Search

The European Medicines Agency adopted their Geriatric Medicines Strategy more than a decade ago. The strategy aims at elucidating the evidence basis for marketing authorization of new medicines which will be used in the older population, and at ensuring the appropriate communication of findings to the patient and healthcare provider. During the past decade new tools and data sources have emerged to support the strategy goals, and their use should be considered. Possible concrete actions are presented to improve the design of clinical trials, the data collection both pre‐ and post‐approval, the assessment of the findings, and the communication to assist informed prescription and safe medicine taking. Implementation and prioritization of these actions should be done from the perspective of addressing the needs of patients while maximizing efficient use of resources, with the aim of integrating geriatric aspects into routine medicines development and assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Behçet's disease (BD) is a systemic vasculitis with inflammatory lesions mediated by cytotoxic T cells and neutrophils. Apremilast, an orally available small‐molecule drug that selectively inhibits phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4), has been recently approved for the treatment of BD. We aimed to investigate the effect of PDE4 inhibition on neutrophil activation in BD. Methods: We studied surface markers and reactive oxygen species (ROS) production by flow cytometry, and neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) production and molecular signature of neutrophils by transcriptome analysis before and after PDE4 inhibition. Results: Activation surface markers (CD64, CD66b, CD11b, and CD11c), ROS production, and NETosis were up‐regulated in BD patient neutrophils compared to healthy donor neutrophils. Transcriptome analysis revealed 1,021 significantly dysregulated neutrophil genes between BD patients and healthy donors. Among dysregulated genes, we found a substantial enrichment for pathways linked to innate immunity, intracellular signaling, and chemotaxis in BD. Skin lesions of BD patients showed increased infiltration of neutrophils that colocalized with PDE4. Inhibition of PDE4 by apremilast strongly inhibited neutrophil surface activation markers as well as ROS production, NETosis, and genes and pathways related to innate immunity, intracellular signaling, and chemotaxis. Conclusion: We highlight key biologic effects of apremilast on neutrophils in BD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Although expanded access is an increasingly used pathway for patients to access investigational medicine, little is known on the magnitude and content of published scientific research collected via expanded access. Methods: We performed a review of all peer-reviewed expanded access publications between January 1, 2000 and January 1, 2022. We analyzed the publications for drugs, diseases, disease area, patient numbers, time, geographical location, subject, and research methodology (single center/multicenter, international/national, prospective/retrospective). We additionally analyzed endpoints reported in all COVID-19-related expanded access publications. Results: We screened 3810 articles and included 1231, describing 523 drugs for 354 diseases for 507,481 patients. The number of publications significantly increased over time ( p < 0.001 ). Large geographical disparities existed as Europe and the Americas accounted for 87.4% of all publications, whereas Africa only accounted for 0.6%. Oncology and hematology accounted for 53% of all publications. Twenty-nine percent of all expanded access patients (N = 197,187) reported on in 2020 and 2021 were treated in the context of COVID-19. Conclusions: By summarizing characteristics of patients, diseases, and research methods described in all scientific literature published on expanded access, we provide a unique dataset for future research. We show that published scientific research on expanded access has surged over the past decades, partly due to COVID-19. However, international collaboration and equity in geographic access remain an issue of concern. Lastly, we stress the need for harmonization of research legislation and guidance on the value of expanded access data within real-world data frameworks to improve equity in patient access and streamline future expanded access research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Regulatory decisions on paediatric investigation plans (PIPs) aim at making effective and safe medicines timely available for children with high unmet medical need. At the same time, scientific knowledge progresses continuously leading frequently to the identification of new molecular targets in the therapeutic area of oncology. This, together with further efforts to optimise next generation medicines, results in novel innovative products in development pipelines. In the context of global regulatory development requirements for these growing pipelines of innovative products (e.g. US RACE for children Act), it is an increasing challenge to complete development efforts in paediatric oncology, a therapeutic area of rare and life-threatening diseases with high unmet needs. Regulators recognise feasibility challenges of the regulatory obligations in this context. Here, we explain the EU regulatory decision making strategy applied to paediatric oncology, which aims fostering evidence generation to support developments based on needs and robust science. Because there is a plethora of products under development within given classes of or within cancer types, priorities need to be identified and updated as evidence evolves. This also includes identifying the need for third or fourth generation products to secure focused and accelerated drug development. An agreed PIP, as a plan, is a living document which can be modified in light of new evidence. For this to be successful, input from the various relevant stakeholders, i.e. patients/parents, clinicians and investigators is required. To efficiently obtain this input, the EMA is co-organising with ACCELERATE oncology stakeholder engagement platform meetings. • Regulatory decision-making in the context of product development life cycle. • PIP as a plan, allowing for evidence generation, able to be modified. • Fostering collaborative development environment, not competitive. • Need to identify priorities based on science. • Collaboration among all stakeholders key, as exemplified by ACCELERATE. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The eighth Paediatric Strategy Forum focused on multi-targeted kinase inhibitors (mTKIs) in osteosarcoma and Ewing sarcoma. The development of curative, innovative products in these tumours is a high priority and addresses unmet needs in children, adolescents and adults. Despite clinical and investigational use of mTKIs, efficacy in patients with bone tumours has not been definitively demonstrated. Randomised studies, currently being planned or in progress, in front-line and relapse settings will inform the further development of this class of product. It is crucial that these are rapidly initiated to generate robust data to support international collaborative efforts. The experience to date has generally indicated that the safety profile of mTKIs as monotherapy, and in combination with chemotherapy or other targeted therapy, is consistent with that of adults and that toxicity is manageable. Increasing understanding of relevant predictive biomarkers and tumour biology is absolutely critical to further develop this class of products. Biospecimen samples for correlative studies and biomarker development should be shared, and a joint academic-industry consortium created. This would result in an integrated collection of serial tumour tissues and a systematic retrospective and prospective analyses of these samples to ensure robust assessment of biologic effect of mTKIs. To support access for children to benefit from these novel therapies, clinical trials should be designed with sufficient scientific rationale to support regulatory and payer requirements. To achieve this, early dialogue between academia, industry, regulators, and patient advocates is essential. Evaluating feasibility of combination strategies and then undertaking a randomised trial in the same protocol accelerates drug development. Where possible, clinical trials and development should include children, adolescents, and adults less than 40 years. To respond to emerging science, in approximately 12 months, a multi-stakeholder group will meet and review available data to determine future directions and priorities. • mTKIs are being evaluated in osteosarcoma and Ewing sarcoma. • Ongoing or planned randomised studies will inform further development. • Toxicity is tolerable when mTKIs are combined with chemotherapy. • Increased understanding of predictive biomarkers and tumour biology is crucial. • A joint academic-industry consortium should share and analyse biomarker samples. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Regulatory agency interaction occurs from before a candidate drug enters clinical development and all the way to marketing approval and beyond. This paper presents ways to enable successful interaction by avoiding issues, with an emphasis on nonclinical testing aspects. Strategic thinking as to whether an early regulatory agency meeting should occur is discussed and if yes, how to make it a success by generating relevant questions with proper preparation including a robust Briefing Document. Examples of unfavourable regulatory agency feedback during meetings is given which may have been avoided. Similarly, ways for successful regulatory submission in the form of a Clinical Trials Application (CTA) in Europe or an Investigational New Drug (IND) application in the US are considered with examples of comments that can be received from regulatory agencies. At marketing application stage with submission of a Marketing Authorisation Application (MAA) in Europe and a New Drug Application (NDA) or a Biologic License Application (BLA) in the US, a key document is the Nonclinical Overview and suggested content and potential deficiencies are presented to allow avoidance of adverse regulatory agency responses and time delay. Successful regulatory agency interaction involves robust scientific thinking, proper planning and well-written documentation. • Ways to enable successful nonclinical regulatory agency interaction were examined. • For regulatory agency meetings, relevant questions and proper preparation are vital. • Ways to ensure robust clinical trial and product licence documents are discussed. • Overall, robust scientific thinking, proper planning and well-written documentation are key. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simple Summary: This opinion paper describes the regulatory hurdles for a clinical oncologist and physician scientist to activate an Investigator-Initiated Trial (IIT) before and after 2004 with German regulation as an example. Changes in legal framework with impacts on time and costs to activate a clinical trial are described. Evidence needed to reach the objective of higher patient safety and trial quality by European Union (EU) Clinical Trial Directive (CTD) 2001/20 is discussed. Shortly after the beginning of the year 2000, multiple legal changes with impacts on the regulatory framework of clinical trials became effective almost simultaneously. They included the European Union (EU) Clinical Trial Directive (CTD) 2001/20 followed by major changes in national drug laws, the change in the legal status of German University Hospitals (1998), and a new disease-related groups (DRG)-based reimbursement system for hospitals in Germany (2000). Together, these changes created enormous bureaucratic and financial inhibition of activation and conduct of academic investigator-initiated clinical trials (IIT). Examples for activating clinical trials in oncology before and after 2004 are outlined and discussed, focussing on extended time frames, the establishment of centralized responsibility structures and the exploding financial consequences. In addition, the evolution of trial numbers and the distribution of trial initiators between "commercial" and "academic" over time are discussed together with the occurrence of clinical registries. At the same time, progress in molecular biology led to a plethora of new targets for effective pharmacological therapy of life-threatening diseases such as cancer, and the overall number of clinical trials has not decreased. Yet, judging the regulatory and administrative hurdles between scientific study design and first-patient on trial before and after 2004 and weighing these against the lack of evidence that this regulation has achieved its goal to enhance patient safety and trial quality, the necessity to completely overhaul this CTD becomes obvious. A main goal of such an initiative should be to minimize bureaucracy. For the specific situation in Germany, relocation of responsibility and freedom to operate in University Hospitals and Medical Faculties back to the physician–scientists and reduction in interference by legal divisions should be a goal as well as increasing the public financial support for IITs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]