Comparative analysis of the scope of European Union paediatric investigation plans with corresponding orphan designations

2017 ◽  
Vol 103 (5) ◽  
pp. 427-430 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea Ecker ◽  
Segundo Mariz ◽  
Frauke Naumann-Winter ◽  
Koenraad Norga ◽  
Ingeborg Barisic ◽  
...  

BackgroundMarket forces may not be sufficient to stimulate research and development of medicines for small patient populations, such as children and patients with rare diseases. Both the European Union Orphan and Paediatric Regulations were introduced to address the unmet public health needs of these smaller patient populations through the use of incentives, rewards and obligations. Developers for new medicines for rare diseases must agree a paediatric investigation plan (PIP) or waiver with the European Medicines Agency’s (EMA) Paediatric Committee (PDCO), and can also apply for an orphan designation (OD) from the EMA’s Committee of Orphan Medicinal Products (COMP). The scope of both the OD and the PIP (or waiver) is defined by the agreed condition.ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to analyse the approach of PDCO and COMP in defining the appropriate condition for a PIP or OD, respectively, in order to investigate potential challenges in the paediatric development of orphan medicines which have to meet the requirements of both legislations.MethodsA comparative analysis of PIP conditions and OD conditions was performed for medicines that have been reviewed by both Committees.ResultsWe found that in the substantial majority of cases there is no divergence between the conclusions of COMP and PDCO with regard to the condition for which a medicine is to be developed.ConclusionThese findings demonstrate that a collaborative approach allows both Regulations to work synergistically to foster pharmaceutical development for rare diseases in childhood.

2005 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rashmi R Shah

The implementation of Community Regulation on orphan medicinal products in the European Union in April 2000 has resulted in a deluge of applications for designation of medicinal products as orphan for rare diseases. By April 2004, the Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products had already given positive opinion on 63 per cent of the 316 applications considered by them. A significant number of these positive designations have already matured into full marketing authorisations. Three major reasons – failure to meet prevalence or significant benefit criteria or provide evidence of biological plausibility – have equally contributed to either the negative opinion on or the applicants withdrawing the remaining applications. In July 2004, the European Commission issued a communication setting out its position on certain matters relating to the implementation of the designation and market exclusivity provisions. The Commission, the European Medicines Agency (EMEA) and the Committee for Orphan Medicinal Products (COMP) continue to be proactive and provide as much guidance and incentives as practical, engaging themselves with sponsors, patient groups and academia. As experience builds up and issues are clarified, there are expectations that the Community Regulation on orphan medicines will prove to be a spectacular success.


Medicina ◽  
2008 ◽  
Vol 44 (8) ◽  
pp. 571 ◽  
Author(s):  
Indrė Špokienė

After Lithuania joined the European Union, the Regulation (EC) No. 141/2000 on orphan medicinal products and Commission Regulation (EC) No. 847/2000 came into force as part of national legislation. Member States must adopt specific measures to increase knowledge on rare diseases and to improve their detection, diagnosis, and treatment. The aim of this article was to present and to assess the current legal situation on orphan patients and their treatment in Lithuania, to identify legislation gaps, and to propose some ideas how to facilitate the solution of the existing problems in this field. For this purpose, European Union and Lithuanian legal documents on rare medicinal products are examined using a comparative method. With reference to inventory of Member States’ incentives for rare diseases in national level, the most important issues, which orphan patients face to in Lithuania, are singled out. In Lithuania, the situation of orphan patients in terms of protection of patient rights is insufficiently determined. The access to effective health care services or approved therapies in some cases is restricted. Working relationships between genetic services and various clinical specialists as well as with those in primary care are not legally determined; the number of clinical trials aimed at orphan medicinal products is low. These results suggest a need for awareness raising among Lithuanian Government, health care specialists, patient organizations about the importance to improve practical implementation of European Union legislation and progressive experience of some European countries in this field.


Author(s):  
Oleksandra Cherednichenko ◽  

The results of the study of the main elements of unobstructed space are presented and the compliance of the actual state with the regulatory requirements of measures to ensure a safe, comfortable, accessible and informative pedestrian zone of the road network is analyzed. A comparative analysis of the main regulatory requirements for access ramps on the legislation of Ukraine and the European Union is carried out.


2020 ◽  
pp. 92-97
Author(s):  
A. V. Kuznetsov

The article examines the norms of international law and the legislation of the EU countries. The list of main provisions of constitutional and legal restrictions in the European Union countries is presented. The application of the norms is described Human rights conventions. The principle of implementing legal acts in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic is considered. A comparative analysis of legal restrictive measures in the States of the European Union is carried out.


2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (9) ◽  
pp. 924-939
Author(s):  
V. A. Tsvetkov ◽  
K. Kh. Zoidov ◽  
K. S. Yankauskas ◽  
Sh. Kobil

The presented study comparatively analyzes indicators of the level of poverty and social inequality in Belarus, Ukraine, Moldova, and the European Union (EU) as a criterion of national economic security.Aim. The study aims to examine existing approaches to determining the level of poverty and its dynamics and to consider suggestions for improving this methodology.Tasks. The authors examine and comparatively analyze approaches and methods for determining the level of poverty and its dynamics in the European Union and the CIS countries that are not members of the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU).Methods. This study uses the methods of systems analysis, evolutionary-institutional theory, and historical approach.Results. Determining the level of poverty based on the number of citizens with incomes below the subsistence level can lead to misrepresentation of the actual state of this phenomenon. Calculation of poverty indicators based on consumer spending provides more accurate data on the level of poverty in a country where a significant share of the population’s income is generated by remittances from individuals living abroad, which are not reflected in official income statistics. A comparative analysis of poverty dynamics shows that in 2013 the level of poverty in all four examined countries decreased compared to 2006. Poverty dynamics in Russia and Belarus is more synchronized than in Ukraine and Moldova. A common methodology for calculating the level of poverty in all EU countries makes it possible to conduct a more thorough comparative analysis of poverty dynamics and to formulate more accurate recommendations in the field of anti-poverty policies. Based on the identified poverty dynamics in the EU and Russia, it is highly possible that strategic objectives on poverty reduction in the European Union and Russia will not be completed.Conclusions. To exclude the possibility of interested authorities influencing the dynamics of the poverty indicator by changing its threshold values depending on the current economic or political situation, it is necessary to switch to comprehensive assessment of this indicator in Russia. For comparative cross-country data analysis, it is advisable to consider the possibility of creating a Eurasian Statistics Service within the EAEU that would collect statistics and standardize statistical methods among the EAEU member states.


Resources ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (5) ◽  
pp. 49
Author(s):  
Ewa Mazur-Wierzbicka

There are many studies which implement and assess existing measurement manners and document the progress of entities towards the circular economy (CE) at various levels, or present or propose new possibilities of measurement. The majority of them refer to the micro level. The aim of this paper is to conduct a multidimensional comparative analysis of the implementation of circular economy by EU countries. After an in-depth critical analysis of the literature, CE indicators which were proposed by the European Commission were adopted as a basis. Owing to the research population-Member States of the European Union (EU-28), focusing on the said indicators was declared reasonable in all aspects. The classification of EU countries according to the level of their advancement in the concept of CE was adopted as a main research task. In order to do so, a relevant index of development of circular economy was created (IDCE). This will allow us, inter alia, to trace changes in the spatial differentiation of advancement of the EU countries in implementing CE over the years, to identify CE implementation leaders as well as countries particularly delayed in this regard. The comparative analysis was conducted by means of statistical methods. On the basis of the analyses, it was concluded that among all EU countries, those of the old EU are the most advanced in terms of CE. The analysis confirmed significant rising trends for IDCE only in the case of Belgium and The Netherlands.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document