Dose selection for investigations of intrinsic and extrinsic factors of pharmacokinetic variability as well as safety is a challenging question in the early clinical stage of drug development. The dose of an investigational product is chosen considering the compound information available to date, feasibility of the assessments, regulatory requirements, and the intent to maximize information for later regulatory submission. This review selected 37 programs as case examples of recently approved drugs to explore the doses selected with focus on studies of drug interaction, renal and hepatic impairment, food effect and concentration-QTc assessment.The review found that regulatory agencies may consider alternative approaches if justified and safe as illustrated in these examples. It is thus recommendable to use the first in human trial as an opportunity to assess QT-prolongation and drug interactions using probes or endogenous markers while maximizing the DDI potential, increasing sensitivity and ensuring safety. Early understanding of dose proportionality assists dose finding and simple and fast to conduct DDI study designs are advantageous. Single dose impairment studies despite non-proportional/time-dependent PK are often acceptability.Overall, the early understanding of the drug\'s safety profile is essential to ensure the safety of doses selected while preventing clinical trials with unnecessary exposure when using high doses or multiple doses. The information collected in this retrospective survey is a good reminder to tailor the early clinical program to the profile and needs of the molecule and consider regulatory opportunities to streamline the development path.

UNASSIGNED: This article presents a strategy that a Drug Delivery Device Developer (DDDD) has adopted to support Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) submissions of drug-device combination products. As per the related FDA guidance, a threshold analysis should be compiled. If \'other differences\' between the Reference Listed Drug (RLD) and the generic drug devices are identified, a Comparative Use Human Factors (CUHF) study may be requested.
UNASSIGNED: The DDDD performed task analysis and physical comparison to assess the pen injector design differences. Then, a formative CUHF study with 25 participants simulating injections using both RLD and the generic pen injectors was conducted.
UNASSIGNED: After each participant completed four simulated injections, similar type and rates of use error between the RLD (0.70) and generic (0.68) pen injectors were observed.
UNASSIGNED: DDDDs can support pharmaceutical companies in the ANDA submission strategy of their drug-device combination product by initiating comparative task analysis and physical comparison of the device as inputs for the threshold analysis. If \'other differences\' are identified, a formative CUHF study can be performed. As shown in our case study, this approach can be leveraged to support the sample size calculation and non-inferiority margin determination for a CUHF study with the final combination product.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical study reports (CSRs) are highly detailed documents that play a pivotal role in medicine approval processes. Though not historically publicly available, in recent years, major entities including the European Medicines Agency (EMA), Health Canada, and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) have highlighted the importance of CSR accessibility. The primary objective herein was to determine the proportion of CSRs that support medicine approvals available for public download as well as the proportion eligible for independent researcher request via the study sponsor.
METHODS: This cross-sectional study examined the accessibility of CSRs from industry-sponsored clinical trials whose results were reported in the FDA-authorized drug labels of the top 30 highest-revenue medicines of 2021. We determined (1) whether the CSRs were available for download from a public repository, and (2) whether the CSRs were eligible for request by independent researchers based on trial sponsors\' data sharing policies.
RESULTS: There were 316 industry-sponsored clinical trials with results presented in the FDA-authorized drug labels of the 30 sampled medicines. Of these trials, CSRs were available for public download from 70 (22%), with 37 available at EMA and 40 at Health Canada repositories. While pharmaceutical company platforms offered no direct downloads of CSRs, sponsors confirmed that CSRs from 183 (58%) of the 316 clinical trials were eligible for independent researcher request via the submission of a research proposal. Overall, 218 (69%) of the sampled clinical trials had CSRs available for public download and/or were eligible for request from the trial sponsor.
CONCLUSIONS: CSRs were available from 69% of the clinical trials supporting regulatory approval of the 30 medicines sampled. However, only 22% of the CSRs were directly downloadable from regulatory agencies, the remaining required a formal application process to request access to the CSR from the study sponsor.

In the European Union, the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use of the European Medicines Agency (EMA) develop guidelines to guide drug development, supporting development of efficacious and safe medicines. A European Public Assessment Report (EPAR) is published for every medicine application that has been granted or refused marketing authorisation within the EU. In this work, we study the use of text embeddings and similarity metrics to investigate the semantic similarity between EPARs and EMA guidelines. All 1024 EPARs for initial marketing authorisations from 2008 to 2022 was compared to the 669 current EMA scientific guidelines. Documents were converted to plain text and split into overlapping chunks, generating 265,757 EPAR and 27,649 guideline text chunks. Using a Sentence BERT language model, the chunks were transformed into embeddings and fed into an in-house piecewise matching algorithm to estimate the full-document semantic distance. In an analysis of the document distance scores and product characteristics using a linear regression model, EPARs of anti-virals for systemic use (ATC code J05) and antihemorrhagic medicines (B02) present with statistically significant lower overall semantic distance to guidelines compared to other therapeutic areas, also when adjusting for product age and EPAR length. In conclusion, we believe our approach provides meaningful insight into the interplay between EMA scientific guidelines and the assessment made during regulatory review, and could potentially be used to answer more specific questions such as which therapeutic areas could benefit from additional regulatory guidance.

暂无摘要。

Biomarkers can guide precision medicine in clinical trials and practice. They can increase clinical trials\' efficiency through selection of study populations more likely to benefit from treatment, thus increasing statistical power and reducing sample size requirements or study duration. We performed a narrative synthesis to explore biomarker utilization for patient selection to guide precision medicine trials in marketing authorization dossiers of centrally approved medicines in Europe between 2018 and 2020 and analyzed in-depth those that eventually included biomarkers in the medicines\' indications. From 119 eligible products, 26 included a biomarker in the indication, of which most were oncology products (n = 15). Included biomarkers were often known from literature or from previously approved products in the European Union or the United States. Additionally, 52 dossiers mentioned one or more biomarkers for patient selection in their clinical efficacy and safety information. Although these were not always included in the medicines\' indication, they were often implicitly embedded in condition definitions adopted from clinical guidelines or practice. In 15 out of the 26 medicines with a biomarker-guided indication, only biomarker-positive populations were included in the main clinical studies supporting the marketing authorization. These studies were mostly randomized controlled trials or single-arm trials; only two products were studied for multiple indications in an innovative basket trial. Definitions of biomarkers could be subject of debate and needed adaptation after post hoc analyses requested by the assessment committee in four cases, stressing the importance of thorough justification of these definitions to include the right population for an optimal benefit-risk balance, enabling precise medicine.

To describe the characteristics of clinical study report (CSR) documents published by the European Medicines Agency (EMA), and for included pivotal trials, to quantify the timeliness of access to trial results from CSRs compared with conventional published sources.
Cross-sectional analysis of CSR documents published by the EMA from 2016 to 2018.
CSR files and medication summary information were downloaded from the EMA. Individual trials in each submission were identified using document filenames. Number and length of documents and trials were determined. For pivotal trials, trial phase, dates of EMA document publication and matched journal and registry publications were obtained.
The EMA published documents on 142 medications that were submitted for regulatory drug approval. Submissions were for initial marketing authorisations in 64.1%. There was a median of 15 (IQR 5-46) documents, 5 (IQR 2-14) trials and 9629 (IQR 2711-26,673) pages per submission, and a median of 1 (IQR 1-4) document and 336 (IQR 21-1192) pages per trial. Of all identified pivotal trials, 60.9% were phase 3 and 18.5% were phase 1. Of 119 unique submissions to the EMA, 46.2% were supported by a single pivotal trial, with 13.4% based on a single pivotal phase 1 trial. No trial registry results were identified for 26.1% trials, no journal publications for 16.7% and 13.5% of trials had neither. EMA publication was the earliest information source for 5.8% of pivotal trials, available a median 523 days (IQR 363-882 days) before the earliest publication.
The EMA Clinical Data website contains lengthy clinical trial documents. Almost half of submissions to the EMA were based on single pivotal trials, many of which were phase 1 trials. CSRs were the only source and a timelier source of information for many trials. Access to unpublished trial information should be open and timely to support decision-making for patients.

Many new drugs have been approved over the past decade for rare or orphan diseases. The passage of the Orphan Drug Act (ODA) in 1983 has provided key economic and regulatory incentives to provide medicines for patients who are suffering from rare diseases that may not be commercially attractive for research and development. We have analyzed 497 novel drugs approved from 2010 - June 13, 2022, of which 220 were given orphan designation status. We discuss trends over this time period, potential risks for long development times, and provide example case studies of successful development and launch of novel drugs for rare diseases.

Selective safety data collection may simplify late-stage clinical trials and improve their feasibility. However, the impact on increasing overall drug safety knowledge is unknown. The aim of this study is to evaluate how much safety information is added to the drug label based on large trials after initial authorization. Changes made to the \"undesirable effects\" section of the drug label of cardiometabolic agents approved between 2000 and 2020 based on the results of large (> 1,000 patient) clinical trials submitted to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) were evaluated. The study focused on glucose lowering, antithrombotic, and lipid-modifying agents. The primary outcome was the number of changes in adverse drug reactions in the drug label. The EMA reviewed 55 large trials concerning 25 cardiometabolic agents after the initial marketing authorization, which included 402,444 patients. Ultimately, 38 trials (69%) resulted in a safety section update, whereas 17 trials (31%) did not. Changes in listed adverse drug reactions were made following 19 trials (35%) for 12 agents: 77 adverse drug reactions were added, 11 were deleted, and the frequencies of 43 were changed. Most changes in adverse drug reactions arose from trials with antithrombotic agents (88%) and trials performed in a new population (92%). Large trials for cardiometabolic agents reported after authorization add limited new safety information on adverse drug reactions, especially when performed in the population studied prior to approval. This suggests that selective safety data collection does not reduce learnings from late stage cardiometabolic trials in populations comprehensively studied before.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration and European Commission have developed successful orphan drug legislation to promote the research, development, and marketing approval of drugs to treat rare diseases. Central to these regulations are the concepts of structural similarity and clinical superiority/significant benefit to achieve orphan drug exclusivity. However, differences in health authority expectations remain regarding the qualification for an orphan drug designation, defining structural similarity, and demonstrating clinical superiority/significant benefit. These differences can create sponsor company uncertainty regarding the approvability of products (e.g., blocking risk by an existing orphan product) and divergent orphan drug decisions among health authorities. A comprehensive assessment of current regulations, case studies in exclusivities, and recommendations for improvement are presented.