Abstract PO-195: Methodology for characterizing clinical differences & disparities for global populations to support disease area prioritization in industry oncology clinical development programs: Insights to inform scientifically driven evidence generation

Author(s):  
Keith Dawson ◽  
Dane Callow ◽  
Jimmy Ngueyn ◽  
Altovise T. Ewing ◽  
Ruma Bhagat ◽  
...  
2005 ◽  
pp. 249-261
Author(s):  
William Trepicchio ◽  
Monica Cahilly ◽  
Lisa Speicher ◽  
Judith Oestreicher ◽  
Michael Burczynski ◽  
...  

Drug Safety ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 42 (6) ◽  
pp. 751-768 ◽  
Author(s):  
Subrata Ghosh ◽  
Lianne S. Gensler ◽  
Zijiang Yang ◽  
Chris Gasink ◽  
Soumya D. Chakravarty ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 92 (2) ◽  
pp. 262-264 ◽  
Author(s):  
M Orfali ◽  
L Feldman ◽  
V Bhattacharjee ◽  
P Harkins ◽  
S Kadam ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 17 (5) ◽  
pp. 340-346 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kim Papp ◽  
Marc Bourcier ◽  
Vincent Ho ◽  
Karen Burke ◽  
Boulos Haraoui

Background: Patents on several biologies will expire in Canada in the coming years. As they expire, applications to market subsequent entry biologies (SEBs) may be filed in Canada. Objective: To provide an understanding of the regulatory pathway and types of trials used for SEB authorization in Canada. Methods: Health Canada's draft guidance on SEBs was reviewed in regards to key issues and challenges in the development and authorization of SEBs. Results: Health Canada states that SEBs are not “generic biologies” and their authorization is not a declaration of pharmaceutical or therapeutic equivalence to the originator. The agency recommends that physicians make well-informed decisions regarding therapeutic interchange. Conclusions: Decisions on how to determine the place of SEBs in clinical practice for biologic-naive patients and those already receiving biologies should be made on a case-by-case basis, considering the patient's needs, the characteristics of the biologic required, and the clinical development programs of the applicable SEB.


2015 ◽  
Vol 31 (4) ◽  
pp. 199-200 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel A. Ollendorf

In this issue, Facey and colleagues have eloquently summarized the product of the February 2015 HTAi Policy Forum discussion—the need for health technology assessment (HTA) to shift from a historically reactive role in both evaluating current evidence and requesting additional evidence generation to a more proactive role engaging with stakeholders to ensure that evidence produced is appropriate for any given intervention at different stages of the clinical development program. This makes logical a priori sense, of course, as proactive and engaged discussion is always superior to reactive and potentially adversarial interaction.


Drug Safety ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 42 (6) ◽  
pp. 809-809 ◽  
Author(s):  
Subrata Ghosh ◽  
Lianne S. Gensler ◽  
Zijiang Yang ◽  
Chris Gasink ◽  
Soumya D. Chakravarty ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document