Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science最新文献

In multi-regional clinical trials, planning the sample size for participating regions is essential for the evaluation of the treatment effect consistency across regions. Based on the MRCT design and sample size allocation to regions, consistency probability is usually used to predict the consistent trend between regions and the overall population, while preserving a certain proportion of the overall treatment effect. Specific enrollment characteristics in a region of interest should also be considered during the time of the sample size planning. To facilitate efficient and harmonized regional sample size planning, we have developed RegionSizeR, a comprehensive and user-friendly interactive web-based R shiny application that can be obtained from https://github.com/rsr-ss/RegionSizeR . This simulation-based app can serve as an initial point for discussions on sample size allocation plans, following preservation of treatment effect method in ICH E17. The app accommodates various types of endpoints and designs, including continuous, binary, and time-to-event endpoints, for superiority, non-inferiority, and MCP-Mod designs. To ensure the validity of this app, independent testing is conducted allowing a discrepancy of no more than 1% across all results considering various scenarios.

The FDA published a final rule for Medical Devices; Laboratory Developed Tests in the Federal Register on May 6, 2024, which aims to ensure the safety and effectiveness of laboratory developed tests (LDTs) by amending current regulations. The rule also includes a policy to phase out the FDA's general enforcement discretion approach for LDTs, aligning them with other In Vitro Diagnostic Devices. Notably, direct-to-consumer (DTC) testing is exempt from this policy shift, as the FDA believes this category of tests has already met applicable requirements. This rule was first proposed in the Federal Register on October 3, 2023. The publication of this proposed rule sparked a considerable volume of public reactions during the comment period of the rule-making process, comprising general sentiment, key concerns, and suggestions. This commentary analyzes these concerns, particularly focusing on DTC tests, and offers recommendations, including reassessing the FDA's enforcement discretion for hybrid DTC tests, advocating for clear guidance on clinical oversight, and prioritizing a risk-based enforcement approach. Additionally, enhancing public education about the risks of DTC testing is crucial for safeguarding public health.

Background: Clinical trials have become larger and more complex. Thus, eSource should be used to enhance efficiency. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of the multisite implementation of eSource direct data capture (DDC), which we define as eCRFs for direct data entry in this study, on efficiency by analyzing data from a single investigator-initiated clinical trial in oncology.

Methods: Operational data associated with the targeted study conducted in Japan was used to analyze time from data occurrence to data entry and data finalization, and number of visits to the site and time spent at the site by clinical research associates (CRAs). Additionally, simulations were performed on the change in hours at the clinical sites during the implementation of eSource DDC.

Results: No difference in time from data occurrence to data entry was observed between the DDC and the transcribed data fields. However, the DDC fields could be finalized 4 days earlier than the non-DDC fields. Additionally, although no difference was observed in the number of visits for source data verification (SDV) by CRAs, a comparison among sites that introduced eSource DDC and those that did not showed that the time spent at the site for SDV was reduced. Furthermore, the simulation results indicated that even a small amount of data to be collected or a small percentage of DDC-capable items may lead to greater efficiency when the number of subjects per site is significant.

Conclusions: The implementation of eSource DDC may enhance efficiency depending on the study framework and type and number of items to be collected.

Background: Access to medical products of the required efficacy, quality and safety is essential for everyone's health and wellbeing. To achieve this milestone, every country needs a robust and strong performing National Regulatory Authority (NRA) that is independent and outcome oriented. With the help of the World Health Organization (WHO), the global benchmarking tool is the gold standard used to assess the regulatory capacity of NRAs.

Objectives: This study assessed the capacity of the National Medicines Regulatory Authority in Sierra Leone to perform its regulatory functions.

Methods: This descriptive cross-sectional study used both qualitative and quantitative approaches. A self-administered questionnaire was used for the quantitative approach, and the qualitative aspect consisted of a desk review looking at key regulatory documents such as laws, regulations, policies, guidelines, standard operating procedures and reports. The data collection tool used was the WHO global benchmarking tool (GBT) for "Evaluation of National Regulatory System of Medical Product Version VI.

Results: The majority of the participants had a postgraduate degree (60%), and 72% had over 10 years of experience working at the NRA. Out of 251 sub-indicators assessed, 85 (34%) sub-indicators were fully implemented. Of the eight (8) functions assessed, sub-indicators related to clinical trial oversight and vigilance were the most implemented, with 67% and 62%, respectively. Of the 9 indicators assessed, 79% of the sub-indicators that are related to quality and risk management were implemented. The results of this study showed that PBSL operates at maturity level 1. The absence of laws and regulations that give PBSL the mandate to perform its regulatory functions was a major challenge even though other indicators were met. The study reported other challenges toward effective functioning, including but not limited to a lack of sufficient staff, weak enforcement of the sale of medicines and a poorly equipped quality control laboratory.

Post-approval changes (PACs) to the control and manufacturing processes of medicines and vaccines are routinely undertaken and critical to enable both innovation and secure sustained supply. In a world of global supply chains, the existence of divergent national PAC requirements (with additional countries introducing new requirements with potential differences) and other factors including document preparation and response timelines, can lead to long delays in approval (of up to 3-5 years) increasing the risk of disruption and shortages.We undertook an Industry survey in 2023 to assess implementation of ICH Q12, PAC procedures (change categorisation and review timelines) and use of reliance mechanisms across different countries (9 selected ICH Members and 19 Observers). Although this survey revealed limited implementation of Q12 in ICH Member countries, when comparing the data collected with those of a previous survey performed in 2020, we observed a broader adoption of risk-based approaches to variation categorisation (in all countries). This, however, was not reflected in improved timelines for approval.With regards to ICH Q12 adoption, the uptake of Post-Approval Change Management Protocols (PACMPs) was unchanged (with only one country reporting in-use) and implementation gaps were evident for Established Conditions (EC) and the Product Life Cycle Management document (PLCM). The survey found greater awareness of ICH Q12 and its tools compared to 2020, potentially illustrating the positive impact of training efforts. This illustrates the challenges being faced to broaden its implementation and use globally.In the same Industry survey, we also assessed PAC processes across different international countries. Long unpredictable timelines were the major concern across the countries surveyed together with limited capacity of the regulators. Four different CMC changes were selected and categorized by the respondents according to current knowledge of national classifications and timelines in the selected countries and compared with a reference classification and timeline from the European Medicines Agency and the World Health Organisation. This highlighted the lack of harmonisation of many countries with EU/WHO requirements, especially within the ICH Observer group.Last, this survey showed that some use of unilateral forms of reliance to Reference Authorities for PACs is starting. This is a mechanism all countries can employ, regardless of convergence of requirements and expertise, to enhance capacity building and reduce duplication of reviews, streamline variations approval, whilst accelerating patient access to innovation and securing supply.

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.

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.

The phenomenon of delta inflation, in which design treatment effects tend to exceed observed treatment effects, has been documented in several therapeutic areas. Delta inflation has often been attributed to investigators' optimism bias, or an unwarranted belief in the efficacy of new treatments. In contrast, we argue that delta inflation may be a natural consequence of clinical equipoise, that is, genuine uncertainty about the relative benefits of treatments before a trial is initiated. We review alternative methodologies that can offer more direct evidence about investigators' beliefs, including Bayesian priors and forecasting analysis. The available evidence for optimism bias appears to be mixed, and can be assessed only where uncertainty is expressed explicitly at the trial design stage.