Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science最新文献

The growing complexity of biopharmaceutical sponsored trials has adverse impacts on increased burdens on participants, clinical sites, and sponsors, including greater difficulty recruiting and retaining participants, difficulty engaging sites to participate in trials, excessive cost of trials, and increased cycle times. The schedule of assessments (SoAs) is the origin of and blueprint for complexity that is often generated by copying and pasting from previous SoAs. We developed an approach, termed Lean Design, for redesigning the assessments in SoAs that generate data, the 'Data SoA.' It starts with a simple "ground zero" SoA. Any addition is challenged using several principles of trial design. We employed a system, the Faro Trial Designer Tool, to quantify the impacts of changes in an SoA to provide real-time feedback to the team and sponsor. We applied the approach in workshops with teams for six clinical trials in various stages of design and implementation. The approach resulted in recommendation for substantial potential savings in participant and site staff time, costs, and complexity of the trials. Application of this approach to very early stages of protocol design has the potential to reduce the complexity of biopharmaceutical sponsored trials and its consequences.

Background: Despite global efforts to improve paediatric clinical trials, significant delays continue in paediatric drug approvals. Collaboration between research networks is needed to address these delays. This paper is a first step to promote interoperability between paediatric networks from different jurisdictions by comparing drivers for, and content of, metrics about clinical trial conduct.

Methods: Three paediatric networks, Institute for Advanced Clinical Trials for Children, the Maternal Infant Child and Youth Research Network and conect4children, have each developed metrics to address delays and create efficiencies. We identified the methodology by which each network identified metrics, described the metrics of each network, and mapped consistency to come to consensus about core metrics that networks could share.

Results: Metric selection was driven by site quality improvement in one network (11 metrics), by network performance in one network (13 metrics), and by both in one network (five metrics). The domains of metrics were research capacity/capability, site identification/feasibility, trial start-up, and recruitment/enrolment. The network driven by site quality improvement did not have indicators for capacity/capability or identification/feasibility. Fifteen metrics for trial start up and conduct were identified. Metrics related to site approvals were found in all three networks. The themes for metrics can inform the development of 'shared' metrics.

Conclusion: We found disparity in drivers, methodology and metrics. Tackling this disparity will result in a unified approach to addressing delays in paediatric drug approvals. Collaborative work to define inter-operable metrics globally is outlined.

Chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapy is a human gene therapy product where T cells from a patient are genetically modified to enable them to recognize desired target antigen(s) more effectively. In recent years, promising antitumor activity has been seen with autologous CAR T cells. Since 2017, six CAR T-cell therapies for the treatment of hematological malignancies have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Despite the rapid progress of CAR T-cell therapies, considerable statistical challenges still exist for this category of products across all phases of clinical development that need to be addressed. These include (but not limited to) dose finding strategy, implementation of the estimand framework, use of real-world data in contextualizing single-arm CAR T trials, analysis of safety data and long-term follow-up studies. This paper is the first step in summarizing and addressing these statistical hurdles based on the development of the six approved CAR T-cell products.

The ICH E17 guidelines (2014-2017) on Multiregional Clinical Trials (MRCT) was a joint effort by the regulators and industry to facilitate simultaneous global drug development and registration through taking a strategic approach for clinical trials. In other words, the objective was to reduce the time it takes to bringing medications to patients around the world through minimizing unnecessary duplication of local or regional studies, which may add the regulatory burden to cost and time of bringing new therapies to patients. Under the auspices of ICH, training materials were created and provided to various stakeholders. Despite the successful promotion of the benefits of ICH E17 MRCT guidelines across the different regions, the uptake of some concepts (e.g., pooling strategy) in the ICH E17 guidelines has been slow. This paper describes various factors which could affect the conduct of MRCT at a global level, including ambiguity in definition of "region" (in MRCT), new regulatory requirements to enroll a diverse patient population, the use of decentralized clinical trials, use of data sources other than randomized clinical trials (e.g., use of Real Word Data), and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the conduct of MRCT.

Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is a major health problem. It is one of the most common types of stroke and results in mortality in approximately half of patients. More than half of the fatalities occur in the first 2 days. In addition to the mass effect after ICH hemorrhage, complex pathophysiological mechanisms such as intracranial vessel vasospasm, microthrombosis, and inflammatory immune reaction also increase brain damage. Both resident (including microglia and astrocytes) and circulating immune cells (including neutrophils, macrophages, and lymphocytes) involved in the inflammatory process. The inflammatory response is especially harmful in the acute phase due to harmful substances secreted by infiltrating immune cells. The inflammatory response also has beneficial effects, especially in the later stages. Their role in pathophysiology makes immune cells important therapeutic targets. General immunosuppressive approaches and depleting cell groups such as neutrophils or keeping them away from the lesion site may not be sufficient to prevent poor outcomes after ICH. This is most likely because they suppress anti-inflammatory activities and pro-inflammatory effects. Instead, directing immune cells to the beneficial subpopulation seems like a more rational solution. The pro-inflammatory N1 subpopulation of neutrophils damages the tissue surrounding ICH. In contrast, the N2 subpopulation is associated with anti-inflammatory reactions and tissue repair. Studies show that when neutrophils are polarized toward the N2 subpopulation, clinical outcomes improve and the volume of the infarct decreases. However, more research is still needed. This study aims to evaluate the role of neutrophils as immunotherapeutic targets in ICH in light of current knowledge.

In psychiatry clinical trials, an instrument or questionnaire with rating scale is often used to access safety and efficacy of a test treatment under investigation. Statistical analysis based on the collected rating scale is then performed a determine whether there is an improvement in endpoint change from baseline mean scale. This approach needs on absolute change, however, may not actually reflect the performance of the test treatment under study because the change, which may be considered of clinically importance, may fall within the same category in terms of disease severity such as mild, moderate, and severe. In this case, it is suggested, in addition to absolute change approach, a categorical shift analysis be considered to determine whether the endpoint change from baseline has resulted in an improvement in categorical shift, in terms of disease severity shift e.g., from severe to mild or moderate. In this article, we explore the relationship between absolute change approach and categorical shift analysis based on rating scales for assessment of test treatment under study.

Under current bioequivalence guidelines in Japan, it is mandatory to establish bioequivalence using a single pivotal study. Clinical trials with limited resources usually have a pre-defined maximum permissible number of participants. In this manuscript, we considered a trial design that would allow for bioequivalence evaluation at an interim analysis in which the total number of participants takes into account the resource constraints. Then, available options at the interim analysis are group sequential designs and adaptive designs, A comparison of the performance of the two methods under same maximum participant number has not been conducted thus far. So we examined which method should be used by conducting a simulation study. Since bioequivalence is expected to be achieved at the interim analysis, a study design using a Pocock-type alpha spending function is preferrable. Simulation results using a Pocock-type alpha spending function showed similar performance between group sequential and adaptive designs. Consequently, due to statistical and operational complexity, it is preferable to choose group sequential designs for bioequivalence study in Japan.

Background: This report describes the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) experience in establishing a dedicated mailbox, and in publishing related guidance, to address concerns among interested parties regarding the conduct of clinical trials during the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE).

Methods: Six hundred and thirty-four mailbox inquiries were received from March 2020 through February 2022. Qualitative methods were used to provide a structured description of, and identify common themes among, these inquiries.

Results: Most inquiries came from U.S.-based interested parties, including sponsors, industry trade associations, academic institutions, hospitals, clinics, research sites, trial participants, and individual persons. Approximately one-fifth of questions were related directly to COVID-19 (e.g., proposals for treatment); other inquiries were related to conduct of routine trial-related activities, and concerns were often focused on maintaining compliance with good clinical practice. In March 2020, FDA published a guidance titled Conduct of Clinical Trials of Medical Products During the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency; the document was subsequently revised eight times based in part on issues raised in mailbox inquiries.

Conclusions: The dedicated mailbox enabled expedited communication among invested parties during the COVID-19 PHE; FDA also provided updates of the aforementioned guidance. These efforts supported the continuance of ongoing trials and the initiation of new trials during the PHE in accordance with good clinical practice guidelines, thereby helping to ensure the safety of trial participants while maintaining the quality of trial data. By soliciting and responding to trial-related inquiries and addressing corresponding needs and concerns, FDA improved transparency and communication.

Introduction: Although oncology has seen large scientific and clinical advances over the last decade, it also has one of the lowest success rates for novel agents across therapeutic areas. Adaptive clinical trial design has been a popular option for increasing clinical trial efficiency and the chances of trial success. Seamless clinical trial design are studies in which two or more clinical trial phases are combined into a single study with a pre-specified transition between stages. This integration of phases may enhance efficiency.

Methods: To understand the precedent for the use of seamless designs, this working group was formed to conduct a comprehensive literature search on seamless clinical trials conducted with confirmatory intent in oncology. Trial design features were extracted into a database and analyzed with descriptive statistics.

Results: A literature search identified 68 clinical trials meeting inclusion and exclusion criteria. The most common design feature was a gate on treatment efficacy, where the trial would only proceed to the second stage if sufficient efficacy was observed in the first. The next most common feature was a selection of a dose or treatment regimen. Inferentially and operationally seamless designs were approximately equally represented.

Discussion: Key statistical considerations for seamless phase II/III designs include optimizing design choices by evaluating and comparing operating characteristics across design alternatives as well as showing control of overall Type I error rates. Executing the transition between phases should be evaluated for issues related to accrual, drug production, and procedures to maintain trial integrity.

Conclusions: While there are unique statistical, regulatory, and operational considerations for seamless designs they are also uniquely suited to many development settings. These include, for example, addressing dose selection under FDA's Project Optimus and addressing the growing use of biomarkers and personalized medicine approaches in cancer treatment.

Seamless study designs have the potential to accelerate clinical development. The use of innovative seamless designs has been increasing in the oncology area; however, while the concept of seamless designs becomes more popular and accepted, many challenges remain in both the design and conduct of these trials. This may be especially true when seamless designs are used in late phase development supporting regulatory decision-making. The Innovative Design Scientific Working Group (IDSWG) Oncology team conducted a survey to understand the current use of seamless study designs for registration purposes in oncology clinical development. The survey was designed to provide insights into the benefits and to identify the roadblocks. A total of 16 questions were included in the survey that was distributed using the ASA Biopharmaceutical Section and IDSWG email listings from August to September 2022. A total of 51 responses were received, with 39 (76%) respondents indicating that their organizations had seamless oncology studies in planning or implementation for registration purposes. Detailed survey results are presented in the manuscript. Overall, while seamless designs offer advantages in terms of timeline reduction and cost saving, they also present challenges related to additional complexity and the need for efficient surrogate clinical endpoints in oncology drug development.