Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science最新文献

Background: Biomarkers are an integral component in the drug development paradigm. According to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), a biomarker is "a defined characteristic that is measured as an indicator of normal biological processes, pathogenic processes, or biological responses to an exposure or intervention, including therapeutic intervention" (FDA-NIH Biomarker Working Group. BEST (Biomarkers, EndpointS, and other Tools) Resource [Internet]. Silver Spring (MD): Food and Drug Administration (US); 2016-. Glossary. 2016 [Updated 2021 Nov 29, cited 2024 Apr 14]. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK338448/ Co-published by National Institutes of Health (US), Bethesda (MD)). The European Medicines Agency (EMA) defines a biomarker as "an objective and quantifiable measure of a physiological process, pathological process or response to a treatment (excluding measurements of how an individual feels or functions" European Medicines Agency (EMA). Biomaker. 2020a. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/glossary-terms/biomarker#:~:text=Biomarker-,Biomarker,an%20individual%20feels%20or%20functions . Several clinical biomarkers are well-documented and have been used routinely for decades in health care settings and have long been accepted as valid endpoints for drug approval (for example, blood pressure measurement as a biomarker for cardiovascular health) (European Medicines Agency (EMA). Assessment report, TAGRISSO. 2016. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment-report/tagrisso-epar-public-assessment-report_en.pdf . Accessed 15 Apr 2024). Recently, novel biomarkers have been identified and validated to accelerate developing innovative therapies indicated for serious human diseases, for example targeted/immune therapies of cancer (Chen in Med Drug Discov 21:100174, 2024). As indicators of the efficacy of new pharmacological treatments or therapeutic interventions, biomarkers can improve clinical trial efficacy and reduce uncertainty in regulatory decision making (Bakker et al. in Clin Pharmacol Ther 112:69-80, 2022; Califf in Exp Biol Med 243:213-221, 2018; Parker et al. in Cancer Med 10:1955-1963, 2021).

Methodology: This article describes case studies of recent drug approvals that successfully leveraged validated and non-validated biomarkers (i.e., tofersen for the neurodegenerative disease amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) in adults; and osimertinib for treatment of patients with metastatic epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) T790M mutation-positive non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC)).

Conclusions: Best practices for biomarker selection and strategies for health authority biomarker qualification programs are presented along with an overview of current limitations and challenges to optimizing biomarker applications along the drug development continuum from regulatory, translational, and operational perspectives.

Objectives: Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are important measures of efficacy in the context of clinical trials but are sometimes identified as time and resource intensive to study participants and site personnel. The objective of this research was to evaluate the amount of time that participants spend completing PROs via an electronic device in phase 2 and 3 clinical trials across several disease areas.

Methods: The electronic Clinical Outcome Assessment (eCOA) data were obtained from Johnson & Johnson clinical trials across various disease areas from 2016 to 2023. Data were acquired from internal and external sources including clinical trial sites and eCOA partners. In total, 82 trials were analyzed, containing data from 33,633 unique participants, and 1,083,994 measurements of completed electronic PRO instruments. After data cleaning, descriptive and multivariate analyses were performed. Electronic PRO completion time was examined in two ways: by time-per-item and time-per-instrument for each PRO.

Results: On average, participants spend about 16 s per item and an average of 2 min to complete a PRO instrument electronically. The average time to complete PRO instruments varied significantly by disease area and most eCOA were completed on study site tablets (68%) or personal handheld devices (31%).

Conclusions: Overall, patients spend an average of 16 s per item and 2 min per PRO instrument in clinical trial studies. PROs are a crucial component of clinical trial outcomes data and can be efficiently completed electronically by participants in clinical trials in a short amount of time.

In clinical development, an independent data safety monitoring committee (IDMC) is often established to ensure the test treatment's integrity, quality, safety, and efficacy under investigation. In clinical trials, IDMC may recommend stopping the trial early due to safety, futility/efficacy, or both after reviewing observed data in the interim based on pre-specified stopping boundaries. In practice, the interim data is often too small to reach clinically meaningful differences with statistical significance (i.e., the observed clinically meaningful difference is reproducible and not purely by chance alone). To provide an overall assessment (or complete clinical picture) of the performance of the test treatment under investigation, the FDA (2023) published guidance on the benefit-risk assessment (BRA) framework to facilitate IDMC decision-making. Several methods have been studied in the literature following the FDA's recommended framework. However, these methods did not consider the uncertainties and heterogeneities. Alternatively, a BRA approach is proposed based on a confidence ellipse of primary safety and efficacy endpoints. The proposed confidence ellipse approach was evaluated both theoretically and via a clinical trial simulation. The results indicate that the proposed confidence ellipse provides consistent and stable metrics, particularly as sample sizes increase. The derived metrics of Benefit-Risk Difference (BRD) and Benefit-Risk Ratio (BRR) showed favorable performance across different scenarios and thresholds. Applied to the TESTING trial data (Lv et al. JAMA. 327(19):1888-98, 2022), our method confirmed and extended the original finding that a reduced methylprednisolone dose offered a more favorable benefit-risk profile. Specifically, the confidence ellipse method highlighted that the reduced dose consistently provided a better balance between efficacy and safety, particularly under stricter criteria for clinical significance. This method validated the original conclusions and provided additional insights into how different dosing regimens perform across various clinical scenarios, potentially offering a more refined tool for optimizing treatment decisions in complex therapeutic contexts.

Background: Clinical outcome assessments (COAs) measure how patients feel or function and can be used to understand which patients experience benefits of treatment and which do not. Interpretation of COA data is influenced by how meaningful change is defined. We aimed to compare how different stakeholders define, assess, and use meaningful change for decisions that impact patients.

Methods: A targeted literature review was undertaken in July 2021 using Medline, Embase, online grey literature search engines, and stakeholder organization websites. Additionally, a stakeholder survey on meaningful change was fielded between March and June 2023. Both quantitative and qualitative methods were used to analyze responses and identify key themes.

Results: The literature review resulted in 86 references. These revealed different approaches to define, measure and validate meaningful change. There were 248 survey responses. Many respondents felt the terminology and methods for defining meaningful change are confusing. Respondents also emphasized the importance of distinguishing within-patient and between-group change, and defining meaningfulness from the patient perspective (most patients and caregivers do not share a similar definition of meaningfulness as their healthcare professionals).

Conclusion: Four key recommendations for defining, establishing, and interpreting meaningful change estimates for COAs are: (1) Be clear on the type of "meaningful change" that is discussed or needed for a COA, (2) Ensure the "patient voice" is informing meaningful change estimates/definitions, (3) Acknowledge that a meaningful change estimate for a COA may differ between populations, diseases, and disease states, and (4) Disseminate data in a way that reduces ambiguity.

The use of data monitoring committees (DMC) to safeguard patients' safety in clinical trials has evolved over the last decades and has become increasingly common. To ensure well-operating and high-performing DMCs, pharmaceutical companies need to establish clearly defined operational processes while continuously seeking to optimize these and adapt to the needs of drug development. Although there are health authority guidelines on establishing and managing a DMC, the perspectives and experiences of sponsors are often underrepresented. This publication shares insights on a sponsor, Novo Nordisk (NN), regarding principles and practices for DMC establishment and management across varying trial types and therapeutic areas, including challenges and solutions. Highlighting NN's structured and successful approach to DMCs, it details clearly defined roles and responsibilities that ensure productive DMC meetings and high-quality data for the DMC. Additionally, NN's practices for clear, transparent, and trustful communication between the sponsor, the DMC, and the independent external statistical vendor are described. Processes for quality control, internal audits, and learnings from inspections and how these are incorporated for continuous improvement of the DMC process are discussed. While the processes and practices described are primarily designed for medium and large pharmaceutical companies, certain aspects may also be relevant and beneficial for smaller companies.

A data monitoring committee (DMC) can have an extremely challenging job. Stop a trial too soon, and results are inconclusive and the trial fails to obtain answers to important questions that could inform future clinical practice. Stop a trial too late, and trial participants are exposed to potentially harmful or ineffective interventions longer than necessary. Securing convincing and conclusive evidence and the ethical responsibility to current and future patients are weighed carefully during DMC deliberations. The ability to interpret complex information, and appreciation of issues affecting scientific integrity, are critical for the DMC to protect trial participants and public trust. Challenges faced by and issues of prudence faced by DMCs are discussed including interim analysis issues, assessing the totality of information with statistical boundaries as guidelines, interpretation of composite and surrogate outcomes, reactions to early trends, benefit:risk assessment, landscape changes, subgroup analyses, composing information for a comprehensive understanding of patient-centric effects, and evaluating the value of additional data. Case studies illustrate how DMCs addressed the challenges.

Purpose: This study aimed to assess the current regulatory review process of the Zambia Medicines Regulatory Authority (ZAMRA) by identifying the key milestones and target timelines achieved for products approved from 2020 to 2023, as well as good review and quality decision-making practices implemented in the review process.

Methods: A standardised, validated questionnaire; Optimising Efficiencies in Regulatory Agencies (OpERA) and the OpERA Data Collection Template were completed by the author.

Results: Three review models are used by ZAMRA to review new active substances (NASs) and generic products: verification, for products prequalified by the World Health Organization or approved by a stringent regulatory authority (SRA); abridged, for well-established molecules or SRA-approved products; or full, for products not otherwise prequalified. Good review practices and quality decision-making processes were followed but could be improved.

Conclusion: This study assessed the overall ZAMRA operation and identified the key milestones in the review process for products approved from 2020 to 2023, target timelines achieved and the compliance to standard good review and quality decision-making practices.

Introduction: One of the main objectives of pharmacovigilance activities is to confirm unknown adverse drug reactions (ADRs), and data-mining methods have been developed to detect signals that are candidates for ADRs. Reference sets have been developed to evaluate the performance of the data-mining methods. However, reference sets generated in previous studies are not based on Japanese safety information; therefore, they are not suitable for use in evaluation studies in Japan because some drugs have not been approved or marketed for a long time in Japan. This study aimed to develop a reference set using drug safety information marketed in Japan and to evaluate its performance.

Methods: A reference set was developed for 43 drugs and 15 events. For each combination of the selected drug and event, those that were listed as important identified risks in the Japan Risk Management Plan (J-RMP) were set as "positive controls" and those that were not listed as adverse reactions in the package insert were set as "negative controls." In addition, we performed data-mining using Japanese Adverse Drug Event Report database (JADER) and evaluated the results against the reference set to empirically confirm its effectiveness.

Results: The reference set included 127 positive and 386 negative controls. A comparison of the signals obtained from data-mining using JADER with the reference set revealed higher correlations than those in previous studies.

Conclusion: A reference set was developed using the safety information of drugs approved in Japan to promote research on data-mining methods.

Background: Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a neurodegenerative disease for which many clinical trials failed to detect treatment effects, possibly due to the heterogeneity of disease progression among the patients. Predicting and clustering a long-term trajectory of cognitive decline from the short-term cognition data of individual patients would help develop therapeutic interventions for AD.

Methods: This study developed mixture disease progression model to predict and cluster the long-term trajectory of cognitive decline in the population. We predicted the 30-year long-term trajectories of the three cognitive scales and categorized the individuals into rapid and slow cognitive decliners by applying the method, which was based on the two-component normal mixture nonlinear mixed-effects model, to the short-term follow-up data of the Mini-Mental State Examination, the 13-item Alzheimer's Disease Assessment Scale-Cognitive, and the Clinical Dementia Rating Scale-sum of boxes collected in patients with mild cognitive impairment and AD in the Alzheimer's Disease Neuroimaging Initiative.

Results: For each cognitive scale, the models identified two distinct subpopulations, including a population of comprising approximately 10-20% of individuals experiencing rapid cognitive decline, wherein the posterior means of the differences in cognitive decline speed between the two groups ranged from 2 to 3 years. We also identified baseline background factors associated with rapid decliners for three cognitive scales.

Conclusion: Identifying the risk factors associated with rapid decline of cognition by the proposed method aids in planning eligibility criteria and allocation strategy for accounting for the varying disease progression speeds among the patients enrolled in clinical trials for AD.

Background: Youth nicotine addiction is a major public health concern in the United States. Disposable Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems (ENDS), or disposable vapes, are commonly sought out by youth despite not having received premarket authorization from the FDA. The objective of this study was to identify factors contributing to underage consumption of disposable ENDS.

Methods: An anonymous survey was deployed to college students to understand young adults' perceptions and patterns of use of disposable ENDS.

Results: Disposable ENDS are very popular among youth. The results of this study revealed the popular brands, flavors, modes of access, and attractive aspects of disposable ENDS. Survey results combined with information from the literature reveal that disposable ENDS gained popularity in the years following the decline in the popularity of pod-based ENDS, such as JUUL, following strict regulatory action from the FDA.

Conclusion: To ultimately address underage nicotine addiction, the FDA must hold disposable ENDS to the same regulatory standards as other tobacco products and produce regulations specifically targeted at disposable ENDS. The results of this study emphasize the importance of making effective regulatory reform and functional educational resources to prevent young people from initiating the use of disposable ENDS.