Advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs) are a fast-growing field of innovative therapies. The European Union (EU) and the United States (US) are fostering their development. For both regions, ATMPs fall under the regulatory framework of biological products, which determines the legal basis for their development. Sub-classifications of advanced therapies are different between regions, while in EU, there are four major groups, i.e., gene therapy, somatic cell therapy, tissue-engineered therapies, and combined advanced therapies; in US, the sub-classification covers two major groups of products, i.e., gene therapy and cellular therapy. The inclusion criteria that define a gene therapy are equivalent in both regions, and the exclusion criteria are directly related to the indications of the product. In the EU, there is a clear differentiation between cell- and tissue-based products regarding their classification as advanced therapies or coverage by other legal frameworks, whereas in US, there is a broader classification about whether or not these products can be categorized as biologic products. Both in EU and in US, in order to classify a cell- or a tissue-based product as an advanced therapy, it must be ensured that the processing of the cells implies a manipulation that alters their biological characteristics, although the term of manipulation in US differentiates between structural and non-structural cells and tissues. The regulatory terminology used to define ATMPs and their sub-classification reveals some differences between EU and US.

Aim: To describe the opinions of hospital physicians concerning problems regarding the spontaneous reporting of adverse drug reactions (ADRs) and ways to solve them.Methods: A qualitative study was carried out. Fifteen focus groups were conducted among physicians working in a tertiary teaching hospital. A total of 208 physicians from different medical specialities participated. The focus group discussions were recorded by three different observers and the transcripts of each session were analysed for issues and themes emerging from the text.Results: Four types of obstacles to spontaneous reporting were considered particularly important: (i) problems with the ADR_S diagnosis; (ii) problems with the usual workload and lack of time; (iii) problems related to the organization and activities of the pharmacovigilance system; (iv) and problems related to potential conflicts. The potential solutions suggested for improving spontaneous reporting were to define the kind of ADR_S which should be reported, to facilitate an easy contact and quick access to the hospital pharmacovigilance system, to facilitate information and support for reporting and feedback of pharmacovigilance activities.Conclusions: The perception of the different obstacles by the hospital physicians is an important factor in determining the causes of the underreporting of ADRs and addressing these obstacles could lead to an improvement in spontaneous reporting. A closer relationship between the doctors and the pharmacovigilance centre is suggested as a means of solving these problems. More information is needed to improve the spontaneous reporting of ADR_S in specialized healthcare.

Objective: To assess the efficacy of oral drugs in the treatment of spasticity in patients with nonprogressive neurologic disease (NPND). Methods: Systematic review of double-blind randomized controlled trials of antispastic oral drugs in the treatment of spasticity in NPND. Data sources: Electronic MEDLINE, PubMed, Cochrane Library, and hand searches. Results: Twelve studies (469 patients) were included (6 on stroke, 3 on spinal cord diseases, and 3 on cerebral palsy). Tizanidine was assessed in four trials (276 patients, 142 exposed), dantrolene in four (103, 93), baclofen in three (70, 55), diazepam in two (127, 76), and gabapentin in one (28, all exposed). Most trials were of small size, of short duration, and their methodologic quality was inadequate. Ten trials were controlled with placebo and only two were direct comparisons between drugs. Efficacy outcome variables were heterogeneous. Only four reports described the magnitude of the antispastic effect. The incidence of adverse drug effects (drowsiness, sedation, and muscle weakness) was high. Conclusion: Evidence on the efficacy of oral antispastic drugs in NPND is weak and does not include evaluation of patients’ quality of life. If any, efficacy is marginal. Adverse drug reactions were common. Better methodologic instruments are needed for the evaluation of antispastic treatment.

Main problem: Little is known about the methodological quality of guidelines for low back pain treatment. We evaluated the methods used by the developers according to established standards. Methods: PubMed, guideline databases, and the World Wide Web were used to identify guidelines. Seventeen guidelines met the inclusion criteria: interventions for low back pain stated, recommendations based on or explicitly linked to evidence, and English version available. Guidelines were evaluated independently by two appraisers using a practical tool for this purpose, Users’ Guides to the Medical Literature, and the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument. Results: Thirteen guidelines (76%) specified the most important therapies applied, but only nine (53%) included a complete description of the target population. Explicit processes to identify, select, and combine evidence were described in only six guidelines (35%). Few guidelines (3; 18%) explicitly considered all main outcomes when formulating therapeutic recommendations, and none contained a process to determine the relative value of different outcomes. Methodological criteria for grading the strength of the recommendations varied, and were often insufficiently specified. None of the guidelines assessed the impact of uncertainty associated with the evidence and values used. According to AGREE the quality score was highest for the scope and purpose, and clarity and presentation domains, and lowest for editorial independence and applicability. With regard to the recommendations, there was consensus for some of the interventions for acute pain (analgesics and NSAIDs, maintaining physical activity, and avoiding excessive bed rest), but explicit recommendations were lacking or ambiguous for 41% of the interventions. Most of the guidelines did not contemplate specific recommendations for chronic pain. Conclusions: A small number of the available guidelines for low back pain treatment achieved acceptable results for specific quality criteria. In general, the methods to develop the guidelines’ therapeutic recommendations need to be more rigorous, more explicit and better explained. In addition, greater importance should be placed on the recommendations for chronic pain.