Search

Cardiac safety regulatory guidance for drug development has undergone several monumental shifts over the past decade as technological advancements, analysis models and study best practices have transformed this landscape. Once, clinical proarrhythmic risk assessment of a new chemical entity (NCE) was nearly exclusively evaluated in a dedicated thorough QT (TQT) study. However, since the introduction of the International Council for Harmonisation (ICH) E14/S7B Q&A 5.1 and 6.1 TQT substitutions, drug developers are offered an alternative pathway to evaluate proarrhythmic risk during an ascending dose study in healthy volunteers or during a powered patient study, respectively. In addition, the findings as well as the manner in which nonclinical studies are conducted (i.e., utilizing best practices) can dictate the need for a positive control in the clinical study and/or affect the labeling outcome. Drug sponsors are now faced with the option of pursuing a dedicated TQT study or requesting a TQT substitution. Potential factors influencing the choice of pathway include the NCE mechanism of action, pharmacokinetic properties, and safety profile, as well as business considerations. This tutorial will highlight the regulatory framework for integrated arrhythmia risk prediction models to outline drug safety, delineate potential reasons why a TQT substitution request may be rejected and discuss when a standalone TQT is recommended., (© 2024 Celerion, Inc. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Digital health technology (DHT) is increasingly used to facilitate the conduct of clinical drug trials. The European regulatory environment would benefit from some adjustments to realize the full potential of DHTs. Considering current discussions such as the European Accelerating Clinical Trial Initiative (ACT EU), we propose four concrete adjustments to this regulatory landscape to introduce risk-based qualification approaches for DHTs. In our view, these changes would have the potential to facilitate the use of DHT in clinical research and thus provide access to innovative therapies in Europe., (© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to The Drug Information Association, Inc.)

Although platform trials have many benefits, the complexity of these designs may result not only in increased methodological but also regulatory and ethical challenges. These aspects were addressed as part of the IMI project EU Patient-Centric Clinical Trial Platforms (EU-PEARL). We reviewed the available guidelines on platform trials in the European Union and the United States. This is supported and complemented by feedback received from regulatory interactions with the European Medicines Agency and the US Food and Drug Administration. Throughout the project we collected the needs of all relevant stakeholders including ethics committees, regulators, and health technology assessment bodies through active dialog and dedicated stakeholder workshops. Furthermore, we focused on methodological aspects and where applicable identified the corresponding guidance. Learnings from the guideline review, regulatory interactions, and workshops are provided. Based on these, a master protocol template was developed. Issues that still need harmonization or clarification in guidelines or where further methodological research is needed are also presented. These include questions around clinical trial submissions in Europe, the need for multiplicity control across the whole master protocol, the use of non-concurrent controls, and the impact of different randomization schemes. Master protocols are an efficient and patient-centered clinical trial design that can expedite drug development. However, they can also introduce additional operational and regulatory complexities. It is important to understand the different requirements of stakeholders upfront and address them in the trial. While relevant guidance is increasing, early dialog with relevant stakeholders can help to further support such designs., (© 2024 The Authors, Johnson & Johnson Innovative Medicines and Sanofi. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

In recent years, there has been significant focus on China's new drug lag, but relevant research is limited. This study explores the reasons for drug lag by assessing the impact of reforms in China's drug review system, particularly focusing on the influence of clinical development strategies. This study selected drugs first launched in the United States between 2017 and 2022, examining absolute and relative lag between China and the first-launch country (including submission and review lag). These delays with drugs approved in the European Union and Japan during the same period were compared with uncover the roots of delays in China, further identifying potential factors that could reduce these delays. The results indicate that the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA) has a longer relative lag compared with the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA). The submission lag time of the NMPA significantly surpasses that of the EMA and PMDA, whereas the review lag time of the NMPA exceeds that of the PMDA but falls short of the EMA. Focusing on clinical trial strategies, bridging trials and multiregional clinical trials (MRCTs) are typically required by the NMPA in East Asia, resulting in longer clinical delay time. Whereas the EMA and PMDA primarily require international MRCTs in Europe and America, with a clinical delay of < 5 months. It is evident that there is a significant gap in clinical trial durations between China and other countries. Further optimization of clinical trial management is necessary to address the lag for new drugs in China., (© 2024 The Authors. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics © 2024 American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

When conducting clinical trials in intensive care and emergency medicine, physicians, ethics committees, and legal experts have differing views regarding the inclusion of patients who are incapable of giving consent. These different views on the participation of patients who are not capable of giving consent also complicate how clinical trials are prepared and conducted. Based on the results of a literature search, a consensus model (Cologne Model) was developed by physicians performing clinical research, ethics committees, and lawyers in order to provide patients, those scientifically responsible for the study, ethics committees, and probate (guardianship) judges with a maximum of patient safety and legal certainty, while simultaneously enabling scientific research., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Competing Interests: Competing interests:: Matthew Herder reports funding from the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) and the Public Health Agency of Canada, and payment as a board member of the Patented Medicine Prices Review Board. Srinivas Murthy reports funding from the CIHR, the Health Research Foundation, and the Wellcome Trust. He is a board member with the Universities Allied for Essential Medicines.

Pharmacovigilance (PV), also known as drug safety, is the science of risk management involving the detection, assessment, understanding, and prevention of adverse effects related to a medication. This discipline has traditionally focused on the postmarketing period, with less attention to early-phase clinical trials. However, during the immunotherapy and cellular therapy investigational stage, regulatory agencies are increasingly emphasizing the need to identify and characterize safety signals earlier in clinical development as part of a comprehensive safety surveillance plan. Compliance with PV and safety regulations are further heightened as cell and gene therapy (CGT) trials grow in complexity and scope owing to ever-changing and increasingly rigorous regulatory mandates. Based on this changing landscape, a critical aspect of early-phase trials of cellular products where significant safety events are anticipated is to ensure that every effort is made to protect clinical trial participants by maximizing attention to the risk-versus-benefit profile. This includes the development of robust plans for safety surveillance that provide a continual assessment of safety signals to enable safety reporting to regulatory bodies and the Food and Drug Administration, a regular analysis of aggregate safety data, and a plan to communicate safety findings. This report focuses on PV in early-phase clinical trials of first-in-human investigational products sponsored by academic centers in which the availability of PV resources and subject matter experts is limited. To more fully understand the challenges of CGT PV oversight within pediatric academic medical centers conducting early-phase clinical trials, a working group from institutions participating in the Consortium for Pediatric Cellular Immunotherapy composed of faculty and regulatory professionals was convened to compare experiences, identify best practices, and review published literature to identify commonalities and opportunities for alignment. Here we present guidelines on PV planning in early-phase CGT clinical trials occurring in academic medical centers and offer strategies to mitigate risk to trial participants. Standards to address regulatory requirements and governance for safety signal identification and risk assessment are discussed., (Copyright © 2024 The American Society for Transplantation and Cellular Therapy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: In this study, we examined the ethical implications of Egypt's new clinical trial law, employing the ethical framework proposed by Emanuel et al. and comparing it to various national and supranational laws. This analysis is crucial as Egypt, considered a high-growth pharmaceutical market, has become an attractive location for clinical trials, offering insights into the ethical implementation of bioethical regulations in a large population country with a robust healthcare infrastructure and predominantly treatment-naïve patients., Methods: We conducted a comparative analysis of Egyptian law with regulations from Sweden and France, including the EU Clinical Trials Regulation, considering ethical human subject research criteria, and used a directed approach to qualitative content analysis to examine the laws and regulations. This study involved extensive peer scrutiny, frequent debriefing sessions, and collaboration with legal experts with relevant international legal expertise to ensure rigorous analysis and interpretation of the laws., Results: On the rating of the seven different principles (social and scientific values, scientific validity, fair selection of participants, risk-benefit ratio, independent review, informed consent and respect for participants) Egypt, France, and EU regulations had comparable scores. Specific principles (Social Value, Scientific Value, and Fair selection of participants) were challenging to directly identify due to certain regulations embodying 'implicit' principles more than explicitly stated ones., Conclusion: The analysis underscores Egypt's alignment with internationally recognized ethical principles, as outlined by Emanuel et al., through its comparison with French, Swedish, and EU regulations, emphasizing the critical need for Egypt to continuously refine its ethical regulations to safeguard participant protection and research integrity. Key issues identified include the necessity to clarify and standardize the concept of social value in research, alongside concerns regarding the expertise and impartiality of ethical review boards, pointing towards a broader agenda for enhancing research ethics in Egypt and beyond., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

This round table is the result of an observation. The observation being that controlled human infection clinical trials (also called "infectious challenge" trials or "Controlled Human Infection Models", "CHIM") recommended or even encouraged in the context of vaccine developments in particular, are not carried out in France. However, there are no formal prohibitions within regulations or ethical principles, which point to the prior assessment of risks and benefits for individuals and for society. The participants in this Round Table thus wished to examine, through the prism of their respective disciplines, the scientific and medical relevance of conducting such trials in France and, if possible, to imagine the conditions under which they would be carried out, thus resulting in recommendations on (1) the advisability of their conduct in France (2), the conditions under which they would be implemented in terms of logistics and regulations, and (3) their social acceptability. The recommendations on which the participants of the Round Table came to an agreement are presented as the analysis progresses., (Copyright © 2023. Published by Elsevier Masson SAS.)

The new authorisation procedure for clinical trials on medicinal products according to Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 (Clinical Trial Regulation - CTR) became applicable in the European Union and the European Economic Area on 31 January 2022. All involved parties communicate digitally via a specially programmed IT system, the Clinical Trial Information System (CTIS), provided by the European Medicines Agency (EMA). This article highlights the cooperation between sponsors and Contract Research Organisations (CROs) when applying the CTR and CTIS.First experiences and observed trends are described focusing on user administration in CTIS and on activities related to the protection of personal data and commercially confidential information (CCI) when clinical trials are published. Challenges for CROs are multifaceted and are discussed from different angles. For example, it is necessary for CROs to temporarily maintain a Quality Management System that serves both "systems": clinical trials under the EU-Directive 2001/20 as well as under the CTR. CTR and CTIS offer not only new tasks for CROs; they often become advisors for sponsors on the basis of their extensive experience, for example, regarding the cooperation model between sponsors and CROs and/or the strategic model for submission of a clinical trial. The article concludes with a look into possible future sponsor outsourcing strategies., (© 2022. Springer-Verlag GmbH Deutschland, ein Teil von Springer Nature.)

With Regulation (EU) No. 536/2014 on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use, which became applicable on 31 January 2022, full harmonisation of the authorisation and monitoring procedures of clinical trials with medicinal products in the European Union (EU) and the European Economic Area (EEA) has been achieved. In addition to an entirely paperless application procedure, communication between all parties involved is done through the Clinical Trials Information System (CTIS), which was developed specifically for the Regulation and through which all non-proprietary information and content of the clinical trial application and results are also made available to the public. As was already the case under the old legal framework, the authorisation of a clinical trial is granted by each Member State concerned; however, the assessment of the common part of the dossier of a clinical trial that is conducted in more than one Member State is jointly done by the respective Member States under the coordinating lead of a reporting Member State. The present article outlines the authorisation procedure with its deadline concept and addresses further aspects of the Regulation, such as details on the protection of the trial subjects, safety reporting and transparency rules., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

The Regulation (EU) No 536/2014 (Clinical Trials Regulation [CTR]) on clinical trials on medicinal products for human use is a challenge not only for sponsors but also for national authorities and ethics committees. Thus, fundamental structural changes were necessary for the establishment of the novel authorisation procedure. The necessary accompanying law was created in 2016 with the Fourth Law on the Amendment of the Medicinal Products Act (4th AMGÄndG) and in 2017 with the Clinical Trial Assessment Procedure Ordinance (KPBV).The 4th AMGÄndG provided for legal amendments to the Medicinal Products Act (AMG) that came into force in advance of the date of application of the CTR. Essentially, this concerns the introduction of a registration obligation for ethics committees at the Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM). In addition, the 4th AMGÄndG contains regulations that came into force at the beginning of 2022, in parallel with the date of application of the CTR. The Regulation on the application of Good Clinical Practice in the conduct of clinical trials of medicinal products for human use (GCP-Regulation, GCP-V) was repealed. The 6th section of the AMG on the protection of humans in clinical trials has been rewritten to supplement the requirements of the CTR and to fit the procedural flow into the national legal system. In particular, this concerns the regulations on the cooperation between higher federal authorities and ethics committees, such as responsibilities, deadlines, procedures and fees. Regulations were also made for the national procedure of release authorisation for clinical trials with medicinal products containing or consisting of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) as well as special protective regulations for special groups of participants., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

The implementation of the new European Clinical Trial Regulation on 31 January 2022, is a major step to promote clinical research in Europe. The French National Agency for Medicines and Health Products Safety (ANSM) proposes to share some key aspects of the preparation for the application of the Regulation initiated in 2017 and to discuss shared indicators that should be considered to monitor clinical trials opportunities on a territory with regards to access to innovation for patients and attractiveness for sponsors. New criteria based on the time from the first request for authorisation to the first inclusion could be of particular interest to appraise the implementation of the European Clinical Trial Regulation., (Copyright© Bentham Science Publishers; For any queries, please email at epub@benthamscience.net.)

Objective: To clarify the impact of Japan's Clinical Trials Act (CTA), which was enacted in April 2018, on subsequent clinical trial activity through an analysis of Japanese registry data., Design: Retrospective database study., Setting: We extracted information on clinical intervention studies registered between 1 April 2018 and 30 September 2020 in the conventional University Hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry (UMIN-CTR) and the new Japan Registry of Clinical Trials (jRCT). We collected and analysed information on registration dates, intervention types, funding, secondary sponsors and use of designated staff in multidisciplinary roles (research planning support, research administration, data management, statistical analysis, monitoring and auditing). The temporal trends in clinical trial activity after CTA enactment were examined., Results: A total of 577 CTA-compliant specified clinical trials (ie, studies funded by pharmaceutical companies or studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of off-label drugs or devices in humans) were registered in the jRCT. During the same period, 5068 clinical trials were registered in the UMIN-CTR. The number of specific clinical trials increased immediately after the implementation of the CTA and stabilised in late 2019, whereas the number of clinical trials registered in the UMIN-CTR generally declined over time. Specified clinical trials that received industry funding and public grants were more likely to use designated staff in multidisciplinary roles., Conclusions: The implementation of the CTA has not reduced the number of specified clinical trials, but has reduced the total number of intervention trials. The use of designated staff in multidisciplinary roles is associated with funding, secondary sponsors and multicentre studies. It was inferred that funding was needed to establish research infrastructure systems that support high-quality research., Competing Interests: Competing interests: HT and OT are employees of Daiichi Sankyo. HT is also an employee of the Cancer Institute Hospital of the Japanese Foundation for Cancer Research. KM is an employee of Daiichi Sankyo RD Novare., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

The European regulation 536/2014, unapplied for several years due to the inoperability of the European Portal, represented an epochal turning point in the legislation concerning pharmacological clinical trials. Although, unlike the directive, it could be directly applied without national transpositions, in Italy this has not been possible and for three months now we have been witnessing a haemorrhage of guidelines/operational proposals/decrees that to date do not make us ready to fully operate according to the new rules. Il regolamento europeo 536/20141, in vigore dal 16 giugno 2014 e rimasto per diversi anni non applicato per un ritardo nella messa in funzione del portale unico europeo, ha rappresentato una svolta epocale nella normativa inerente le sperimentazioni cliniche con farmaco. La normativa precedentemente in vigore2, infatti, pur rappresentando la prima trasformazione in legge delle Good Clinical Practices e un primo tentativo di armonizzazione tra le procedure regolatorie dei diversi stati membri, aveva portato a una serie di risvolti negativi, come un aumento vertiginoso dei costi e dei tempi necessari ad avviare uno studio. Tutto ciò, negli anni, si è tradotto in una deflessione delle richieste di autorizzazione delle sperimentazioni e in una grande difformità tra gli stati membri3,4. Il regolamento introduce delle novità mirate a ottimizzare profondamente l'iter regolatorio di approvazione delle sperimentazioni, primo fra tutti il nuovo processo di autorizzazione, che prevede l'espressione di un unico parere a livello europeo e la singola decisione, a livello di singolo stato membro, di accettare o non accettare tale decisione. Il nuovo processo, molto ambizioso da un punto di vista della riduzione dei tempi, doveva rappresentare una occasione storica per l'incremento delle performance di Paesi come l'Italia, da sempre penalizzata da una burocrazia molto complessa e dalla necessità di procedere con molteplici valutazioni da parte dell'autorità competente e di numerosi comitati etici5,6. I ritardi nella messa in funzione del portale, inizialmente prevista per maggio 2016, hanno portato a un lungo e continuo slittamento dei tempi di applicazione del regolamento, alla fine calendarizzata per il 31 gennaio 2022. Sei anni di attesa che, almeno sulla carta, hanno fornito l'occasione a tutti gli stati membri di prepararsi al meglio a tutti i cambiamenti che il regolamento avrebbe comportato.La scelta, da un punto di vista prettamente legale, di un regolamento piuttosto che di una nuova direttiva aveva lo scopo di evitare una ulteriore difformità di azione tra le diverse nazioni; il regolamento, infatti, a differenza della direttiva non necessita di successivi passaggi legislativi a livello nazionale e poteva essere direttamente implementato nei singoli stati membri. Alcune nazioni si sono preparate all'applicazione del regolamento procedendo con una profonda revisione e semplificazione del proprio apparato regolatorio; è il caso, per esempio, della Spagna, che ha optato per un unico decreto in grado di regolare tutti gli aspetti inerenti le sperimentazioni interventistiche con farmaco7.Situazione completamente opposta in Italia, dove l'implementazione della vecchia direttiva aveva causato una emorragia di decreti ministeriali e di altri atti legislativi che difficilmente potevano venire riorganizzati, come accaduto in Spagna, in un unico atto. Uno stato che ha portato, ancora una volta e forse in maniera ancora più complessa di quanto accaduto a inizio millennio, a un lungo processo di riorganizzazione legislativa, avviato con il decreto Lorenzin e ancora molto lontano dall'essere completato con tutti i decreti attuativi necessari.

Competing Interests: We declare no competing interests.

Current therapeutic development in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) relies on individual randomized clinical trials to test a specific investigational product in a single patient population. This approach has intrinsic limitations, including cost, time, and lack of flexibility. Adaptive platform trials represent a novel approach to investigate several interventions for a single disease in a continuous manner. Already in use in oncology, this approach is now being employed more often in neurology. Here, we describe a newly launched platform trial for ALS. The Healey ALS Platform Trial is testing multiple investigational products concurrently in people with ALS, with the goal of rapidly identifying novel treatments, biomarkers, and trial endpoints. ANN NEUROL 2022;91:165-175., (© 2021 American Neurological Association.)

In April 2018, the Clinical Trials Act pertaining to investigator-initiated clinical trials was passed in Japan. The purpose of this study was to investigate activity in investigator-initiated clinical studies before and after enforcement of the new Clinical Trials Act. This was done by analysing the records of the Ethics Committee of Tokushima University Hospital, which reviews studies based on the Japanese government's Ethical Guidelines for Medical and Health Research Involving Human Subjects prior to the Clinical Trials Act, and records of the Certified Review Board established at Tokushima University under the Clinical Trials Act in 2018. The number of new applications to these two review boards during fiscal years 2015-2017 (pre-Act) and fiscal years 2018 and 2019 (post-Act) were used as an indicator of activity in investigator-initiated clinical studies. The number of new applications to the Ethics Committee was 303, 261, 316, 303, and 249 in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019, respectively. The data show that the total number of new interventional studies decreased from 50.3 in average in 2015-2017 (pre-Act) to 42 in 2018 and 40 in 2019 (post-Act), respectively. These results suggest that fewer interventional studies were started following enforcement of the new Clinical Trials Act. To confirm this trend and identify contributing factors, further studies are required. In addition, possible way, such as broader contribution of clinical research coordinators, to promote clinical studies in the new Clinical Trials Act era should be examined.

Background: The Mental Capacity Act (MCA, 2005) and its accompanying Code of Practice (2007), govern research participation for adults with capacity and communication difficulties in England and Wales. We conducted a systematic review and narrative synthesis to investigate the application of these provisions from 2007 to 2019., Methods and Findings: We included studies with mental capacity in their criteria, involving participants aged 16 years and above, with capacity-affecting conditions and conducted in England and Wales after the implementation of the MCA. Clinical trials of medicines were excluded. We searched seven databases: Academic Search Complete, ASSIA, MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycArticles, PsycINFO and Science Direct. We used narrative synthesis to report our results. Our review follows Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and is registered on PROSPERO, CRD42020195652. 28 studies of various research designs met our eligibility criteria: 14 (50.0%) were quantitative, 12 (42.9%) qualitative and 2 (7.1%) mixed methods. Included participants were adults with intellectual disabilities (n = 12), dementia (n = 9), mental health disorders (n = 2), autism (n = 3) and aphasia after stroke (n = 2). We found no studies involving adults with acquired brain injury. Diverse strategies were used in the recruitment of adults with capacity and communication difficulties with seven studies excluding individuals deemed to lack capacity., Conclusions: We found relatively few studies including adults with capacity and communication difficulties with existing regulations interpreted variably. Limited use of consultees and exclusions on the basis of capacity and communication difficulties indicate that this group continue to be under-represented in research. If health and social interventions are to be effective for this population, they need to be included in primary research. The use of strategic adaptations and accommodations during the recruitment process, may serve to support their inclusion., Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

In the burn treatment landscape, a variety of skin substitutes, human tissue-sourced products, and other products are being developed based on tissue engineering (ie, the combination of scaffolds, cells, and biologically active molecules into functional tissue with the goal of restoring, maintaining, or improving damaged tissue or whole organs) to provide dermal replacement, prevent infection, or prevent or mitigate scarring. Skin substitutes can have a variety of compositions (cellular vs acellular), origins (human, animal, or synthetically derived), and complexities (dermal or epidermal only vs composite). The regulation of tissue-engineered products in the United States occurs by one of several pathways established by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, including a Biologics License Application (BLA), a 510(k) (Class I and Class II devices), Premarket Approval (Class III devices), or a human cells, tissues, and cellular and tissue-based products designation. Key differentiators among these regulatory classifications include the amount and type of data required to support a filing. For example, a BLA requires a clinical trial(s) and evaluation of safety and efficacy by the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research. Applicable approved biological products must also comply with submission of advertising and promotional materials per regulations. This review provides a description of, and associated requirements for, the various regulatory pathways for the approval or clearance of tissue-engineered products. Some of the regulatory challenges for commercialization of such products for the treatment of burns will be explored., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Burn Association.)

The COVID-19 pandemic brought about major changes in cancer clinical trials. In its aftermath, the community has an opportunity to incorporate some of these changes as part of the future of trial conduct to make it more patient centered., (©2021 American Association for Cancer Research.)

For the development of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) drugs during the ongoing pandemic, speed is of essence whereas quality of evidence is of paramount importance. Although thousands of COVID-19 trials were rapidly started, many are unlikely to provide robust statistical evidence and meet regulatory standards (e.g., because of lack of randomization or insufficient power). This has led to an inefficient use of time and resources. With more coordination, the sheer number of patients in these trials might have generated convincing data for several investigational treatments. Collaborative platform trials, comparing several drugs to a shared control arm, are an attractive solution. Those trials can utilize a variety of adaptive design features in order to accelerate the finding of life-saving treatments. In this paper, we discuss several possible designs, illustrate them via simulations, and also discuss challenges, such as the heterogeneity of the target population, time-varying standard of care, and the potentially high number of false hypothesis rejections in phase II and phase III trials. We provide corresponding regulatory perspectives on approval and reimbursement, and note that the optimal design of a platform trial will differ with our societal objective and by stakeholder. Hasty approvals may delay the development of better alternatives, whereas searching relentlessly for the single most efficacious treatment may indirectly diminish the number of lives saved as time is lost. We point out the need for incentivizing developers to participate in collaborative evidence-generation initiatives when a positive return on investment is not met., (© 2021 The Authors Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics © 2021 American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Regulatory changes have been enacted in the United States (US) and European Union (EU) to encourage the development of new treatments for pediatric cancer. Here, we review some of the factors that have hampered the development of pediatric cancer treatments and provide a comparison of the US and EU regulations implemented to address this clinical need. We then provide some recommendations for each stage of the oncology drug development pathway to help researchers maximize their chance of successful drug development while complying with regulations. A key recommendation is the engagement of key stakeholders such as regulatory authorities, pediatric oncologists, academic researchers, patient advocacy groups, and a Pediatric Expert Group early in the drug development process. During drug target selection, sponsors are encouraged to consult the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), European Medicines Agency (EMA), and the FDA target list, in addition to relevant US and European consortia that have been established to characterize and prioritize oncology drug targets. Sponsors also need to carefully consider the resourcing requirements for preclinical testing, which include ensuring appropriate access to the most relevant databases, clinical samples, and preclinical models (cell lines and animal models). During clinical development, sponsors can account for the pharmacodynamic (PD)/pharmacokinetic (PK) considerations specific to a pediatric population by developing pediatric formulations, selecting suitable PD endpoints, and employing sparse PK sampling or modeling/simulation of drug exposures where appropriate. Additional clinical considerations include the specific design of the clinical trial, the potential inclusion of children in adult trials, and the value of cooperative group trials., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

In order to encourage innovative medicine to address Chinese unmet medical needs, China has changed its drug regulatory landscape to speed up access to new medicines. In order to understand the fast-changing landscape and to enable planning of more global drug development programs and study designs in China, we reviewed 15 published clinical pharmacology-related guidances by the National Medical Products Administration (NMPA), and compared them with reference guidances from the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the European Medicines Agency (EMA), or the International Conference on Harmonization (ICH), to understand the similarities and differences, especially any China-specific requirements, such as ethnic sensitivity analysis. Overall, by reviewing these clinical pharmacology-related NMPA guidances, it is clear that NMPA guidances are very similar to FDA, EMA, and ICH guidances. There are no relevant differences in the major principles, but some differences in structure, contents, and focus were noted. The NMPA is adapting flexibility statements into newly published guidances. Ethnic sensitivity analysis needs to be implemented early in drug development plans. The NMPA encourages sponsors to conduct early clinical trials in China or include China early in multiregional clinical trials, and to obtain safety, efficacy, and pharmacokinetic data for ethnic sensitivity analysis. Depending on the stage of development, ethnic sensitivity analysis can be conducted using in vitro or literature data, other Asian clinical data, or Chinese clinical data., (© 2021 The Authors. Clinical and Translational Science published by Wiley Periodicals LLC on behalf of the American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Vaccination development and production was an essential question for the prevention and global control of COVID-19. The strong support from governing authorities such as Operation Warp Speed and robust funding has led to the development and authorization of the tozinameran (BNT162b2) vaccine. The BNT162b2 vaccine is a lipid nanoparticle-encapsulated mRNA that encodes for SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, the main site for neutralizing antibodies. Once it binds with the host cells, the lipid nanoparticles enable the transfer of the RNA, causing S antigens' expression of the SARS-CoV-2, conferring immunity. The vaccine is administered as a 2-dose regime 21 days apart for individuals 16 years and older. Pfizer-BioNTech's BNT162b2 vaccine was the first candidate to receive FDA-Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) on December 11, 2020. During phase 2/3 clinical trials, 95% efficacy was reported among 37,706 participants over the age of 16 who received the BNT162b2 vaccination; additionally, 52% efficacy was noted 12 days following the administration of the first dose of BNT162b2, reflecting early protection of COVID-19. The BNT162b2 vaccine has exhibited 100% efficacy in clinical trials of adolescents between the ages of 12 and 15. Clinical trials in pregnant women and children under the age of 12 are expected to also exhibit promising results. This review article encompasses tozinameran (BNT162b2) vaccine journey, summarizing the BNT162b1 and BNT162b2 vaccines from preclinical studies, clinical trial phases, dosages, immune response, adverse effects, and FDA-EUA.

A patient with a long-standing medical condition was enrolled in a clinical trial, deemed as conducted for the benefit of the manufacturer. The patient entered the trial and, shortly afterward, developed a severe illness that left him with a significant permanent disability. Clinical investigators and clinicians not involved in the trial believed the illness was related to trial participation. Because the trial was for the manufacturer's benefit, the participant was not eligible for compensation from the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC). Discussions with the trial sponsor took many years to resolve. This case highlights the numerous barriers faced by patients seeking compensation from trial sponsors for adverse events probably resulting from trial participation. Legal changes are required to resolve this situation. Without such changes, potential participants and researchers should consider carefully whether to participate and invite people to participate in trials conducted for the benefit of a manufacturer, as there may be little support available should a trial-related illness occur., Competing Interests: Dr Bolland reports: I have no financial conflicts to declare. The views expressed in the article represent my own opinion: the manuscript has not been written on behalf of any of my employers, nor does it represent the views of any of my employers.

Various approaches to first-in-human (FIH) starting dose selection for new molecular entities (NMEs) are designed to minimize risk to trial subjects. One approach uses the minimum anticipated biological effect level (MABEL), which is a conservative method intended to maximize subject safety and designed primarily for NMEs having high perceived safety risks. However, there is concern that the MABEL approach is being inappropriately used for lower risk molecules with negative impacts on drug development and time to patient access. In addition, ambiguity exists in how MABEL is defined and the methods used to determine it. The International Consortium for Innovation and Quality in Pharmaceutical Development convened a working group to understand current use of MABEL and its impact on FIH starting dose selection, and to make recommendations for FIH dose selection going forward. An industry-wide survey suggested the achieved or estimated maximum tolerated dose, efficacious dose, or recommended phase II dose was > 100-fold higher than the MABEL-based starting dose for approximately one third of NMEs, including trials in patients. A decision tree and key risk factor table were developed to provide a consistent, data driven-based, and risk-based approach for selecting FIH starting doses., (© 2020 The Authors Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics © 2020 American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics.)

Background and Objectives: The Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act (BPCA) incentivizes the study of on-patent medicines in children and mandates that the National Institutes of Health sponsor research on off-patent drugs important to pediatric therapeutics. Failing to enroll cohorts that reflect the pediatric population at large restricts the generalizability of such studies. In this investigation, we evaluate racial and ethnic minority representation among participants enrolled in BPCA-sponsored studies., Methods: Data were obtained for all participants enrolled in 33 federally funded studies of drugs and devices conducted from 2008 through June 2020. Observed racial and ethnic distributions were compared with expected distributions by sampling Census data at the same geographic frequency as in the studies. Racial and ethnic enrollment was examined by demography, geography, study type, study burden, and expected bias. Standard descriptive statistics, χ 2 , generalized linear models, and linear regression were applied., Results: A total of 10 918 participants (51% male, 6.6 ± 8.2 years) were enrolled across 46 US states and 4 countries. Studies ranged from treatment outcome reviews to randomized, placebo-controlled trials. Minority enrollment was comparable to, or higher than, expected (+0.1% to +2.6%) for all groups except Asian Americans (-3.7%, P < .001). American Indian and Alaskan Native and multiracial enrollment significantly increased over the evaluation period ( P < .01). There were no significant differences in racial distribution as a function of age or sex, although differences were observed on the basis of geography, study type, and study burden., Conclusions and Relevance: This study revealed no evidence of racial and ethnic bias in enrollment for pediatric studies conducted with funding from BPCA, fulfilling the legislation's expectation to ensure adequate representation of all children., Competing Interests: POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Dr Abdel-Rahman, Ms Delmore, and Drs Hornik, Paul, Sullivan, Wade, and Zimmerman serve as members of the steering committee for the Pediatric Trials Network, which receives Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act funding from the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute for Child Health and Human Development. Dr Benjamin serves as the PI of the Pediatric Trials Network. At the time of writing Dr Sharma was employed by the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act data coordinating center., (Copyright © 2021 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

Background: The business of clinical research has changed in the past two decades, shifting from industrialised Western countries to so-called emerging markets such as Eastern Europe, Latin America and Africa. An appraisal of the trends could identify associated factors that may have implications for the local populations and their endemic diseases., Objectives: To identify potential reasons why emerging countries have become attractive places for international sponsors to conduct their clinical trials., Methods: Using ClinicalTrials.gov, the Pan African Clinical Trials Registry, the National Health Research Database and the Nigeria Clinical Trials Registry, trend data on clinical research development were determined for two emerging African markets, Nigeria and South Africa (SA), from 2010 to 2018. Also, health data on the two countries from the fact sheets of health statistics of the World Health Organization were compared, as well as regulatory and ethical conditions. Available data were analysed using descriptive statistics and trend analysis., Results: The impact of globalisation is evident from the upward trend in clinical trials in SA before 2010, and the clear downward trend thereafter. One reason for this change could be the alignment of SA's regulatory and ethical frameworks with the Western world. In contrast, the upward trend is only just beginning in Nigeria, with the introduction of ethical/regulatory frameworks, and supportive institutions making the business of clinical research more attractive on an international level. Although the number of international and local sponsors increased in Nigeria from 2010 to 2018, only the latter increased in SA, with the former decreasing over the same period. Overall, there is a mismatch between country-specific diseases and the drugs being tested, to the extent that leprosy, which is endemic in Nigeria, and tuberculosis in SA were not in the list of top 10 study areas in either country., Conclusions: The globalisation trend is evident in the clinical trials business, but cannot be generalised to all emerging countries. Timing and intensity vary from country to country relative to factors that advance the existing profit-orientated business models of the sponsors. Furthermore, various diseases have been localised, which entails a diversely increasing need for research.

Clinical trials are research studies performed in humans to evaluate the efficacy and safety of an intervention. They are the primary method by which researchers discover if a new treatment (drug, diet, medical device) is safe and effective in humans. DNA vaccines are considered, by definition, advanced therapy medicinal products (ATMPs). ATMPs are medicines for human use that are based on genes, tissues, or cells. They offer groundbreaking new opportunities for the treatment of disease and injury. Clinical trials using ATMPs are subject to specific regulatory requirements. This chapter will describe the most important steps when planning a clinical trial with DNA vaccines, such as regulatory and submission requirements, designing of a successful clinical trial protocol, stakeholders' responsibilities, and feasibility assessment.

In recent years, regulatory bodies have increasingly recognized the utility of real-world evidence (RWE) for supplementing and supporting clinical trial data in new drug applications. Nevertheless, the integration of RWE into established regulatory processes is complex and the generation of 'regulatory-grade' real-world data faces operational, methodological, data-related and policy-related challenges. In parallel with this evolving role for RWE, immuno-oncology therapies have emerged as leading cancer treatments and are expected to continue to play a central role in the future. In this article, we review the current literature on the use of RWE for regulatory submissions, with a focus on novel anticancer immunotherapies, and discuss the utility and current limitations of RWE in the context of drug development and regulatory approvals.

The revised Provisions for Drug Registration was promulgated by the State Administration for Market Regulation of China in March 2020 and came into force on July 1, 2020. This article describes the history of the drug registration management system in China, explains the background of the revision of the Provisions for Drug Registration in 2020, and introduces the main modifications of the Provisions for Drug Registration in 2020 in the aspects of registration classification, application for clinical trial on drug, application for drug marketing authorization, accelerated procedure for drug registration, working timeline, and supervision and administration. This article is intended to give a brief overview for those who wish to submit a drug registration application in China or for those who would like to get more acquainted with drug registration in China., (© 2020, The American College of Clinical Pharmacology.)

Attempts to streamline environmental procedures for those products containing or consisting of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) among the European Union (EU) Member States are ongoing but still need to be further developed. These procedures can be complex, resource-intensive and time-consuming. Some candidate vaccines currently under development for COVID-19 include genetically modified viruses, which may be considered GMOs. Given the public health emergency caused by the COVID-19 outbreak, on July 15, 2020, the European Parliament approved a temporary derogation of the European environmental requirements to facilitate that those clinical trials with GMOs intended to treat or prevent COVID-19 can start as soon as possible in Europe. This measure has been very controversial, since it could entail risks to human health and the environment, and could be seen as unfair for other products targeting unmet medical needs. With the adoption of this measure, the bottlenecks and obstacles for the development of innovative GMO-based medicines in the EU that the environmental legislation entails have become even more evident., (Copyright © 2020 International Society for Cell & Gene Therapy. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)