Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science最新文献

Background: The lack of label information for the pediatric population has been a global issue, leading to the introduction of several countermeasures by major health authorities. Despite various efforts by Japanese health authorities, some drugs are approved only for adults in Japan, while the United States (US) label includes information on pediatric usage for the same drugs. This suggests a potential for pediatric-specific drug loss in Japan, where overall drug loss has recently become a major concern.

Methods: In this study, we compared the pediatric usage status between Japan and the US, focusing on the indications approved in both countries.

Results: Of the 404 indications, 70 (17.3%) and 102 (25.2%) included pediatric usage in Japan and the US, respectively. The proportion of indications, including pediatric usage, was significantly higher in the US than in Japan (χ² test, p < 0.001). Multivariate analysis of indications for pediatric usage in the US demonstrated that simultaneous development with adults (odds ratio (OR), 24.9; 95% confidence interval (CI), 6.79-91.1) and Japan-first development (OR, 31.5; 95% CI, 2.59-384) were significantly affecting the inclusion of pediatric usage in Japan.

Conclusions: Our results suggest that there was pediatric-specific drug loss in Japan compared to that in the US. The multivariate analysis demonstrated that US-first development and non-simultaneous development had a negative impact on the inclusion of pediatric usage in Japan; however, pediatric assessment request was not a significant factor. Further frameworks to promote pediatric drug development should be introduced in Japan to address pediatric-specific drug loss issues.

We analyzed factors shaping the choice of the lead indication (i.e., cancer type) in the first clinical development projects of new oncological drugs in the United States (US), and how the type of pharmaceutical company is related to this choice. We selected 576 new clinical development projects in the US since 2000 for analysis. These projects were characterized according to three potential perspectives detected by multiple correspondence analysis: the morbidity of the cancer type which corresponds to market size of each cancer type, the company's previous experience with the cancer type, and the company's attitude to development risks. Mega firms tend to choose cancer types with higher morbidity (and large-market), previously experienced cancer types, while diverse small firms choose both major and rare cancers and both high- and low-risk projects, indicating that different sizes of firms utilize different development entry patterns. Common tendencies concerning the choice of lead indication were found across all companies. Cancer types the company had developed and launched in the past were more likely to be chosen; cancer types with high five-year survival rates and those with high competition were less likely to be chosen. The study showed that pharmaceutical companies seem to enter clinical development from cancer types where they can demonstrate their strengths and advantages through experience, depending on each cancer type's different market sizes and development difficulties. The results could provide clues for considering what support measures and incentives are appropriate to balance the efficiency of industrial development and the fulfillment of society's unmet medical needs.

Background: The risk-based approach (RBA) of clinical trial was first introduced in 2011-2012. RBA necessitates implementing risk reduction activities that are proportionate to risk in order to reduce avoidable quality issues. However, there is no consistent methodology or research for identifying and evaluating risks and planning risk reduction activities. We aimed to evaluate risk reduction activities and their effects by using two risk identification and evaluation methods.

Methods: Among the risk identification and evaluation methods, we selected one method with the lowest number of categories for identifying risks [risk assessment form (RAF)] and one with the highest number [risk assessment tool (RAT)]. Each method was used to identify and evaluate risks in and plan risk reduction activities for the research on ponatinib blood concentration and treatment outcome in patients with chronic phase chronic myelogenous leukemia. RAF and RAT can identify risk using abstract questions and a list of concrete risks, respectively. The sites were randomized into two groups to implement planned risk reduction activities using RAF and RAT and to compare the mean of errors and protocol deviation per subject visit between the two groups.

Results: The mean of errors per subject visit and the mean of protocol deviation per subject visit were lower in the RAF group than in the RAT group.

Conclusions: Our study indicates that risk reductions can be successfully implemented by using a method to identify and evaluate risks in a small number of abstract categories that are critical to quality of clinical research.

Objective: This paper aims to develop a biosimilar value framework with local stakeholders in Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries.

Methods: A convenience sample of ten key opinion leaders from the United Arab Emirates, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman and Qatar participated in an expert panel meeting in November 2022 that examined factors positively influencing biosimilar adoption in these countries. The discussion was structured around a conceptual biosimilar value framework and an overview of biosimilar policies as derived from a targeted review of the peer-reviewed and grey literature.

Results: The expert panel agreed on a biosimilar value framework for the GCC countries that is founded on trust, cost savings and contextual considerations. They emphasized the importance of launching educational initiatives that build trust in and expand knowledge of all stakeholders about biosimilars. This also includes making stakeholders aware of the various value propositions of biosimilars as an instrument to produce, for example, cost savings. Finally, they stressed that biosimilar adoption is influenced by contextual factors such as incentives and implementation efforts.

Conclusion: Our proposed biosimilars value framekwork is the first set of recommendations in the Arab countries designed to help policymakers and decision-makers promote biosimilar adoption, both in high-income GCC countries and in low- and middle-income countries.

Background: MAGnetic Expansion Control (MAGEC) rods can prevent repeated lengthening operations for scoliosis patients. However, there have been several Field Safety Notices issued, including a worldwide product recall due to actuator endcap separation. We aimed to review adverse events reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) regarding MAGEC rods, focusing on MAGEC X.

Methods: Reports submitted to the Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience database in relation to MAGEC devices were accessed and analysed using R Statistical Software. Exclusion criteria included duplicate and literature review reports (n = 54). Free-text data were analysed using inductive content analysis.

Results: 1016 adverse events were reported to 11/30/2023. 99.0% (1006) were submitted by the manufacturer. Reports primarily arose from the UK (465, 45.8%) or US (421, 41.4%). From free-text data the most frequent adverse events were distraction mechanism failure (573), device wear (272), and actuator seal damage (180). Rod fracture (n = 48) was not significantly associated with rod diameter (≤ 5.0 mm or > 5.0 mm), p = 0.736. 234 reports referenced MAGEC X devices; actuator endcap separation was identified in 41.9% (99). Other events include failure of distraction (63), surface damage (31), and rod fracture (15). On 06/30/2020 MAGEC X2 received FDA approval. Twenty reports reference devices manufactured after this date, seven describe distraction mechanism failure; notably there are no reports of endcap separation.

Conclusion: These data represent the largest series of adverse events reported for MAGEC rods, including significant new data regarding MAGEC X. As well as endcap separation, failure of distraction, surface damage, and rod fracture were reported.

A digital point-of-care solution was implemented to test the feasibility of near-real-time bi-directional communication between pharmacovigilance experts (PVEs) and healthcare professionals (HCPs) for exchanging unique and informative adverse event (AE) information. The solution was implemented in a commercially available electronic health record (EHR) system/platform, no direct contact between PVEs and the HCPs was possible. The Clinical Affairs team of the EHR vendor was used as an intermediary to ensure appropriate information was exchanged while protecting HCP and patient privacy. The study yielded 9 drug-event pairs of interest (AEI), 2 of which were confirmed as AEs by the HCP. On average it took 20.6 h to receive initial AEI information and 58.8 h to receive follow-up information, which represents a 96% reduction in time compared to current methods. Both interactions provided unique data that would not have been collected otherwise leading to the PVE being able to appropriately determine a potential causal association. This study successfully demonstrated the feasibility of using a compliant, bi-directional, digitally enabled clinical communication channel at the point of care to complement existing pharmacovigilance activities.

Background: Over the last few years, many efforts have been made to leverage historical information in clinical trials. Incorporating historical data into current trials allows for a more efficient design, smaller studies, or shorter duration and may potentially increase the relative amount of information on efficacy and safety. Despite these advantages, it is crucial to select external data sources appropriately to avoid introducing potential bias into the new study. This is where borrowing methods become useful. We illustrate and compare the latest methods of borrowing historical data in a single-arm phase II clinical trial setting, examining their impact on statistical power and type I error.

Methods: We implemented static and dynamic versions of the power prior method, incorporating overlapping coefficient and loss functions and meta-analytic predictive priors. These methods were compared with standard and pooling approaches, in which none or all historical data are used.

Results: Dynamic borrowing methods achieve lower type I error inflation than pooling. The power prior approach, integrated with overlapping coefficient, allowed for measuring the similarity of the subjects considering their baseline characteristics, thus the likelihood of the data contains information about both confounders and outcome. Using a discounting function to estimate the power parameter guarantees the similarity of historical information and current trial data.

Conclusion: We provided a comprehensive overview of borrowing methods, encompassing frequentist and Bayesian approaches as well as static and dynamic technique, to guide researchers in selecting the most appropriate strategy.

Bayesian borrowing analyses have an important role in the design and analysis of pediatric trials. This paper describes use of a prespecified Pharmacometrics Enhanced Bayesian Borrowing (PEBB) analysis that was conducted to overcome an expectation for reduced statistical power in the pediatric DINAMO trial due to a greater than expected variability in the primary endpoint. The DINAMO trial assessed the efficacy and safety of an empagliflozin dosing regimen versus placebo and linagliptin versus placebo on glycemic control (change in HbA1c over 26 weeks) in young people with type 2 diabetes (T2D). Previously fitted pharmacokinetic and exposure-response models for empagliflozin and linagliptin based on available historical data in adult and pediatric patients with T2D were used to simulate participant data and derive the informative component of a Bayesian robust mixture prior distribution. External experts and representatives from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration provided recommendations to determine the effective sample size of the prior and the weight of the informative prior component. Separate exposure response-based Bayesian borrowing analyses for empagliflozin and linagliptin showed posterior mean and 95% credible intervals that were consistent with the trial results. Sensitivity analyses with a full range of alternative weights were also performed. The use of PEBB in this analysis combined advantages of mechanistic modeling of pharmacometric differences between adults and young people with T2D, with advantages of partial extrapolation through Bayesian dynamic borrowing. Our findings suggest that the described PEBB approach is a promising option to optimize the power for future pediatric trials.

Background: Ensuring regulatory-compliant manufacturing capability is an essential challenge for new treatment modalities, but its internalisation is not easy for pharmaceutical companies, especially start-ups. This study examines the functions and requirements of contracted development and manufacturing organisations (CDMOs) using the development process of antibody medicines as a case study.

Methods: Utilizing PubMed, Cortellis and Patent Integration databases, this study delves into publication and contractual trends in monoclonal antibody drugs (mAbs) development, alongside an analysis of patent filings by CDMOs, offering a comprehensive overview of the evolving landscape in mAbs innovation.

Results: In the early stages of mAbs development, dedicated bio firms (DBFs) led R&D with superior drug discovery technology but lacked manufacturing capability, which was complemented by CDMOs. This collaboration was an opportunity for CDMOs to expand their capabilities beyond manufacturing technology into antibody drug candidate discovery and structural optimisation technology. From mid-development onwards, it established a technology platform based on these capabilities and developed and established partnerships with existing pharmaceutical companies, including mega pharma.

Conclusions: The impact of institutions and regulations on the innovation process was assessed during this development process. These findings are expected to provide valuable insights into the innovation system for new modalities.