Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science最新文献

The Prescribing Information (PI) in the United States (US) and the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC) in the European Union (EU) are approved by the US Food & Drug Administration (FDA), and the European Medicines Agency (EMA), respectively. The inclusion of overdosage information in these documents is a regulatory requirement in both regions. This research evaluates the content of the overdosage section of US and EU labeling. The overdosage sections of labels for drugs approved in the US in three time periods were analyzed: 2000-2001, 2010-2011, and 2020-2021. EU labels for these same products were also reviewed if registered through the Centralized Procedure. Data collection and analyses were performed using a predefined questionnaire, focusing on adherence to regulatory requirements and identifying areas where additional regulatory guidance may be beneficial. The findings indicate that the content of the overdosage sections largely comply with the regulatory requirements of their respective regions. Fewer than half of the labels included information on supratherapeutic doses observed from clinical studies, risk factors for overdose or population specific data associated with overdose. Inconsistencies were noted concerning the incorporation of animal data when human data were available, in addition to the referencing of Poison Centers. The overall utility of non-specific treatment recommendations, in addition to gastric lavage is discussed. While the content of the overdosage section generally aligns with regulatory expectations, additional regulatory guidance could enhance consistency in how this section of labeling is presented and clarify expectations to improve its usefulness for health care professionals (HCPs).

Background: Little is known about patient and the public perspectives on decentralized and hybrid clinical trials in Canada.

Methods: We conducted an online survey (English and French) promoted on social media to understand perspectives of people in Canada about decentralized and hybrid clinical trials. The survey had two sections. We co-produced this project entirely with patient, caregiver, and family partners.

Results: The survey had 284 (14 French) individuals who started or completed Section 1, and 180 (16 French) individuals who started or completed Section 2. People prefer to have options to participate in clinical trials where aspects are decentralized or hybridized. 79% of respondents preferred to have options related to study visits. There were concerns about handling adverse events or potential complications in decentralized trials, however, communication options such as a dedicated contact person for participants was deemed helpful. Most respondents were amenable to informed consent being done at a satellite site closer to home or via technology and were split on privacy concerns about this. Most preferred travel to a site within an hour, depending on what the trial was for or its impact on quality of life. Due to the response rate, we were unable to explore associations with gender, age, health status, geography, ethnicity, and prior clinical trial participation.

Conclusion: Our findings indicate an openness in Canada to participating in trials that decentralize or hybridize some aspects. These trials are perceived to provide benefits to participants and ways to increase equity and accessibility for participants.

Background: Medical-product companies often outsource research and manufacturing needs to contracting or partnering organizations but then must manage a challenging patchwork of regulatory activities. A standalone regulatory agreement could clarify the relationships and responsibilities between companies working jointly on a single regulated product. This study explored the need for and current use of standalone regulatory agreements.

Methods: A survey instrument was developed using an implementation framework and disseminated to mid- to senior-level employees and consultants for sponsor and vendor companies in the medical products sector.

Results: Of 294 respondents, about half, primarily from companies with more than 200 employees, were familiar with standalone regulatory agreements, and half of this subgroup had moved forward to implement them. Such agreements were considered beneficial to clarify regulatory roles and responsibilities, standardize regulatory expectations between the companies, and stimulate earlier discussion about joint regulatory strategies. However, the development of regulatory agreements appears challenged by the fact that such agreements are not required by regulatory agencies overseeing medical products and have no standardized templates, agency or industry guidance. Respondents whose organizations do not now use regulatory agreements either had not considered or did not see a need for a standalone agreement.

Conclusions: Standalone regulatory agreements are becoming more common but are not yet implemented fully by most companies. Their usefulness and content appeared to depend upon the type of partner, the complexity of the relationship and the availability of internal expertise and support.

Background: Risk-based quality management is a regulatory-recommended approach to manage risk in a clinical trial. A key element of this strategy is to conduct risk-based monitoring to detect potential risks to critical data and processes earlier. However, there are limited publicly available tools to perform the analytics required for this purpose. Good Statistical Monitoring is a new open-source solution developed to help address this need.

Methods: A team of statisticians, data scientists, clinicians, data managers, clinical operations, regulatory, and quality compliance staff collaborated to design Good Statistical Monitoring, an R package, to flexibly and efficiently implement end-to-end analyses of key risks. The package currently supports the mapping of clinical trial data from a variety of formats, evaluation of 12 key risk indicators, interactive visualization of analysis results, and creation of standardized reports.

Results: The Good Statistical Monitoring package is freely available on GitHub and empowers clinical study teams to proactively monitor key risks. It employs a modular workflow to perform risk assessments that can be customized by replacing any workflow component with a study-specific alternative. Results can be exported to other clinical systems or can be viewed as an interactive report to facilitate follow-up risk mitigation. Rigorous testing and qualification are performed as part of each release to ensure package quality.

Conclusions: Good Statistical Monitoring is an open-source solution designed to enable clinical study teams to implement statistical monitoring of critical risks, as part of a comprehensive risk-based quality management strategy.

Combination products (CPs) combine two or more product types such as drugs, devices, and/or biological products for increased safety and clinical effectiveness. The emergence of innovative CPs poses new challenges for regulatory agencies in assigning jurisdiction for premarket review and oversight. In US, the 1990 Safe Medical Devices Act defines and provides classification criteria for CPs, and the US government has developed a regulatory process through multiple acts, including the 21st Century Cures Act of 2016. Meanwhile, regulators in the European Union (EU) and the Republic of Korea have recently recognized the importance of premarket pathways for CPs. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) has issued guidelines and explanations on compliance issues related to drug-device CPs under MDR. EMA doesn't have the definitions of CPs, but uses the term drug-device combination products (drug-device CPs). CPs are categorized as drugs or medical devices, which follow their relevant regulatory framework. The Ministry of Food and Drug Safety (MFDS) in Korea has legal definitions of CPs under the Notice of the MFDS. CPs are designated as drugs or medical devices according to their primary mode of actions (PMOA) and follow regulatory processes through the framework of drugs or medical devices. This study aims to comprehensively summarize the regulatory oversight of CPs by analyzing the regulatory policies and legal frameworks in the US, the EU, and Korea. The regulatory challenges encountered when developing CPs are also discussed. With specific emphasis on the combination of drugs and devices, this study provides in-depth insights into the regulatory landscape, shedding light on the unique challenges associated with the development of CPs for this particular intersection of drugs and devices.

Two frequently cited figures by clinical research insiders and observers - the cost of missing a day to generate prescription drug sales and the cost of a day to conduct a clinical trial - are outdated and based on anecdotal evidence. In late 2023, the Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development conducted empirical research to gather more accurate and granular estimates and to test whether average sales per day have changed over time. 645 drugs launched since 2000, and 409 clinical trial budgets were drawn from commercially available and proprietary data sets and analyzed. The results indicate that a single day equals approximately $500,000 in lost prescription drug or biologic sales, with daily prescription sales for infectious, hematologic, cardiovascular, and gastrointestinal diseases among the highest. The results also show that each year, the average sales per day of prescription drugs and biologics has decreased by approximately $80,000-$100,000. The estimated direct daily cost to conduct a clinical trial is approximately $40,000 per day for phase II and III clinical trials, with those in respiratory, rheumatology, and dermatology having the highest relative daily direct costs.

Background: The new EU Medical Device Regulation (MDR) places greater importance on the role of clinical evidence to establish safety and performance. Article 54 of the MDR calls for expert committees to independently review the scientific, technical, and clinical evidence supporting the market authorization of certain novel devices independently from the established process of Notified Body reviews. These experts provide a review and opinion that ultimately is taken into consideration alongside the information reviewed by the Notified Body during the review process. Four expert committees (General and Plastic Surgery and Dentistry; Orthopaedics, Traumatology, Rehabilitation, Rheumatology; Circulatory System; and Neurology) have published at least one Scientific Opinion (SO) under the Clinical Evaluation Consultation Procedure (CECP) in 2021-2022.

Methods: The four expert committees with published CECP opinions were reviewed to assess the academic backgrounds and professional expertise of each member with respect to clinical, technical, and biological domains on a 0-2 scale for each domain. A content review was conducted on the 10 CECP opinions published by these committees to assess their consistency with the goals and outcome expectations set by the MDR. The extent of content related to each of the clinical, technical, and biological domains was also assessed on a 0-2 scale.

Results: All committees were composed primarily by members with strong clinical expertise, but only a few had strong technical and biological expertise. Across committees, the average scores of members related to academic background and professional expertise both ranged from 1.64 to 2.00 in the clinical domain, but only 0-0.15 and 0.15-0.69, respectively, in the biological domain, and 0.12-0.55 and 0.23-0.73, respectively, in the technical domain. A content review for the 10 SOs showed that all opinions focused exclusively or primarily on the clinical evidence. Three contained a modest amount of additional text directed at technical/engineering issues and five at biological issues.

Conclusion: Expert committees are composed predominantly of expert clinical reviewers but have many fewer members with significant technical or biological expertise. This may limit the ability of the committees to evaluate the significant technical and biological risks that are often best understood by preclinical testing. Broadening the expertise across the committees may improve the depth of their benefit/risk critiques.

Background: Safety analyses play a pivotal role in drug development, ensuring the protection of patients while advancing innovative pharmaceuticals to market. A single study generally does not have sufficient sample size to evaluate all important safety events with reasonable precision and may not cover the full target population for the investigational treatment. Integrated analyses (pooled or meta-analysis) over several studies may be helpful in that regard. But without a structured conscious workflow accompanied with appropriate statistical methods for the integrated analysis, this can easily take a route compromising the interpretation.

Methods: In this article we apply the ICH estimand framework to clinical trial integration and summarize respective critical statistical assumptions to ensure the integrated analyses are interpretable.

Results: The estimand framework is valuable for developing principles for a deeper understanding of the critical statistical aspects of planning an integrated safety analysis. Our principles address the clinical question of interest, estimand and estimation. Special focus was given to the criteria for inclusion and exclusion of the component studies in the integrated analysis, and to integration of estimates pertaining to signal detection.

Conclusion: Performing an integrated analysis and its preparatory steps calls for a good understanding of the clinical question of interest and its estimand, care and sound practice, to enable interpretation and avoid introducing unnecessary bias. It is valuable to use the estimand framework not only for efficacy evaluations, but also for safety evaluations in clinical trials and for integrated safety analyses.

The globalization and rapid advancements in medical technologies necessitate the harmonization of international regulatory frameworks to ensure the efficient and timely clinical application of medical products, including pharmaceuticals and medical devices. Regulatory reliance, a critical component of this harmonization process, is a powerful tool that provides efficient access for economic entities and regulatory authorities, promoting predictable decision-making and accelerating approvals. The Medical Device Single Audit Program (MDSAP) serves as a regulatory reliance framework for medical device inspections. Implemented by countries including Japan, the United States, Canada, Australia, and Brazil, MDSAP allows third-party certification bodies, recognized by these regulatory authorities, to conduct audits on medical device manufacturers. The outcomes of these audits are shared with the regulatory authorities, who use them for regulatory assessments and decision-making. Since transitioning to its implementation phase in 2017, MDSAP has been widely utilized in various countries. This review provides an overview of the adoption and utilization of MDSAP in major countries, exploring the program's impact on regulatory processes and its potential as a method of regulatory reliance to facilitate timely access to effective and safe medical devices.

Introduction: The European Medicines Agency Innovation Task Force (ITF) acts as early point of contact for medicine and technology developers to enable innovation during early drug development stages through ITF briefing meetings.

Aim: To reflect on the current pace of innovation and to assess the potential of ITF stakeholder interactions, a comprehensive analysis of the ITF briefing meetings held between 2021 and 2022 was conducted with a focus on individual questions raised by the developers and the related feedback provided by the European regulators.

Methods: Questions raised during ITF briefing meetings were extracted and categorised into main and sub-categories, revealing different themes across the whole medicine development process such as manufacturing technologies, pre-clinical developments, and clinically relevant questions.

Results: There was positive feedback from regulators who gave initial guidance in 85% of the answers, provided concrete examples in 20% of the answers and recommended to continue discussions through additional regulatory procedures in 22% of the answers.

Conclusion: This analysis frames the content and the type of topics discussed during ITF briefing meetings. Moreover, it describes the type of regulatory feedback provided to medicine developers and identified potential for improvement of these early interactions. Therefore, this analysis emphasises the role of ITF briefing meetings in fostering innovation in medicine.