Formal dissent in CHMP opinions on new medicines, 2020-2025

Disagreement within medicines regulation is rarely visible in the public record at the point an opinion is adopted. We examined divergent positions formally appended to opinions of the European Medicines Agency's Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) on new medicines from 2020 through 2025, both those opposing a positive opinion and those favoring authorization despite a negative opinion, describing how often they occurred, how large the dissenting minorities were, and which issues they raised. Divergent positions opposed 28 of 331 positive opinions (8.5%) and most often concerned efficacy and methodological limitations. Of 22 final negative opinions publicly available, 6 (27%) were accompanied by a divergent position favoring authorization. These records show when CHMP members disagreed about whether the evidence justified authorization. Indexing these disagreements and publishing vote outcomes with each opinion would make regulatory uncertainty visible and help clinicians, payers and health technology assessment bodies make better-informed decisions about treatment use and coverage.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
medRxiv
Published
2026-11-05
DOI
https://doi.org/10.64898/2026.11.03.26367215
Primary Topic
Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
Type
preprint
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
NOV
preprint

Formal dissent in CHMP opinions on new medicines, 2020-2025

Ariadna Tibau, Maximilian Siebert
medRxiv
Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
preprint

Formal dissent in CHMP opinions on new medicines, 2020-2025

Ariadna Tibau, Maximilian Siebert
preprint en

Abstract

Disagreement within medicines regulation is rarely visible in the public record at the point an opinion is adopted. We examined divergent positions formally appended to opinions of the European Medicines Agency's Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) on new medicines from 2020 through 2025, both those opposing a positive opinion and those favoring authorization despite a negative opinion, describing how often they occurred, how large the dissenting minorities were, and which issues they raised. Divergent positions opposed 28 of 331 positive opinions (8.5%) and most often concerned efficacy and methodological limitations. Of 22 final negative opinions publicly available, 6 (27%) were accompanied by a divergent position favoring authorization. These records show when CHMP members disagreed about whether the evidence justified authorization. Indexing these disagreements and publishing vote outcomes with each opinion would make regulatory uncertainty visible and help clinicians, payers and health technology assessment bodies make better-informed decisions about treatment use and coverage.

medRxiv
Centre for Innovation in Regulatory Science (GB)
Pharmaceutical industry and healthcare
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Laika access coming soon