Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-swr86 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-23T02:26:42.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

A systematic review of the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA) recommendations on the conduct of clinical trials in psychiatry

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2014

Giuseppe Guaiana
Affiliation:
Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche “Mario Negri”, Milano
Corrado Barbui*
Affiliation:
Dipartimento di Medicina e Sanità Pubblica, Sezione di Psichiatria, Università di Verona, Verona
*
Indirizzo per la corrispondenza: Dipartimento di Medicina e Sanità Pubblica, Sezione di Psichiatria, Università di Verona, Ospedale Policlinico, 37134 Verona. Fax:+39-045-585.871E-mail:corrado.barbui@univr.it

Summary

Objective – This article critically reviews the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products (EMEA) recommendations on the conduct of clinical trials in psychiatry. The EMEA is a regulatory body which provides the institutions of the European Community with the best possible scientific advice on the quality, safety, and efficacy of medicinal products. Method – Systematic review of recommendations, guide-lines and official documents available in the EMEA web site. Results – Out of nearly 400 documents, we identified 4 documents on the conduct of clinical trials in specific psychiatric disorders and 5 on the use of placebo or active comparator in evaluating a new drug's efficacy and on methodological issues in establishing difference and equivalence of effect. The EMEA recommends clinical trials to detect a difference between the compound under investigation and placebo, and to assess at least non-inferiority against an active comparator. A placebo arm is intended to validate the study. The EMEA supports the use of placebo only when there is no serious risk for the patient. In schizophrenia, depression and bipolar disorder the Agency suggests that a three-arm study is the design of choice, to demonstrate superiority against placebo and a similar balance against an active comparator. Conclusions – Despite the many effective therapeutic options available for the pharmacological management of psychiatric disorders, the EMEA regulatory process still relies on the demonstration of efficacy in absolute terms, against a placebo. We discuss this position and put at issue the possibility of developing a new generation of trials to demonstrate superiority of effect of new compounds over reference ones.

Type
Papers
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Barbui, C. & Garattini, S. (1999). Clinical trials of new antipsychotics: a critical appraisal. International Clinical Psychopharmacology 14, 133137.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barbui, C. & Hotopf, M. (2001). 40 years of antidepressant drug trials. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica 104, 9295.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barbui, C., Violante, A. & Garattini, S. (2000). Does placebo help establish equivalence in trials of new antidepressants? European Psychiatry 15, 268273.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barbui, C., Guaiana, G. & Garattini, S. (2001). Regulatory issues in Europe. Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology 21, 545548.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (1995). Note for guidance on the clinical investigation of medicinal products in the treatment of schizophrenia. Document id: CPMP/EWP/559/95. <http://www.emea.eu.int>..>Google Scholar
Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (1997). Concept paper on the revision of the committee for proprietary medicinal products (CPMP) note for guidance on medicinal products for the treatment of depression. Document id: CPMP/EWP/518/97. <http://www.emea.eu.int>..>Google Scholar
Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (1998). Note for guidance on clinical investigation of medicinal products for the treatment of bipolar disorder. Document id: CPMP/EWP/567/98. <http://www.emea.eu.int>..>Google Scholar
Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (1999a). Choice of delta. Document id: CPMP/EWP/2158/99. <http://www.emea.eu.int>..>Google Scholar
Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (1999b). Points to consider on switching between superiority and non-inferiority. Document id: CPMP/EWP/482/99. <http://www.emea.eu.int>..>Google Scholar
Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (2001). Development of depot preparations of approved medicinal products in schizophrenia. Document id: CPMP/EWP/49/01. <http://www.emea.eu.int>..>Google Scholar
Council Regulation. (1993). No. 2309/93. Community procedures for the authorisation and supervision of medicinal products for human and veterinary use and establishing a European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products. Official Journal of the European Communities No. L 214, 24/08/1993.Google Scholar
Enserink, M. (2000). Are placebo-controlled drug trials ethical? Science 288, 416.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garattini, S. & Bertelé, V. (2000). Policing the European pharmaceutical market's priorities. European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 56, 441443.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Garattini, S. & Bertelé, V. (2001). Adjusting Europe's drug regulation to public health needs. Lancet 358, 6467.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Geddes, J., Freemantle, N., Harrison, P. & Bebbington, P. (2000). Atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia: systematic overview and meta-regression analysis. British Medical Journal 321, 13711376.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Glick, I.D., Suppes, T., DeBattista, C., Hu, R.J. & Marder, S. (2001). Psychopharmacologic treatment strategies for depression, bipolar disorder, and schizophrenia. Annals of Internal Medicine 134, 4760.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hotopf, M., Lewis, G. & Normand, C. (1997). Putting trials on trial – the costs and consequences of small trials in depression: a systematic review of methodology. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 51, 354358.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
International Conference for Harmonisation (1995). Topic E8: general considerations for clinical trials. Document id: CPMP/ICH/291/95. <http://www.emea.eu.int>..>Google Scholar
International Conference for Harmonisation (1996a). Topic E9: statistical principles for clinical trials. Document id: CPMP/ICH/363/96. <http://www.emea.eu.int>..>Google Scholar
International Conference for Harmonisation (1996b). Topic E10: choice of control group in clinical trials. Document id: CPMP/ICH/364/96. <http://www.emea.eu.int>..>Google Scholar
Jones, B., Jarvis, P., Lewis, J.A. & Ebbutt, A.F. (1996). Trials to assess equivalence: the importance of rigorous methods. British Medical Journal 313, 3639.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Laupacis, A., Sackett, D.L. & Roberts, R. S. (1988). An assessment of clinically useful measures of the consequences of treatment. New England Journal of Medicine 318, 1728–33.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Streiner, D. (1999). Placebo-controlled trials: when are they needed? Schizophrenia Research 35, 201210.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Temple, R. & Ellenberg, S.S. (2000). Placebo-controlled trials and active-control trials in the evaluation of new treatments. Part 1: Ethical and scientific issues. Annals of Internal Medicine 133, 455463.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thornley, B. & Adams, C. (1998). Content and quality of 2000 controlled trials in schizophrenia over 50 years. British Medical Journal, 317, 11811184.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed