In this latest update we discuss real-world evidence (RWE) guidance from the leading oncology professional societies, the American Society of Clinical Oncology and the European Society for Medical Oncology, and the PRINCIPLED practical guide on the design and analysis of causal RWE studies.

The goal of this study was to analyze online marketing representations made by 300 US businesses selling allogeneic perinatal stem cell products. The study was conducted after a period of enforcement discretion by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Data mining and content analysis were used to identify, analyze and categorize marketing claims made on the websites of 300 businesses selling perinatal stem cell interventions.
The study identified types of perinatal interventions companies advertised, geographic locations of clinics selling such products, types of companies operating in this space, diseases and injuries such businesses claim to treat, prices companies charge for such interventions, brand names of advertised perinatal cell products and identities of suppliers.
A substantial number of US businesses market unapproved perinatal stem cell products for various indications. This widespread commercial activity occurred following the conclusion of a period of enforcement discretion by the FDA and suggests the need for more robust and comprehensive regulatory responses to businesses selling unapproved perinatal stem cell products.

Cell and gene therapies (CGTs) have revolutionized patient outcomes and provided care options for previously untreatable conditions. The clinical and commercial progress of CGT therapies is hindered by chemistry, manufacturing, and control (CMC) challenges. This article summarizes recommendations from the 2023 Annual Meeting CMC sessions wherein speakers advocated for science-driven comparability strategies, proactive risk assessments, clearer regulatory guidance, and a shift from retrospective to prospective studies. Planning for manufacturing changes, statistical approaches, and consideration of multiple product versions also emerged as crucial elements to help sponsors navigate CMC hurdles for successful CGT clinical and commercial development.

暂无摘要。

Dose optimization is a focal point of many US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) drug approvals. We sought to understand the impact of the FDA\'s Postmarketing Commitments/Postmarketing Requirements (PMCs/PMRs) on dose optimization and prescriber labeling for oncology drugs.
Publicly available information was aggregated for all FDA oncology drug approvals between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2022. Study completion dates were compared to product labeling before and after PMC/PMR fulfillment dates to evaluate labeling changes associated with dose-related PMCs/PMRs. Data were analyzed individually (2010-2015 and 2016-2022) due to differences in available information.
From 2010 to 2015, 14 of 42 (33.3%) new molecular entities (NMEs) had dose-related PMCs/PMRs, with 6 of 14 (42.9%) resulting in a relevant label change. From 2016 to 2022, of the 314 new or supplemental applications approved, 21 had dose-related PMCs/PMRs (6.7%), which trended upward over time; 71.4% of dose-related PMCs/PMRs were NMEs. Kinase inhibitors (KIs) and antibody/peptide drug conjugates (ADCs/PDCs) were the most affected drug classes. Ten of the 21 approvals with dose-related PMCs/PMRs fulfilled their dosing PMCs/PMRs, and 3 of the 10 (30%) had relevant label changes.
Most dose-related PMRs/PMCs were issued for NMEs. Of these, KIs and ADCs/PDCs were highly represented, reflecting their novelty and greater uncertainty around their safety profile. PMC/PMR issuance broadly increased over time. With the implementation of the FDA\'s Project Optimus in 2021, it remains to be seen whether fewer dose-related PMCs/PMRs emerge in future due to enhanced dose optimization in the premarketing setting.

In this latest update we highlight: a publication from the US FDA regarding the definitions of real-world data (RWD) and real-world evidence (RWE); a publication from academic researchers on a demonstration project for target trial emulation; a publication from the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE) on the 1 year anniversary of their RWE framework; and a publication from NICE and Flatiron Health on the utility of US RWD for initial UK health technology assessment decision making.

The ACT Network was funded by NIH to provide investigators from across the Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) Consortium the ability to directly query national federated electronic health record (EHR) data for cohort discovery and feasibility assessment of multi-site studies. NIH refunded the program for expanded research application to become \"Evolve to Next-Gen ACT\" (ENACT). In parallel, the US Food and Drug Administration has been evaluating the use of real-world data (RWD), including EHR data, as sources of real-world evidence (RWE) for its regulatory decisions involving drug and biological products. Using insights from implementation science, six lessons learned from ACT for developing and sustaining RWD/RWE infrastructures and networks across the CTSA Consortium are presented in order to inform ENACT\'s development from the outset. Lessons include intentional institutional relationship management, end-user engagement, beta-testing, and customer-driven adaptation. The ENACT team is also conducting customer discovery interviews with CTSA hub and investigators using Innovation-Corps@NCATS (I-Corps™) methodology for biomedical entrepreneurs to uncover unmet RWD needs. Possible ENACT value proposition hypotheses are presented by stage of research. Developing evidence about methods for sustaining academically derived data infrastructures and support can advance the science of translation and support our nation\'s RWD/RWE research capacity.

BACKGROUND: Over the past decades, US Congress enabled the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to facilitate and expedite drug development for serious conditions filling unmet medical needs with five special designations and review pathways: orphan, fast track, accelerated approval, priority review, and breakthrough therapy.
OBJECTIVE: This study reviews the FDA\'s five special designations for drug development regarding their safety, efficacy/clinical benefit, clinical trials, innovation, economic incentives, development timelines, and price.
METHODS: We conducted a keyword search to identify studies analyzing the impact of the FDA\'s special designations (orphan, fast track, accelerated approval, priority review, and breakthrough therapy) on the safety, efficacy/clinical benefit, trials, innovativeness, economic incentives, development times, and pricing of new drugs. Results were summarized in a narrative overview.
RESULTS: Expedited approval reduces new drugs\' time to market. However, faster drug development and regulatory review are associated with more unrecognized adverse events and post-marketing safety revisions. Clinical trials supporting special FDA approvals frequently use small, non-randomized, open-label designs. Required post-approval trials to monitor unknown adverse events are often delayed or not even initiated. Evidence suggests that drugs approved under special review pathways, marketed as \"breakthroughs\", are more innovative and deliver a higher clinical benefit than those receiving standard FDA approval. Special designations are an economically viable strategy for investors and pharmaceutical companies to develop drugs for rare diseases with unmet medical needs, due to financial incentives, expedited development timelines, higher clinical trial success rates, alongside greater prices. Nonetheless, patients, physicians, and insurers are concerned about spending money on drugs without a proven benefit or even on drugs that turn out to be ineffective. While European countries established performance- and financial-based managed entry agreements to account for this uncertainty in clinical trial evidence and cost-effectiveness, the pricing and reimbursement of these drugs remain largely unregulated in the US.
CONCLUSIONS: Special FDA designations shorten clinical development and FDA approval times for new drugs treating rare and severe diseases with unmet medical needs. Special-designated drugs offer a greater clinical benefit to patients. However, physicians, patients, and insurers must be aware that special-designated drugs are often approved based on non-robust trials, associated with more unrecognized side effects, and sold for higher prices.

Aim: This study investigated whether US businesses engaged in direct-to-consumer online marketing of purported stem cell therapies and stem cell-derived exosome products made claims concerning the regulatory status of these interventions. Methods: We used data mining and content analysis of company websites to examine regulatory-related representations made by US businesses marketing stem cell treatments and exosome therapies. Results: More than two thirds of such businesses did not make explicit representations about the regulatory status of their marketed products. Businesses that made claims about the regulatory status of the stem cell and exosome products they sold used range of representations concerning the legal standing of these interventions. Conclusion: The absence of information addressing the regulatory status of stem cell interventions and exosome products and the use of what appeared to be inaccurate information concerning the regulatory status of numerous products likely complicates efforts by customers to make informed health-related decisions.

Cancer is the primary and one of the most prominent causes of the rising global mortality rate, accounting for nearly 10 million deaths annually. Specific methods have been devised to cure cancerous tumours. Effective therapeutic approaches must be developed, both at the cellular and genetic level. Immunotherapy offers promising results by providing sustained remission to patients with refractory malignancies. Genetically modified T‑lymphocytic cells have emerged as a novel therapeutic approach for the treatment of solid tumours, haematological malignancies, and relapsed/refractory B‑lymphocyte malignancies as a result of recent clinical trial findings; the treatment is referred to as chimeric antigen receptor T‑cell therapy (CAR T‑cell therapy). Leukapheresis is used to remove T‑lymphocytes from the leukocytes, and CARs are created through genetic engineering. Without the aid of a major histocompatibility complex, these genetically modified receptors lyse malignant tissues by interacting directly with the carcinogen. Additionally, the outcomes of preclinical and clinical studies reveal that CAR T‑cell therapy has proven to be a potential therapeutic contender against metastatic breast cancer (BCa), triple‑negative, and HER 2+ve BCa. Nevertheless, unique toxicities, including (cytokine release syndrome, on/off‑target tumour recognition, neurotoxicities, anaphylaxis, antigen escape in BCa, and the immunosuppressive tumour microenvironment in solid tumours, negatively impact the mechanism of action of these receptors. In this review, the potential of CAR T‑cell immunotherapy and its method of destroying tumour cells is explored using data from preclinical and clinical trials, as well as providing an update on the approaches used to reduce toxicities, which may improve or broaden the effectiveness of the therapies used in BCa.