Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is an orphan neurodegenerative disease. Immune system dysregulation plays an essential role in ALS onset and progression. Our preclinical studies have shown that the administration of exogenous allogeneic B cells improves outcomes in murine models of skin and brain injury through a process termed pligodraxis, in which B cells adopt an immunoregulatory and neuroprotective phenotype in an injured environment. Here, we investigated the effects of B-cell therapy in the SOD1G93A mouse preclinical model of ALS and in a person living with ALS. Purified splenic mature naïve B cells from haploidentical donor mice were administered intravenously in SOD1G93A mice for a total of 10 weekly doses. For the clinical study in a person with advanced ALS, IgA gammopathy of unclear significance, and B lymphopenia, CD19+ B cells were positively selected from a healthy haploidentical donor and infused intravenously twice, at a 60-day interval. Repeated intravenous B-cell administration was safe and significantly delayed disease onset, extended survival, reduced cellular apoptosis, and decreased astrogliosis in SOD1G93A mice. Repeated B-cell infusion in a person with ALS was safe and did not appear to generate a clinically evident inflammatory response. An improvement of 5 points on the ALSFRS-R scale was observed after the first infusion. Levels of inflammatory markers showed persistent reduction post-infusion. This represents a first demonstration of the efficacy of haploidentical B-cell infusion in the SOD1G93A mouse and the safety and feasibility of using purified haploidentical B lymphocytes as a cell-based therapeutic strategy for a person with ALS.

Given the inherent complexities of bioanalysis, the role of incurred sample reanalysis (ISR) is increasingly appreciated in regulatory bioanalysis. Incurred sample reanalysis has evolved as an integral part of an assay to ensure method reproducibility. The current regulatory ISR guidelines do not provide clarity regarding ISR assessment for chiral drugs comprising enantiomers. Because chiral assays evaluate two enantiomers, there are additional complexities associated with the ISR data generation and interpretation. Based on the current literature, the practices for conducting ISR in chiral methods were reviewed and assessed. While ISR was conducted in chiral methods for both enantiomers using the acceptance criteria prescribed for non-chiral methods, there may be a need to streamline the nuances of ISR data interpretation and define the ISR requirements for chiral methods. The article provides perspectives on the ISR of enantiomeric drugs, including strategy development, by providing various hypothetical scenarios and possible considerations for defining ISR evaluation for chiral assays.

Contamination of drug products and substances containing impurities is a significant concern in the pharmaceutical industry because it may impact the quality and safety of medicinal products. Special attention is required when mutagenic impurities are present in pharmaceuticals, as they may pose a risk of carcinogenicity to humans. Therefore, controlling potential mutagenic impurities in active pharmaceutical ingredients to an acceptable safety limit is mandatory to ensure patient safety. As per the International Council for Harmonization (ICH) M7 (R2)3 Guideline, mutagenic impurities are those compounds or materials that induce point mutations. In 2018, the sartan class of drugs was recalled due to the presence of N-nitrosamine impurities, which are potential mutagens. In addition to the primary impurities being detected, this class of products, especially losartan, irbesartan and valsartan, have been identified as having organic azido contaminants, which are again highly reactive toward DNA, leading to an increased risk of cancer. These azido impurities form during the preparation of the tetrazole moiety via the reaction of a nitrile intermediate with sodium azide. Given that this is a newly raised issue in the pharmaceutical world, it should be noteworthy to review the related literature. Thus, this review article critically accounts for (i) the toxicity of azido impurities and the proposed mechanism of mutagenicity, (ii) the regulatory perspective, and (iii) the sources and control strategies used during the preparation of drug substances and (iv) future perspectives.

UNASSIGNED: To compare three methods for identifying patient preferences (MIPPs) at the point of decision-making: analysis of video-recorded patient-clinician encounters, post-encounter interviews, and post-encounter surveys.
UNASSIGNED: For the decision of whether to use a spinal cord stimulator device (SCS), a video coding scheme, interview guide, and patient survey were iteratively developed with 30 SCS decision-making encounters in a tertiary academic medical center pain clinic. Burke\'s grammar of motives was used to classify the attributed source or justification for a potential preference for each preference block. To compare the MIPPs, 13 patients\' encounters with their clinician were video recorded and subsequently analyzed by 4 coders using the final video coding scheme. Six of these patients were interviewed, and 7 surveyed, immediately following their encounters.
UNASSIGNED: For videos, an average of 66 (range 33-106) sets of utterances potentially indicating a patient preference (a preference block), surveys 33 (range 32-34), and interviews 25 (range 18-30) were identified. Thirty-eight unique themes (75 subthemes), each a preference topic, were identified from videos, surveys 19 themes (12 subthemes), and interviews 39 themes (54 subthemes). The proportion of preference blocks that were judged as expressing a preference that was clearly important to the patient or affected their decision was highest for interviews (72.8%), surveys (68.0%), and videos (27.0%). Videos mostly attributed preferences to the patient\'s situation (scene) (65%); interviews, the act of receiving or living with SCS (43%); surveys, the purpose of SCS (40%).
UNASSIGNED: MIPPs vary in the type of preferences identified and the clarity of expressed preferences in their data sets. The choice of which MIPP to use depends on projects\' goals and resources, recognizing that the choice of MIPP may affect which preferences are found.

Patient experience data (PED), provided by patients/their carers without interpretation by clinicians, directly capture what matters more to patients on their medical condition, treatment and impact of healthcare. PED can be collected through different methodologies and these need to be robust and validated for its intended use. Medicine regulators are increasingly encouraging stakeholders to generate, collect and submit PED to support both scientific advice in development programs and regulatory decisions on the approval and use of these medicines. This article reviews the existing definitions and types of PED and demonstrate the potential for use in different settings of medicines\' life cycle, focusing on Patient-Reported Outcomes (PRO) and Patient Preferences (PP). Furthermore, it addresses some challenges and opportunities, alluding to important regulatory guidance that has been published, methodological aspects and digitalization, highlighting the lack of guidance as a key hurdle to achieve more systematic inclusion of PED in regulatory submissions. In addition, the article discusses opportunities at European and global level that could be implemented to leverage PED use. New digital tools that allow patients to collect PED in real time could also contribute to these advances, but it is equally important not to overlook the challenges they entail. The numerous and relevant initiatives being developed by various stakeholders in this field, including regulators, show their confidence in PED\'s value and create an ideal moment to address challenges and consolidate PED use across medicines\' life cycle.

In December 2021, the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) issued the final guidance for industry titled Pathology Peer Review in Nonclinical Toxicology Studies: Questions and Answers. The stated purpose of the FDA guidance is to provide information to sponsors, applicants, and nonclinical laboratory personnel regarding the management and conduct of histopathology peer review as part of nonclinical toxicology studies conducted in compliance with good laboratory practice (GLP) regulations. On behalf of and in collaboration with global societies of toxicologic pathology and the Society of Quality Assurance, the Scientific and Regulatory Policy Committee (SRPC) of the Society of Toxicologic Pathology (STP) initiated a review of this FDA guidance. The STP has previously published multiple papers related to the scientific conduct of a pathology peer review of nonclinical toxicology studies and appropriate documentation practices. The objectives of this review are to provide an in-depth analysis and summary interpretation of the FDA recommendations and share considerations for the conduct of pathology peer review in nonclinical toxicology studies that claim compliance to GLP regulations. In general, this working group is in agreement with the recommendations from the FDA guidance that has added clear expectations for pathology peer review preparation, conduct, and documentation.

There is a need to transition from conventional (on-site) clinical trials (CTs) to trials conducted within the comfort of a patient\'s home or community (decentralized CT) through e-consent, remote data monitoring, and telemedicine consults. This shift in trial procedures will positively impact recruitment rates, compliance and participant retention, protocol deviations, and delays or missed visits. Home nursing in CTs (HNCTs) will be an important component of this decentralization effort. A few limitations may impact the implementation of HNCT in India. In this regard, the workstream conducted semi-structured qualitative interviews with experts from diverse domains of CT conduct (researchers from academia and industry, clinicians, investigators, nursing staff, patient research advocates, institutional ethics committee, or institutional review board members, legal experts, and trial participants) to collect their understanding, perspectives, and the ground realities about HNCTs in India. The current review puts forth the key areas that would facilitate the establishment of HNCTs in India and provides recommendations for the same.

Hearing loss constitutes a major global health concern impacting approximately 1.5 billion people worldwide. Its incidence is undergoing a substantial surge with some projecting that by 2050, a quarter of the global population will experience varying degrees of hearing deficiency. Environmental factors such as aging, exposure to loud noise, and the intake of ototoxic medications are implicated in the onset of acquired hearing loss. Ototoxicity resulting in inner ear damage is a leading cause of acquired hearing loss worldwide. This could be minimized or avoided by early testing of hearing functions in the preclinical phase of drug development. While the assessment of ototoxicity is well defined for drug candidates in the hearing field - required for drugs that are administered by the otic route and expected to reach the middle or inner ear during clinical use - ototoxicity testing is not required for all other therapeutic areas. Unfortunately, this has resulted in more than 200 ototoxic marketed medications. The aim of this publication is to raise awareness of drug-induced ototoxicity and to formulate some recommendations based on available guidelines and own experience. Ototoxicity testing programs should be adapted to the type of therapy, its indication (targeting the ear or part of other medications classes being potentially ototoxic), and the number of assets to test. For multiple molecules and/or multiple doses, screening options are available: in vitro (otic cell assays), ex vivo (cochlear explant), and in vivo (in zebrafish). In assessing the ototoxicity of a candidate drug, it is good practice to compare its ototoxicity to that of a well-known control drug of a similar class. Screening assays provide a streamlined and rapid method to know whether a drug is generally safe for inner ear structures. Mammalian animal models provide a more detailed characterization of drug ototoxicity, with a possibility to localize and quantify the damage using functional, behavioral, and morphological read-outs. Complementary histological measures are routinely conducted notably to quantify hair cells loss with cochleogram. Ototoxicity studies can be performed in rodents (mice, rats), guinea pigs and large species. However, in undertaking, or at the very least attempting, all preclinical investigations within the same species, is crucial. This encompasses starting with pharmacokinetics and pharmacology efficacy studies and extending through to toxicity studies. In life read-outs include Auditory Brainstem Response (ABR) and Distortion Product OtoAcoustic Emissions (DPOAE) measurements that assess the activity and integrity of sensory cells and the auditory nerve, reflecting sensorineural hearing loss. Accurate, reproducible, and high throughput ABR measures are fundamental to the quality and success of these preclinical trials. As in humans, in vivo otoscopic evaluations are routinely carried out to observe the tympanic membrane and auditory canal. This is often done to detect signs of inflammation. The cochlea is a tonotopic structure. Hair cell responsiveness is position and frequency dependent, with hair cells located close to the cochlea apex transducing low frequencies and those at the base transducing high frequencies. The cochleogram aims to quantify hair cells all along the cochlea and consequently determine hair cell loss related to specific frequencies. This measure is then correlated with the ABR & DPOAE results. Ototoxicity assessments evaluate the impact of drug candidates on the auditory and vestibular systems, de-risk hearing loss and balance disorders, define a safe dose, and optimize therapeutic benefits. These types of studies can be initiated during early development of a therapeutic solution, with ABR and otoscopic evaluations. Depending on the mechanism of action of the compound, studies can include DPOAE and cochleogram. Later in the development, a GLP (Good Laboratory Practice) ototoxicity study may be required based on otic related route of administration, target, or known potential otic toxicity.

One of the most prominent means for sustainable agriculture and ecosystem management are Arbuscular Mycorrhizal (AM) inoculants. These inoculants establish beneficial symbiotic relationships with land plant roots, offering a wide range of benefits, from enhanced nutrient absorption to improved resilience against environmental stressors. However, several currently available commercial AM inoculants face challenges such as inconsistency in field applications, ecological risks associated with non-native strains, and the absence of universal regulations. Currently, regulations for AM inoculants vary globally, with some regions leading efforts to standardize and ensure quality control. Proposed regulatory frameworks aim to establish parameters for composition, safety, and efficacy. Nevertheless, challenges persist in terms of scientific data, standardization, testing under real conditions, and the ecological impact of these inoculants. To address these challenges and unlock the full potential of AM inoculants, increased research funding, public-private partnerships, monitoring, awareness, and ecosystem impact studies are recommended. Future regulations have the potential to improve product quality, soil health, and crop productivity while reducing reliance on chemical inputs and benefiting the environment. However, addressing issues related to compliance, standardization, education, certification, monitoring, and cost is essential for realizing these benefits. Global harmonization and collaborative efforts are vital to maximize their impact on agriculture and ecosystem management, leading to healthier soils, increased crop yields, and a more sustainable agricultural industry.

BACKGROUND: Electronic health records (EHRs) are a cost-effective approach to provide the necessary foundations for clinical trial research. The ability to use EHRs in real-world clinical settings allows for pragmatic approaches to intervention studies with the emerging adult HIV population within these settings; however, the regulatory components related to the use of EHR data in multisite clinical trials poses unique challenges that researchers may find themselves unprepared to address, which may result in delays in study implementation and adversely impact study timelines, and risk noncompliance with established guidance.
OBJECTIVE: As part of the larger Adolescent Trials Network (ATN) for HIV/AIDS Interventions Protocol 162b (ATN 162b) study that evaluated clinical-level outcomes of an intervention including HIV treatment and pre-exposure prophylaxis services to improve retention within the emerging adult HIV population, the objective of this study is to highlight the regulatory process and challenges in the implementation of a multisite pragmatic trial using EHRs to assist future researchers conducting similar studies in navigating the often time-consuming regulatory process and ensure compliance with adherence to study timelines and compliance with institutional and sponsor guidelines.
METHODS: Eight sites were engaged in research activities, with 4 sites selected from participant recruitment venues as part of the ATN, who participated in the intervention and data extraction activities, and an additional 4 sites were engaged in data management and analysis. The ATN 162b protocol team worked with site personnel to establish the necessary regulatory infrastructure to collect EHR data to evaluate retention in care and viral suppression, as well as para-data on the intervention component to assess the feasibility and acceptability of the mobile health intervention. Methods to develop this infrastructure included site-specific training activities and the development of both institutional reliance and data use agreements.
RESULTS: Due to variations in site-specific activities, and the associated regulatory implications, the study team used a phased approach with the data extraction sites as phase 1 and intervention sites as phase 2. This phased approach was intended to address the unique regulatory needs of all participating sites to ensure that all sites were properly onboarded and all regulatory components were in place. Across all sites, the regulatory process spanned 6 months for the 4 data extraction and intervention sites, and up to 10 months for the data management and analysis sites.
CONCLUSIONS: The process for engaging in multisite clinical trial studies using EHR data is a multistep, collaborative effort that requires proper advanced planning from the proposal stage to adequately implement the necessary training and infrastructure. Planning, training, and understanding the various regulatory aspects, including the necessity of data use agreements, reliance agreements, external institutional review board review, and engagement with clinical sites, are foremost considerations to ensure successful implementation and adherence to pragmatic trial timelines and outcomes.