of the disease/condition between populations

Summary of Applicant’s position:

Comment:

Populations refer to a comparison of adult versus paediatric and within paediatric subsets.

Agreement with the Applicant’s position? Differences based on e.g. disease pathophysiology, on maturation (which organ, receptors)?

Consequences of discussion of disease/condition:

Are differences justifying a separate development (efficacy, safety) or different endpoints between adults and all paediatric subsets and between paediatric subsets?

Is there a product-related issue with selected clinical endpoints?

Agreement with the earliest age of onset and / or with the figures on prevalence and incidence?

What is the paediatric age range subset concerned by the disease / condition?

If disease does not occur in subsets of paediatric population, potential ground for waiver.

Similarities regarding seriousness of the disease, aetiology, clinical manifestations and prognosis, variability in terms of genetic background (suitability of the referenced literature and own searches).

Does this indicate safety issue, efficacy, and dose issue?

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

Pharmacological rationale and explanation

Summary of Applicant’s position:

Comment:

For discussion of available data and knowledge on pharmacological properties related to anticipated similarities and differences between adults and children or within paediatric subsets, the following aspects are relevant:

Absorption: active transport (if any)? Location: intestine, other? Type of transporter mainly involved?

Influence of food (including milk)? Influence of maturation on the absorption: function of age (from birth onwards)? Age at which 90-100 % of adult absorption is reached.

Distribution: binding (red blood cells, plasma proteins)? Influence of maturation on binding (whenever expected to be of clinical relevance)? First-pass effect?

Active transport? Location: intestine, blood-brain barrier, placenta, breast milk, other? Type of transporter mainly involved? Pharmacogenetics of transporters involved?

Influence of maturation on the distribution? Function of age (from birth onwards)? Age 90-100 % of adult distribution?

Metabolism: main routes (studies with labelled compounds in adults, in vitro studies with human liver cell preparations, human microsomes, with recombinant cDNA)? CYP involved? Conjugation enzymes involved? Existence of active metabolites? Pharmacogenetics of metabolism? Influence of maturation on the metabolism? Description as a function of age (from birth onwards) for the main pathway(s)? Age 90-100 % of adult elimination is reached for the main metabolic pathway(s)?

Elimination: main routes of elimination (studies with labelled compounds in adults)? Renal clearance in adults and consequent expected tubular handling (adult renal clearance compared to adult normal GFR)? Influence of maturation on elimination/renal clearance? Description as a function of age (from birth onwards)? Age 90-100 % of adult elimination is reached?

Mechanism of action, as far as known at this stage:

Is it clearly described and understood, how closely is it directed at the disease / condition?

What are the main sites of action, potential expected side effects, and expected pharmacodynamic drug interactions, potential other indications which could be envisaged?

How does this compare to other medicinal products of the same class and same indication?

If applicable, discuss chemical structure and physicochemical properties and importance of enantiomers and interconversion.

Are PK/PD models for this condition available, under development, not feasible for this condition? What would be needed in respect of PK/PD models?

Agreement with the applicant that the product is expected to act in the same or a different way in adults and children and in different subsets of the paediatric population?

Does this require separate development?

Is there a proof of concept?

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

Current methods of diagnosis, prevention or treatment in paediatric populations

Summary of Applicant’s position:

Comment:

Standard of care (authorised products or not), include therapeutic options other than medicinal products.

If highly variable and dependent on the Member state/country, please indicate as this is potential issue for trial design later.

Is treatment similar in adults?

Consequences for any paediatric development.

Potential for active comparator in trial?

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

Significant therapeutic benefit /fulfilment of therapeutic needs

Summary of Applicant’s position:

Comment:

Use conclusions from previous B.2 to identify unmet needs.

Comment on whether the applicant’s position sufficiently argues for the following situations of potential significant therapeutic benefit in the proposed condition:

• Reasonable expectation for safety and efficacy to treat a paediatric condition where no authorised paediatric medicinal product is on the market;

• Expected improved efficacy in a paediatric population compared to the current standard of care for the treatment, diagnosis or prevention of the condition concerned;

• Expected improvement in safety in relation to either adverse events or potential medication errors;

• Improved dosing scheme or method of administration (number of doses per day, oral compared to intravenous administration, reduced treatment duration) leading to improved safety, efficacy or compliance;

• Availability of a new clinically relevant age-appropriate formulation;

• Availability of clinically relevant and new therapeutic knowledge for the use of the medicinal product in the paediatric population leading to improved efficacy or safety of the medicinal product in the paediatric population: needs, subsets;

• Different mechanism of action with potential advantage for the paediatric population(s) in terms of improved efficacy or safety;

• Existing treatments are not satisfactory and alternative methods with an improved expected benefit/risk balance are needed;

• Expected improvement in the quality of life of the child.

If unmet needs or presence of significant therapeutic benefit in some or all subsets, then conclude on the need to have a PIP.

Discuss feasibility of performing clinical trials in the condition (lack of feasibility might be a ground for waiver).

Discuss expected therapeutic benefit justifying paediatric trials in the condition.

Discuss whether new data need to be generated when there are existing data/indication (replicating data is of no benefit).

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

Applications for product-specific waivers

(If applicable, if not, delete the whole section.)

Overview of the waiver request(s)

Summary of Applicant’s position:

Comment:

Are all indications and age subsets covered by waiver requests, taking into account the complementary PIP indications (and if applicable, the Agency’s class waiver decisions)?

Which is the paediatric population subset that remains or is not covered, if any?

Discussion on the grounds to follow, i.e. not here

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

Grounds for a product-specific waiver

Grounds based on lack of efficacy or safety

Summary of Applicant’s position:

Comment:

State if this ground does not apply, irrespective of the applicant information.

Likelihood of product to be ineffective?

Does this match the applicant’s claim of efficacy in other populations?

Rationale for inefficacy (e.g. physiopathology, lack of receptor, etc.)?

And/or

Likelihood of product to be unsafe.

Any theoretical safety issue from class effect?

Any specific safety concern from animal studies, or from adult already identified?

Link with B.1 and B.2 conclusions to explain lack of efficacy or safety.

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

Grounds based on the disease or condition not occurring in the specified paediatric subset(s)

Summary of Applicant’s position:

Comment:

Which subsets of paediatric population are excluded? Does this match the prevalence/incidence analysed? State if this ground does not apply.

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

Grounds based on lack of significant therapeutic benefit

Summary of Applicant’s position:

Comment:

State if this ground does not apply

Significant therapeutic benefit not expected?

All paediatric needs in all subsets and conditions are met, and therefore there is no need for further development?

Does this match B.1.1 and B.3?

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

Paediatric investigation plan

Existing data and overall strategy proposed for the paediatric development

Paediatric investigation plan indication

Indication means relevant target use within the condition, for example ”treatment of episodic asthma” whereas the condition is "treatment of asthma".

Summary of Applicant’s position:

Comment:

Does the application justify the choice and scope of the proposed paediatric investigation plan? Is this in line with assumptions and conclusions in B.3?

Does the proposed PIP indication cover the condition in question?

Are there indications and in the case of article 8 indications left out in the application?

The Regulation considers the need for data in the potential and correspondent paediatric use. This can be based on the mechanism of action of the drug, on the potential for off-label use in children. The Regulation does not require that the PIP is limited to the proposed wording of the adult indication, but it is assumed that there should be some relationship between development in adults and in the paediatric population.

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

Selected paediatric subset(s)

Summary of Applicant’s position:

Comment:

Does it cover all potential paediatric subsets? If disease does not occur in some subsets of paediatric population, potential ground for waiver in these subsets.

Is there justification for the selected subsets in the application?

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

Information on the existing quality, non-clinical and clinical data

Summary of Applicant’s position:

Comment:

Although the PIP is not intended to include all the elements necessary for drug development, some requirements may have to be included. Is the proposed outline fulfilling the requirements of Annex 1 of Directive 2001/83/EC as amended?

The clinical strategy in adults should be briefly described and commented for its relationship to the planned paediatric development.

Is this a comprehensive and appropriate development plan?

Quality: how adequate are the existing formulations to the paediatric population, their different subsets?

Is the ADME (absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion) and toxicity well described? Which consequences have the ADME and toxicity for the pharmacological / dosing strategy in children?

Are the main available pharmacokinetic parameters presented and discussed:

• linearity of the kinetics, Tmax, Cmax, absolute bio-availability, volume of distribution, plasma clearance, half-lives (T½,terminal T½);

• hepatic extraction ratio for medicinal products primarily eliminated through the liver (comparison of plasma clearance to normal liver blood flow)

Are there data on pharmacodynamics (effect of interest and other effects) in animals and/or in adults? How does maturation influence the PK-PD relationship? Is there data on the age at which 90-100 % of adult maximum PD response as a function of plasma concentration is reached?

Non-clinical: What is known from juvenile models (corresponding approximately to which child age)?

Is there an indication that effects on growth and/or maturation may be a concern?

Are the effects only in juvenile animals or also in adult animals?

Clinical: Is there a proof of concept of the effect of the product or the class?

Are there measures to identify the dose?

Is there a need for demonstration of efficacy, or a justification for the extrapolation of efficacy from other age groups?

Are there safety studies in the appropriate subsets of the paediatric population?

What are the missing studies?

Are there elements of the development that are unnecessary?

Is the Applicant using all available data to avoid unnecessary studies?

Comment on usefulness of existing information in the paediatric population. Quality of the paediatric data available, level of evidence, reliability, age/weight groups or other relevant subsets such as pubertal stages addressed? Conflicting evidence?

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

Quality aspects

Summary of Applicant’s position:

Comment:

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

Strategy in relation to quality aspects

Summary of Applicant’s position:

Comment:

This section should be a logical follow-on from D.1.c with regards to existing formulations.

Is there a need for development of paediatric formulation?

If so, has the applicant justified the proposed quality strategy and discussed all various options?

Has the applicant provided with the composition of the proposed formulations both qualitative and quantitative?

Discuss the suitability of the proposed formulations for the subsets of the paediatric population, taking into account the comments on existing formulations in D.III.c.

Were adequate justifications for the need for or lack of development of a new formulation provided?

If applicant declares that a formulation is unfeasible, are there sufficient technical data presented and justifications acceptable?

Discuss formulation in relation to proposed route of administration.

Has the applicant justified the excipients chosen (including the quantities) in relation to age, duration of treatment, and route of administration.

Discuss mixing with food.

Are the taste and palatability acceptable, or are measure to address this acceptable?

Discuss dosing accuracy for all weight ranges and feasibility (e.g. need to deliver 1microL).

Is the therapeutic margin “critical” that requires very high precision?

Discuss medical devices in relation to dosage accuracy and precision.

Discuss ease of administration by parents, carers, schools and older children themselves as appropriate.

Discuss use by healthcare professionals or relevance of different healthcare settings.

If the PDCO formulation working group was involved, include discussion and outcome.

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

Outline of each of the planned and/or ongoing, studies and steps in the pharmaceutical development

Summary of Applicant’s position:

Other information about the key elements, for example justification for the proposed pharmaceutical form and objectives for pharmaceutical development. Do not repeat information presented in the key elements table.

Comment:

Discuss measures and proposed timeframe for the development of the formulation in relation to paediatric clinical trials and to placing on the market.

In case of studies on formulation prototypes (including enabling formulations), how do they relate to the clinical studies and final pharmaceutical development?

If the PDCO formulation working group was involved, include discussion and outcome.

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

Non-clinical aspects

Strategy in relation to non-clinical aspects

Summary of Applicant’s position:

Comment:

Has the applicant justified the proposed non-clinical strategy?

Does the applicant cover for instance the need of repro-toxicity, genotoxicity, carcinogenicity, and juvenile animal studies? If not, are the justifications acceptable?

Discuss pre-requisites to human administration and in particular paediatric administration. Is the product considered ‘high-risk’ (refer to guideline for ‘first in man’)?

Are studies missing? Are studies unnecessary?

If studies in juvenile animals are proposed, is the species and age of animals appropriate?

If animal models, are they appropriate to study the effect of the product and to extrapolate the results?

Is the development requiring a first in children administration?

Is there a need to study local tolerance (e.g. trans-cutaneous route of administration)?

Is there a need to study immunogenicity?

Need for mechanistic studies if particular safety issue identified from non-clinical development?

Are there any signals (safety) which would have an impact on the development in children?

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

Overall summary table of all planned and/or ongoing non-clinical studies

Summary of Applicant’s position:

Non-clinical studies

|Study identifier |Objective(s) |Outcome measure |Test system / species (age) |Dosing, route |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

Synopsis/outline of protocol of each of the planned and/or ongoing non-clinical studies

Summary of Applicant’s position:

Other information about the key elements, for example justification for the proposed test system, objectives and duration. Do not repeat information presented in the key elements table.

Comment:

Discuss species, age of the animals and duration for juvenile animals in the proposed studies. Discuss any proposed studies not meeting standard toxicology or non-clinical requirements.

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

Clinical aspects

Strategy in relation to clinical aspects

Summary of Applicant’s position:

Comment:

Discuss first-in-children administration (prerequisites in non-clinical strategy).

Is there a need for proof-of-concept in humans?

Define subsets relevant for PK. Discuss the need for PK data in subsets. Discuss use of population PK, sparse sampling?

Discuss dose-finding strategy. Discuss proposed dosing regimen (according to weight, body surface area?)

Discuss product’s role in light of standard of care (refer to B.2).

Discuss need for demonstration of efficacy in subsets of paediatric population, or extrapolation from adult or older age groups data? Is the Applicant extrapolating data from the adult population? Which ones? Does this match the conclusions of B.1?

Are efficacy studies necessary, and in which subsets?

Refer to specific guideline(s) (see A.4.2) if available and discuss their recommendation (if appropriate to paediatric development).

Are there any issues regarding the efficacy which would have an impact for the development in children?

Are there feasibility issues at this level of the development program?

Has the applicant justified the clinical strategy and the overall approach to the paediatric development?

In case of “small trials’, any adaptive design proposed?

Are there elements of the development that are unnecessary? Is the applicant using all available data to avoid unnecessary studies?

Are there safety studies in the appropriate subsets of the paediatric population?

Is the proposed duration relevant? Are there any signals (safety) which would have an impact for the development in children?

Specify for follow-up studies the time periods and specify whether patients are treated or not, during the follow-up.

Are there measures for studying the long-term follow-up of safety and efficacy proposed? Over which period? Should it be part of the PIP or post-authorisation measures?

What are the missing studies?

Has the applicant followed the SA given? If not, are there explanations or justifications why scientific advice has not been followed and are they acceptable?

In case of previous assessment of by the CHMP were there issues which would have an impact for the development in children?

Please do not discuss here the individual studies. This part is about the approach to and rationale for development.

If common issue to several studies:

Discuss comparator: Placebo as control, or active comparator (authorised, not authorised/standard of care) in phase 3 trials?

Discuss endpoint if common to several studies (validated scales? non-invasive measures?).

Discuss duration (active treatment).

Discuss duration (long term follow-up).

Discuss stopping rules for patients.

Discuss setting (standard of care comparable to EU?).

Location of the proposed study and comparability to the EU population?

Discuss measures to minimise pain and distress.

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

Overall summary table of all planned and/or ongoing clinical studies

Summary of Applicant’s position:

|Study identifier |Type of study/design |Study population |Dosage, regimen |Primary endpoint(s) |

| |features | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

Synopsis/outline of protocol of each of the planned and/or ongoing clinical studies

Summary of Applicant’s position:

Other information about the key elements, for example justification for the proposed objectives, primary endpoint and sample size. Do not repeat information presented in the key elements table.

Comment:

Discuss the justification for the proposed design of the trial.

Discuss endpoints if not yet discussed in overall strategy. (Validated scales? Non-invasive measures?)

Discuss main primary and secondary endpoints including the number of secondary endpoints.

Discuss inclusion and exclusion criteria (Study population in line with proposed PIP indication?).

Discuss representation of relevant age groups or subsets.

Discuss stratification, power.

Discuss recruitment strategy.

Discuss design, including adaptive design if appropriate.

Discuss statistical analysis. Any interim analysis? Description and appropriateness of the analysis population (e.g. ITT vs. per-protocol).

Discuss time for recruitment and completion.

Discuss systematically DSMB.

Discuss stopping rules for individuals, part or entire trial.

Discuss setting (standard of care comparable / extrapolation to EU).

Discuss measures to minimise pain and distress.

Discuss placebo as control, or active comparator (authorised, not authorised/standard of care).

Discuss total duration (recruitment plan realistic?).

Discuss duration of active treatment and long term follow-up.

Discuss dose chosen, start dose and maximum, escalation (if appropriate).

If applicable, does the trial follow the SA given for this study?

Consider adding a third column for comments on individual key elements.

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

Other studies

Modelling and simulation study

Summary of Applicant’s position:

Other information about the key elements, for example justification for the assumption that the outcome of treatment is likely to be similar in paediatric subsets and adults. Do not repeat information presented in the key elements table.

Comment:

Discuss model objective/s specification, e.g. study optimisation, data analysis, dose finding and decision making.

Discuss type of model specification, e.g. population PK (/PD) model, physiologically based PK (/PD) model, mechanistic model or exposure response model.

Discuss data used to build the model, e.g. literature, in vitro, non-clinical, adult, and paediatric data.

Discuss the approach used to build model, e.g. step-up (physiologically based), step-down (population based) and software used.

Discuss covariates, e.g. age, body surface area, and weight.

Discuss both the internal and external qualification used to validate the model assumptions and to make adjustments.

Discuss the initiation / completion timelines and deferral if requested.

Consider adding a third column for comments on individual key elements. [pic]

[pic]

[pic]

Extrapolation study

Summary of Applicant’s position:

Other information about the key elements, for example justification for the assumption that the outcome of treatment is likely to be similar in paediatric subsets and adults. Do not repeat information presented in the key elements table.

Comments:

Discuss the existing in house and literature data on medicine / mechanism of action / class of medicines and on concerned conditions.

Comment on disease / population description, studies done, registries, data sources in adults and children in case any paediatric data are used. Discuss the "quantity" of data in adults, number of patients etc.

Consider the maturational profile of pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, response and efficacy parameters in children.

Is the assumption that the outcome of treatment is likely to be similar in paediatric subsets by age and by any other relevant characteristics compared to adults plausible?

Discuss the initiation / completion timelines and deferral if requested.

Consider adding a third column for comments on individual key elements.[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

Timelines of measures in the paediatric investigation plan

Summary of Applicant’s position:

|Study identifier |Description |Area |Date of |

| | |(quality, non-clinical, clinical) |initiation[1] and |

| | | |deferral requested |

| | | |(Y/N) |

| | | | |

New drug delivery system:

Multi particulate:

Type of formulation proposed

|New paediatric formulation developed | |

|Extemporaneous formulation | |

|Adapted from adult formulation | |

|Industry verified | |

|Same as adult formulation | |

Composition

Strength 1:

|Active Substance |Excipient Name |Quantity |Unit |Specification (per body weight kg / per |

| | | | |intake, per body surface area / per |

| | | | |intake) |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

| | | | | |

General category for route of administration:

Exact route of administration:

Administration concentration:

Dimensions (max) mm:

Comment:

Volume per intake (in ml): Min: Max:

Container:

Manipulation:

Administration device:

pH:

Diluent:

Scoring:

Enteric tube administration:

Release:

Day 30 (If Opinion is reached at D 60 delete this comment box and use conclusions)

PDCO discussion:

Outcome of discussion at day 90 required to identify trend in PDCO and issues to be discussed in Oral Explanation.

If applicable.

Comment:

CHMP Member:

Comment:

PTL:

Day 60 (If Opinion is reached at D 60 delete this comment box and use conclusions)

Use for Request for modification. If Opinion use next page

Include outcome of discussions at Committee level:

Include general considerations and contributions relevant to the development that were not part of the application.

If request for modification, identify which part, which studies, and which element should be modified, e.g.

• Need for age- appropriate formulation?

• Acceptability of the proposed formulation (from PDCO point of view).

• Need for juvenile toxicity studies or modification of proposed (e.g. species).

• Agreement and consistence with SA received?

PDCO discussion:

If applicable, provide information on discussion in EMA FDA PMDA HC paediatric cluster and other international or regulatory interaction.

To be drafted after the day 30 discussion, for preparation of the day 60 outcome. Also to be used as contribution to the meeting minutes. Indicate which waiver requests, if any, may be acceptable.

Request for modification:

Based on the assessment of the application, as reflected in the relevant sections of this summary report and according to the discussions held by the PDCO, the PDCO requests modifications by the applicant, to address the following issues.

When responding to this request for modification and amending the PIP, the applicant only needs to address the issues identified below. It is not necessary to address each individual comment identified in this Summary Report, as these do not necessarily reflect the PDCO position agreed on Day 60.

The Paediatric Regulation accommodates a single clock stop period, in order to enable applicants to modify their plans or to submit supplementary information in response to the request for modification. The PDCO will adopt the final Opinion on the basis of this supplementary information, without an additional clock stop period.

Waiver

1.

PIP

Quality

2.

Non-clinical

3.

Clinical

4.

| |Name |

|Paediatric Co-ordinator | |

|Rapporteur | |

|Peer Reviewer | |

|Submission answers to the request for modification | | |

|Re-start of procedure for modified PIP |Day 61 | |

|Meeting of PDCO and applicant | | |

|Adoption of the PDCO Opinion |Day 120 | |

Repeat both title and comment box for each of the issues of the request for modification.

Summary of the Applicant’s position and the modified paediatric investigation plan:

Comments on the responses and modifications:

Focus on elements necessary to answer the request for modifications

[pic]

[pic]

[pic]

Day 90 (If Opinion is reached at D 60 delete this comment box and use conclusions)

PDCO discussion:

Outcome of discussion at day 90 required to identify trend in PDCO and issues to be discussed in Oral Explanation.

Opinion at Day 60 / 120

|PDCO discussion: |

| |

|Only applications for Article 7. |

|Same as contribution to the meeting minutes. |

|Explain the discussion (summary, no protocol) and how final outcome was determined, e.g., summarising the weighting of arguments presented, |

|summarising the rationale for conclusion, e.g., from paediatric therapeutic needs to waiver to PIP contents. |

|Specifically provide reasoning and conclusions |

|when a requested waiver is refused, when a proposed PIP is not at all agreed, and when a requested deferral in an otherwise agreed PIP is |

|not granted; |

|when a waiver is granted ex officio or a deferral is granted ex officio. |

|Provide special scientific rationale for significant changes to key binding elements as concluded by the PDCO, if the changes are not yet |

|covered in the summary report. |

|If applicable, provide information on discussion in EMA FDA PMDA HC paediatric cluster and other international or regulatory interaction. |

|If relevant, mention oral explanation (presentation / data presented by applicant and discussion of applicant with PDCO) and subsequent PDCO|

|discussion and impact on conclusion. |

|General conclusion on the PIP and Waiver. |

| |

|Waiver example |

|Based on the assessment of this application and further discussions at the Paediatric Committee including contributions of external |

|expert(s), the PDCO agrees with the applicant's request for a waiver. The PDCO recommends granting a waiver for for all subsets of the paediatric population (0 to 18 years of age) in the condition of . |

|The PDCO emphasises that the granting of a waiver for the condition mentioned above should not prevent the applicant from considering a |

|development in the paediatric population in indications where there is a paediatric need. The PDCO identified as an unmet need. In |

|principle according to the Paediatric Regulation, incentives for the development for use in the paediatric population are available even if |

|a waiver has been granted in another condition. |

|If applicant withdrew between D90 and D120, AND a trend towards a negative Opinion was present in the PDCO: |

| - Delete if not applicable. |

-----------------------

[1] First patient included in trial.

[2] Last patient, last visit.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download