Key result
Differences in regulatory perspectives between the FDA and EMA led to the approval of eteplirsen for Duchenne muscular dystrophy in the United States, while it received a negative opinion in Europe.
Highlights the differing regulatory perspectives between the FDA and EMA regarding the approval of eteplirsen for Duchenne muscular dystrophy.
Eteplirsen was approved for the treatment of eligible patients with Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) in September 2016 in one of the most, if not the most, controversial approvals ever made by the Food and Drug Administration of the United States. Two years later, the Committee for Human Medicinal Products (CHMP) of the European Medicines Agency gave a negative opinion for eteplirsen treatment. They had done so as well in May 2018, after which Sarepta (the company developing eteplirsen) appealed and a new evaluation was initiated, including a Scientific Advisory Group (SAG) meeting involving DMD experts and patient representatives. However, after reevaluation the opinion of the CHMP remained negative. In this commentary, we outline how differences in the perspective of FDA and EMA can lead to a DMD therapy being approved by FDA but not EMA, and vice versa.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aartsma‐Rus et al. (2018) conducted an editorial in Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD). Eteplirsen was evaluated. Differences in regulatory perspectives between the FDA and EMA led to the approval of eteplirsen for Duchenne muscular dystrophy in the United States, while it received a negative opinion in Europe.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: