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]

Only one class of targeted agents (anti-GD2 antibodies) has been incorporated into front-line therapy for neuroblastoma since the 1980s. The Neuroblastoma New Drug Development Strategy (NDDS) initiative commenced in 2012 to accelerate the development of new drugs for neuroblastoma. Advances have occurred, with eight of nine high-priority targets being evaluated in paediatric trials including anaplastic lymphoma kinase inhibitors being investigated in front-line, but significant challenges remain. This article reports the conclusions of the second NDDS forum, which expanded across the Atlantic to further develop the initiative. Pre-clinical and clinical data for 40 genetic targets and mechanisms of action were prioritised and drugs were identified for early-phase trials. Strategies to develop drugs targeting TERT, telomere maintenance, ATRX, alternative lengthening of telomeres (ALT), BRIP1 and RRM2 as well as direct targeting of MYCN are high priority and should be championed for drug discovery. Promising pre-clinical data suggest that targeting of ALT by ATM or PARP inhibition may be potential strategies. Drugs targeting CDK2/9, CDK7, ATR and telomere maintenance should enter paediatric clinical development rapidly. Optimising the response to anti-GD2 by combinations with chemotherapy, targeted agents and other immunological targets are crucial. Delivering this strategy in the face of small patient cohorts, genomically defined subpopulations and a large number of permutations of combination trials, demands even greater international collaboration. In conclusion, the NDDS provides an internationally agreed, biologically driven selection of prioritised genetic targets and drugs. Improvements in the strategy for conducting trials in neuroblastoma will accelerate bringing these new drugs more rapidly to front-line therapy. • The Neuroblastoma New Drug Development Strategy initiative aims to accelerate new drugs development. •Twenty two of 40 targets were identified as high priority for neuroblastoma. •Targeting telomere maintenance, ATRX , BRIP1 , RRM2 are high priority for drug discovery. •Drugs targeting CDK2/9, CDK7, ATR should enter paediatric clinical development rapidly. •Combining targeted therapies with immunological agents is crucial. [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]

Drug development performance is examined using data on clinical research projects of 10 pharmaceutical companies. In contrast to previous work on the discovery phase of pharmaceutical R&D we find a strong correlation between the diversity of firms' development efforts and the success probability of individual projects, but no effect of scale per se. Large firms' superior performance in drug development appears to be driven by returns to scope rather than returns to scale. Scope is confounded with firm fixed effects, however, suggesting an important role for inter-firm differences in the organization and management of the development function. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]